Truss and Sunak didn’t run for leadership in 2019.
The people who filled out the top 5 were Hunt, Gove, Javid and Rory Stewart,
When Johnson was PM the alternatives were people like Truss and Sunak, which is precisely why they both topped the leadership poll.
Getting into a time machine and going back two or three years was not an option.
For simplicity let's stick with reality.
It was Johnson who was responsible for the rapid decline of standards within the party, leading us to exactly where we are now. This didn't happens overnight, it's his legacy.
Who would be better? Well the Tory that ripped the PCP a new one on TV last night. He might look for the talent and do what he said needs to be done. Would they be exciting, I hope not but they might do a job.
Well the Tory that ripped the PCP a new one on TV last night.
Charles Walker? He won't be throwing his hat in the ring, he won't even be standing as an MP next general election.
I guess the likely Tory leadership contenders will be similar to last time, I don't know if Priti Patel will change her mind, I doubt it, I think Ben Wallace has ruled himself out, and I think Jeremy Hunt has too.
Yep it the exclusive club of those that want the job shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it
Charles Walker is going so it would be beholden upon him to make the Tories re-electable so a party that works and is doing a "good" job.
Yes some of his ministers weren’t happy with Johnsons – according to them he went to far, with listening to scientists, lockdowns, etc
It was always too little and too late. If that was the best with 200,000 deaths or more thank **** we didn't have anyone who was worse. He.Was.Hopeless
As a beacon of how an island should handle a pandemic see New Zealand.
paul scully, minister for (destroying) local government, is said to have '...expressed his relief at truss's departure'.
Having recently accepted his appointment by his, soon to be, ex-leader.
What did he 'express' and where did he express it?
Another stinking hypocrite.
Watching Newsnight, the people she’s come out to publicly defend her are Christopher ‘upskirt’ Chope and Peter Bone
No-one else
With friends like those…
Remember when we used to hear about the Truss bounce?
https://twitter.com/PeoplePolling/status/1583343851150114817?t=VmGVB81IiV_BdoZ8wT3XiQ&s=19
Got to admire the consistency of the Daily Mail throughout all this haven't you?!
https://twitter.com/crisortunity/status/1583382657077215235?t=FXhNSDeJoJXqYOIkrEdpUg&s=19
Can the King deny a request to form a new government and mandate an immediate GE?
@ernielynch
Just looking at your posting regarding Johnson's performance during the pandemic and how no other prospective Tory leader would have done better... Do you genuinely believe this?
Running against Johnson were:
Gove (Unpopular but capable - certainly more capable than Johnson)
Hancock (Useless and corrupt).
Harper (Who knows, perhaps not enough ministerial experience - also a bit of a right wing headbanger)
Hunt (Probably not popular with the electorate after Junior Doctors situation but less corrupt than Johnson, and far more serious when it comes to making decisions)
Javid (Probably would have at least moved quickly when advised by experts - not particularly popular with the electorate though)
Leadsom (Awful option)
McVey (Even worse)
Raab (The sooner this intellectual void disappears the better, thin skinned and unprincipled).
Stewart (Probably the best option on this list but politically naive. Would have done the best job but not willing to shaft enough people to get the job).
So yeah, there certainly were people running who would have done a better job and not lied, prevaricated, or allowed corruption on such a grand scale.
Can the King
Technically I think yes, practically no, assuming they can show they have the confidence of the house, in theory he could ask them to demonstrate they have that confidence mind.
Seems I missed about 4 billion pages yesterday, did something happen or was Brexit mentioned again?
ErnieLynch
Not all Tories are the same. If the polls are to be believed millions agree with me that Truss is worse than Johnson was. It’s okay to say that you think Johnson was better, it doesn’t make you a Tory. Well not unless you are a 10 year old in a school playground perhaps
Better and worse just don't make any sense in this context.
And I am still surprised that anyone should believe that another Tory leader would have been better for working people than Johnson.
Theres many who would be better people tpo represent you... but probably not a better leader of the tory party for regular people I'd would certainly agree, but that says everything you need to know about the current state of the party; the best they have is still well below par.
That however is why Boris will be the next PM. He's clearly going to get over the 100 line, and will walk the public vote. For all the bad things he did, he remains the best the conservatives have to offer and is very popular with the bipolar conservative members that somehow managed to lurch from Boris to Liz... the polar opposites.
'I hate all Tories' is not equivalent too 'All Tories are the same.'
I don't think anyone has said that.
benpinnick
Theres many who would be better people
... you can basically stop there.
that says everything you need to know about the current state of the party
Even taking into account no-one is going to lead any of the parties by simply being a nice person the current crop of front bench hopefuls are pretty much equally nasty
Technically I think yes, practically no, assuming they can show they have the confidence of the house, in theory he could ask them to demonstrate they have that confidence mind.
The incoming PM would need to pass a budget at some point which would be a confidence vote. The last one was almost exactly a year ago so it would be fairly soon although I guess delaying it by 6 weeks or so would be 'normal' to let them see the books and come up with a plan.
So in reality they need to unite by Christmas.
The next one after that would be the King's speech in May.
But...... they've shown they'll unite even behind a leader they hate, on fracking. So things would need to get pretty dire make them vote down their own budget or Kings Speech.
they’ve shown they’ll unite even behind a leader they hate, on fracking
I'd like to share your optimism but I don't. I've a foreboding that the right of the party will manage to find a singular hateful candidate they can all get behind but the left won't manage.
Stewart (Probably the best option on this list but politically naive. Would have done the best job but not willing to shaft enough people to get the job).
What bit don't you understand that when the moves were being made to replace Johnson Rory Stewart was not an option? He wasn't even a member of the Conservative Party FFS.
The most likely outcome was always that Truss or Sunak would replace Johnson. There is no evidence that either of them would have handled the Covid pandemic better, and actually plenty of evidence that they would have capitulated to the right-wing loonies in their party and not taken measures to protect the NHS thereby allowing an even more rampant pandemic, all on the name of profits.
To throw your question back at you do you genuinely believe that replacing Johnson has proved a benefit to the British people?
I never believed it would, I don't believe it has, and apparently millions of voters agree with me - Johnson's replacement is worse than he was.
What might have happened in a parallel universe in which Rory Stewart doesn't resign from the Conservative Party is completely irrelevant to actual reality.
thisisnotaspoon
But…… they’ve shown they’ll unite even behind a leader they hate, on fracking. So things would need to get pretty dire make them vote down their own budget or Kings Speech.
1) I'd hardly call that Unite
2) Why wouldn't anyone support fracking for gas as a short term measure unless it's literally in their back garden?
This contains many many naughty words...
Why wouldn’t anyone support fracking for gas as a short term measure unless it’s literally in their back garden?
Well if you can figure out how to do it short term, you might have an argument. I think you'd still lose but you'd at least you'd have a starting point.
Are you simple? My post was a response to your comment:
And I am still surprised that anyone should believe that another Tory leader would have been better for working people than Johnson.
When Johnson was appointed the list I showed were the candidates running against him. Would none of them have been better for working people?
His purge of the reasonable members of the party meant that there were no credible opponents when his replacement was being nominated. That is different to your assertion above.
I think this thread, (rather like Liz Truss herself) is becoming counterfactual.
Are you simple?
Yeah perhaps I am and I lack the skills to express myself clearly. My posts are already excessively long so it doesn't bode well.
My point was/is that I am only concerned with reality and what the reasonably likely alternatives were/are. I have repeatedly referred to reasonably likely alternatives, but perhaps I didn't on every single occasion. Rory Stewart imo never stood a chance of becoming Tory leader, you might have a different opinion. I am more interested in what is rather than what might have been.
@ernielynch
Sorry for the needlessly abrupt opener to that previous comment. Unnecessarily rude of me.
I think that Johnson is not at all for the working citizens of the UK. I agree that neither are any other Tory candidates that stand a chance of taking the post. But his record in office was so damaging and divisive that they would be insane to bring him back. There is no short term redemption for the Tory party and Johnson will just further weaken their future.
My point was that there used to be people that were capable and would certainly have done a better job. They are all but entirely drummed out of the party - and this is largely due to Johnson's Brexit purge driven by his debt to the ERG and right wing press.
Whoever picks up the poison chalice should just bite the bullet and call an election. At least it would show some backbone or conviction in their own potential.
dangeourbrain
Well if you can figure out how to do it short term, you might have an argument. I think you’d still lose but you’d at least you’d have a starting point.
Figuring out technically how to do it short term is the easy part.
Figuring how to stop it continuing is probably much harder.
Figuring how to tax it so we can afford to use it and the oil companies don't just make even bigger profits would seem the hardest part for the Tories.
No worries electric worry - I'm not blameless when it comes to being abrupt.
I think what some people fail to understand is that for me politics is always all about comprise and best outcomes rather than perfect solutions.
I always see it from that perspective.
I think what some people fail to understand is that for me politics is always all about comprise and best outcomes rather than perfect solutions.
Wish the Government saw it that way! Instead they have a whole load of policies of "rip up everything that came before us cos THEY did it, not US" and claims of building a world-leading / world-beating [thing] and then using systems like the NHS and transport as political footballs, forever implementing then amending then cancelling plans and policies.
Whoever picks up the poison chalice should just bite the bullet and call an election. At least it would show some backbone or conviction in their own potential.
Something we can probably all agree on.
Figuring out technically how to do it short term is the easy part.
You're so far beyond deluded:
We've drilled a handfull of test wells in this country, one has been shut down due to earthquakes, one is in flow testing and one is in pre testing. There's I think 5 further applications currently in for future sites?
If you changed the law tomorrow you would then need to:
1) Drill a shedload more test/exploration wells.
2) Drill shedload more than that production wells.
3) Build the gathering network between them.
4) Build the gas processing plants to take that gas and refine it into something that can be put into the grid.
Even if you fast tracked the planning and said it could be done anywhere you like, it'd be a minimum 3 years before you'd get any gas into the network, maybe 4-5 before the bulk of it came on stream?
it’d be a minimum 3 years before you’d get any gas into the network.
Oh that's no good, can't be having unpopular policies which [might] come good under someone else's watch.
Can't we have it in place a few months before the next GE? No. Oh stuff it then, no fracking it is.
Figuring how to tax it so we can afford to use it and the oil companies don’t just make even bigger profits would seem the hardest part for the Tories.
Taxing fracking, if it was greenlit today, its about as likely to be a tory problem as taxing fusion given their current trajectory.
Oh stuff it then, no fracking it is.
Fracking doesn't help with the current energy crisis, and so shouldn't be seen as being relevant to it.
So, longer term... ignoring the current crisis... more fossil fuel extraction or less? The choice is simple.
Figuring how to stop it continuing is probably much harder.
Figuring how to tax it so we can afford to use it and the oil companies don’t just make even bigger profits would seem the hardest part for the Tories.
That's actually the easy bit.
Oil Co.'s pay the government per barrel of oil they get out the ground (or gas).
Set the price to be (barely) profitable at ~$90/bbl and you create a de-facto cap where they'll only bring wells online when the price is high.
Just found out that due to the way the rules are written Liz Truss is entitled to £115,000 a year for the rest of her life as an ex Prime Minister. It's bad enough Boris gets it but at least he was round long enough to change the wallpaper.
Her office is, not her personally. What use that is to the world I don’t know. Previous PMs have done a lot of useful work through their offices, yes even previous Tory PMs. What’s she going to do with hers?
Just found out that due to the way the rules are written Liz Truss is entitled to £115,000 a year for the rest of her life as an ex Prime Minister. It’s bad enough Boris gets it but at least he was round long enough to change the wallpaper.
It's not a pension, it's expenses for fulfilling the role of ex-PM.
Quite how it costs £115k p.a. to turn up to a state funeral a couple of times a century and cut the odd ribbon I'm not sure.
Previous PMs have done a lot of useful work through their offices, yes even previous Tory PMs
I don’t doubt that but if you’re in a normal job perks (like not being able to be sacked without a decent excuse etc) only kick in after two years. I was only half listening but I thought that one since Blair is said to have turned it down (I can only think of two candidates who have anything approaching the morals to consider that).
I believe that it was Thatcher who introduced the ex-PM's allowance, before that former PMs didn't get a brass farthing. Or it might have been John Major, I'm not entirely sure, one of the two.
The next Labour government can easily reverse this little gravy train, although for obvious reasons the prime minister might not be so keen.
I was only half listening but I thought that one since Blair is said to have turned it down
Has he started paying for his own security yet? I believe it's quite a little sum that taxpayers have to fork out, and he's not short of a few quid himself.
It was a big story a few years ago but I am not sure if it was ever settled.
Fracking doesn’t help with the current energy crisis, and so shouldn’t be seen as being relevant to it.
That hugely depends how you define "the current energy crisis"
Even if Putin capitulated tomorrow and we/NATO/EU decided it would be so nice to give money to Russia for gas Nordstream is still offline for the forseeable.
So, longer term… ignoring the current crisis… more fossil fuel extraction or less? The choice is simple.
Depending again what you call longer term... it will be much longer until we (UK) get the nuclear reactors that we should have had decades ago (if it wasn't for the same general people against fracking).
We and (more importantly) the rest of the world will be using some form of energy in the meantime a great deal of it from some form of fossil fuel be it gas, oil or coal.
The bigger picture: Not what I think 90% of Tory's care about ...
The planet doesn't care where methane comes from, be it poop or natural gas or fracked/CBM when it's burned.
Ensuring a clean and minimal CO2 burn is much more important.
Cutting down swathes of forest to grow crops for biofuel similarly doesn't matter where its from when burned but cutting down the forests to grow it is a big negative and using cleanly burned gas would be better.
Using coal is even worse and the STW log burner as bad as it gets... so until we have proper alternatives increasing the availability and lowering the cost of gas over oil/coal/wood is much better than just continuing to use coal, charcoal and wood
Virtue signalling to the billions of people using wood and dung to cook their food isn't doing any good if they can't afford the relatively clean gas alternative.
People burning dung will still have a lower carbon footprint than any of us posting in this thread. We need to sort our own shit out. [ pun intended ]
The Tories seem hell bent on making sure the House of Lords becomes so bloated with donors and the talentless that reform or replacement becomes unavoidable…
https://twitter.com/daniel_j_martin/status/1583424616785379329?s=21
So. ...how would we get fracked gas from Blackpool to Eritrea?
Would solar not be a better source of clean energy in the tropics?
So. …how would we get fracked gas from Blackpool to Eritrea?
That would be daft, instead I suggest we use the gas from the UK to heat and cook in the UK so we'd just not be buying the gas that has to pass right by Eritrea to get to us.
Would solar not be a better source of clean energy in the tropics?
Ultimately ... short term most of the billions who have to boil their shit and parasite filled water to drink would probably just be happy with whatever method.
A lot of time and money has gone into getting them to go from wood to butane... across many developing countries.
It's not only sub-saharan Africa, huge numbers of rural Indians use wood.
