Forum Topic

Written in another thread...."From 2010 to 2015 the government was a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats; the influence of the latter on the government's policies should not be underestimated.The Blair/Brown Labour government had left the UK's relationship with the EU in a form of limbo, not least due to their breaking their manifesto promise to hold a referendum before signing up to the Treaty of Lisbon. This failure led directly to the 2016 referendum, since when the Conservatives have tried to follow the instruction of the electorate to withdraw from the EU, despite Labour's attempts to sabotage the process.If you really think that Labour is the answer, then you are asking the wrong question."This really is desperate stuff. More of typical Tory "not me guv", it's all their fault.It totally ignores all the lies and mismanagement of the Tory government since 2010 (Yes, I know the LibDems were around but they were very much the minor party). The Blair/Brown relationship with the EU was exceedingly positive compared with Cameron's "efforts" at negotiation, never mind all the negative tripe the Tory right wing added afterwards along with Farage and friends. That was what destroyed any positive relationship the UK had with the EU. I'd suggest not bringing referenda as an excuse as the EU exit one was meant to be advisory only and the country never got to confirm whether or not they liked what Boris and mates decided.Brexit has brought us nothing but a reduction of GDP (approx 4% according to the OBR the last I saw - maybe someone has a better number).Fortunately we have now got rid of a PM that got "elected" by less than 1% of the population. I wonder whether the Tories have got the courage to have a General Election. I doubt it since they're only interested in the Tories and the country can "go hang".I hope I'm wrong (but I still won't vote for them if I am).Labour is most definitely the answer at the moment. Longer term a more realistic version of PR would be better (not the rubbish version we were offered in 2011(?)), but the Tories will never vote for that. (Sadly, Labour probably won't either).

John Hickman ● 1431d

I think the 1922 Committee designed the voting system to stop getting Johnson in. They incorrectly assumed that people who a few weeks ago called for his resignation because of his fecklessness and dishonesty would not nominate him. It looks like Johnson is stuck on around 48 nominations with the majority of MPs holding fire. The rest all know that Johnson will be Prime Minister if he gets to 100 but will resume his holiday in the Caribbean if he doesn't.I doubt very much whether any of the remaining 150 or so undeclared MPs believe Johnson is fit for the office as they have had personal experience of him. However, they will be conscious that picking the right person to nominate will be career defining. If you want an insight into how this works you should listen to Rory Stewart on The Rest is Politics talking about his leadership bid and how firm but private backing disappeared as soon as Johnson got momentum from people who acknowledged he was terrible but said they had 'kids and a mortgage to support'.Johnson's side are feverishly briefing they are at 100 and his opponents are saying he is nowhere near. The reality probably is that it is on a knife edge.If Johnson wins it will be a further slide into chaos. He will need to make Hunt, Sunak or Javid Chancellor and then undermine them as they insist on one unpopular policy after another leading to ever higher interest rates. The instability will be compounded by the privileges committee judgement which many are predicting will result in the severest sanction because he clearly did knowingly mislead the house on more than one occasion. The only person who could possibly benefit from Johnson being chosen other than the man himself is Liz Truss who may lose her record of being the shortest serving Prime Minister.

Mark Evans ● 1429d