The FT is reporting that the executive of the 1922 Committee has written to May, saying that she'd have their backing if she chose to sack feuding ministers.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Go on. Sack Boris, Davis and Fox. Please.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The thing is, it's not enough to have majority support. She needs to have 85%+1 support, since all you need is 15% of Conservative MPs for a leadership contest to start. So the 1922 can say that all they like, it's basically empty. If anyone she sacks can get 47 other MPs together, that's all you need.
Boris would surely be top of the list, he stood up at the dispatch box last week and contradicted the Government's official policy for goodness sake. But sacking any of them would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge, regardless of what the 1922 Committee say.
Problem is that if she can't or won't enforce party discipline, the party will find someone who can.
Problem is that if she can't or won't enforce party discipline, the party will find someone who can.
It's not Davis she will sack, he's generally viewed as the potential next leader and has been relatively out of the fray so to speak. It's Johnson in particular she needs to boot, and then Hammond.
Camp Freddie
Member
This. I've friends in the care sector and a government job was seen as a massive upgrade since it's slightly above minimum wage and offers reasonable holiday/sickness/pension "benefits".
Whereas my entire business sector (regulatory consultancy) would be dead if we didn't have a constant stream of disgruntled gov employees wanting a proper graduate wage rather than one where the student loan repayments don't even cover the interest on those loans.
Audioboxer
Member
Orange Lodge claims it is being 'demonised' after offensive party costumes are exposed
Source: http://www.thenational.scot/news/15...mes_are_exposed/?ref=mrb&lp=3#comments-anchor
More pictures @ http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/..._condemn_flute_band_behind_Nazi_costume_pics/
Yay, glad we got around to electing some of these chaps in the local elections.
Said top chaps were out in style weeks ago
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/..._the_Orange_Order_on_the_streets_of_Scotland/
Tory Scotland <3
Source: http://www.thenational.scot/news/15...mes_are_exposed/?ref=mrb&lp=3#comments-anchor
More pictures @ http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/..._condemn_flute_band_behind_Nazi_costume_pics/
Yay, glad we got around to electing some of these chaps in the local elections.
Said top chaps were out in style weeks ago
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/..._the_Orange_Order_on_the_streets_of_Scotland/
Tory Scotland <3
Amusingly the OO's press release was word for word the press release used by Rangers fans Club1872 last week. Both written by a guy who lasted an afternoon as Rangers director before his tweet of a drawing of the prophet Muhammad getting 'massaged' by Jar-Jar Binks (kid you not true story) got exposed
When it comes to the marketing departments of political parties seeking power, it's always a conspiracy until I hear otherwise
Mind if I ask: why did you go?
Audioboxer
Member
Classy. It's always the same with situations like this, you can tell if an organisation/group/company or hierarchy has genuine concern/embarrassment or responsibility for what goes on within their ranks with how they apologise. If they double down or play the victim that is not a good look at all.
Sectarianism in Scotland is definitely a dark side to our country. We might as well throw some blackface and more into the mix too!
Spuck-uk
Banned
There are real problems getting top staff for public sector jobs, according to a few people I know working in the sector.
The main draw used to be good pensions and incredible job security, but after the last 7 years of cuts...
Spuck-uk
Banned
You can go and search for say, graphic design, wed development jobs for yourself and compare the offered salaries if you don't believe me.
I'm certainly not venturing into the hell that are government job postings again unless I really need to.
Yep. There's absolutely no point being a senior manager in the public sector. You get paid less, the majority of your job will be about delivering cuts and defending failing services in the face of cuts, and the risk if some of these things go wrong is huge (social services!).
The third sector and the consultancy sector has become the destination of choice now. Better to get out of public sector entirely if you can.
JonathanEx
Member
True, but will those 47 other MPs give them that vote if they don't think the person they are backing will have majority support?
Yes but if she'd left him out of the Cabinet he'd probably have an entire newspaper column to attack her with.
Is the thinking that Gove is angling for a promotion to Shadow Chancellor if May sacks someone? Surely even he can see that would be unpopular. Surely.
Also Jeremy Hunt's going to be Health Secretary until the heat death of the universe isn't he
PJV3
Member
Maybe, I thought he'd become a non entity in Tory world after destroying Boris and stabbing himself in the head.
I don't think sacking people is going to work with the conservative party in its current state.
"Entropy is the lowest it's ever been in real terms."
Theonik
Member
Sure, but government IT jobs are really bad in general. Either they are going to pay better or be less selective usually the later, or people wouldn't bother getting them! On that note though the acquaintance has an assistant admin job in the civil service.
Dirtyshubb
Member
AA roles are the very lowest grade you can have as a civil servant so the pay will be pretty terrible in most departments.
Huw_Dawson
Member
May having the 'support' of the 1922 committee is really them playing for influence, it's nothing to do with May. They presumably want to get the non-Brexiteers (i.e. Hammond) out of the cabinet. He has zero chance of mounting a leadership bid as he is cripplingly uninteresting. But her getting rid of her Chancellor would ultimately just be some other power base excerpting it's authority.
May has her cabinet. She has authority as long as that cabinet does not directly attempt to oppose her. As she has no authority herself, she is in place until she does something that her cabinet can unite and oppose her on. As long as she keeps the sides playing off on each other (as currently) her situation is secure.
Basically if they spend all their time attacking each other, she is safe.
May has her cabinet. She has authority as long as that cabinet does not directly attempt to oppose her. As she has no authority herself, she is in place until she does something that her cabinet can unite and oppose her on. As long as she keeps the sides playing off on each other (as currently) her situation is secure.
Basically if they spend all their time attacking each other, she is safe.
BBC: Austerity literally killing us all at an exponential rate (or possibly slowing down rises in life expectancy):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608256
"Good," Philip Hammond was said to have yelled triumphantly in a cabinet meeting. "I hope everyone dies. I hate everyone. I'd kill them all personally if I had the time. Boris, who are you on the phone to? Are you on the phone to The Times? You blonde wanker, is that The Times on the fucking phone?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608256
"Good," Philip Hammond was said to have yelled triumphantly in a cabinet meeting. "I hope everyone dies. I hate everyone. I'd kill them all personally if I had the time. Boris, who are you on the phone to? Are you on the phone to The Times? You blonde wanker, is that The Times on the fucking phone?"
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You don't need majority support. The moment the leadership contest is actually triggered, all the other candidates will declare, and it turns into a proper race. You could secretly favour another candidate and just be pushing a stalking horse.
Psychotext
Member
I predict the following may be booted:
- Michael Gove
- Boris Johnson
- Priti Patel
- Andrea Leadsome
I doubt David Davis is the one behind the leaks, considering how close he is to May and how central he is to the process (and that he's actually somewhat less hawkish on Brexit than the above).
I'd adore it if those four got fucked off - especially Johnson and Patel.
- Michael Gove
- Boris Johnson
- Priti Patel
- Andrea Leadsome
I doubt David Davis is the one behind the leaks, considering how close he is to May and how central he is to the process (and that he's actually somewhat less hawkish on Brexit than the above).
I'd adore it if those four got fucked off - especially Johnson and Patel.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Such a strong and stable cabinet.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Just saw this, kinda hit close to home:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...toilets-bullying-racism-inquest-a7846216.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...toilets-bullying-racism-inquest-a7846216.html
I mentioned the issues around data protection and Brexit a couple of weeks but the Lords report into the subject makes for sobering reading.
The course I was on, ran by someone who previously worked at the EU Commission on Data Protection policy, recommended that UK companies contact the Commission and start getting their ducks in a row for future compliance agreements because he doesn't see the UK government being able to get a UK adequacy agreement. He mentioned that would be due to UK national security issues but I didn't quite pick up on his point at the time, but the Lords report makes clear the issue.
In short data protection has the prospect to be one the biggest clusterfucks about the whole thing.
Loved this as well
The EU response to that nonsense will be Non.
The course I was on, ran by someone who previously worked at the EU Commission on Data Protection policy, recommended that UK companies contact the Commission and start getting their ducks in a row for future compliance agreements because he doesn't see the UK government being able to get a UK adequacy agreement. He mentioned that would be due to UK national security issues but I didn't quite pick up on his point at the time, but the Lords report makes clear the issue.
In short data protection has the prospect to be one the biggest clusterfucks about the whole thing.
Loved this as well
The EU response to that nonsense will be Non.
So basically inside the EU as per that treaty, the UK is able to meet retention criteria despite its approach to the internet. As a third party then it would miss that criteria due to the national security policies?
JonathanEx
Member
Today's fun story of the day, Andrea Leadsom seems to have accidentally suggested she wants to challenge May via being tricked in the simplest way possible: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/andrea-leadsom-lets-slip-her-leadership-ambitions/
JonathanEx
Member
Haha oh there's a moment for everything
The Friendly Monster
Member
Pretty much. Absent a data shield type deal (which will be tricky for other reasons), it looks like UK companies will need to go for their own agreements with the commission.
DarthMasta
Member
In regards to special opt-outs the UK currently enjoys...
Current UK is a mate asking you to help move his furniture. Yeah, sure, it's your mate, that's what mates do, even if you're not terribly happy about it.
Future UK is that dude you sorta know but not really asking you to help move his furniture. Pay me or move your own damn furniture!
Current UK is a mate asking you to help move his furniture. Yeah, sure, it's your mate, that's what mates do, even if you're not terribly happy about it.
Future UK is that dude you sorta know but not really asking you to help move his furniture. Pay me or move your own damn furniture!
Top comments are incredible.
It's amazing. Everyone is an idiot. I'm an idiot. Theresa May is an idiot.
Where do we go from here?
anonymous_abc
Member
Can I boot Patel?
Dirtyshubb
Member
Absolutely disgusting, when will Conservatives learn that under funding and punishment alone will only make things much worse?
On an unrelated note people are starting to suspect the Tories have been paying for retweets on some of their tweets due to a few suspect things. Another thing they won't learn it seems in how to actually reach out to people. I can only imagine what a load of faux organic shit they are going to put out when they start their anti momentum initiative.
Spuck-uk
Banned
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/tim-farron-youre-meant-feel-marginalised-christian/ Farron still with the worlds sourest grapes.
"Voters are fine with religion – if it's cultural" Yes, Britain First and the like are totally okay with Muslims, and nobody persecutes the Jews ever, you pathetic creature.
"Christianity is counter cultural and it always has been." Yup, so counter cultural that the head of state is the head of the church, how edgy.
"Voters are fine with religion – if it's cultural" Yes, Britain First and the like are totally okay with Muslims, and nobody persecutes the Jews ever, you pathetic creature.
"Christianity is counter cultural and it always has been." Yup, so counter cultural that the head of state is the head of the church, how edgy.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Like, if he was arguing for his specific strain of Christianity, that'd be one thing. I'm a Catholic in a Protestant country, I can get that.
But arguing Christianity itself as marginalised, and that people are right to feel marginalised for being Christian because that's part of what he ascribes to be the Christian experience - rather than because they actually are - is silly. People took issue with a specific belief because of the implications of that belief, from the leader of an ostensibly moderate and/or progressive party, not just because he was a Christian trying to abide by beliefs. That's too abstract a perspective.
But arguing Christianity itself as marginalised, and that people are right to feel marginalised for being Christian because that's part of what he ascribes to be the Christian experience - rather than because they actually are - is silly. People took issue with a specific belief because of the implications of that belief, from the leader of an ostensibly moderate and/or progressive party, not just because he was a Christian trying to abide by beliefs. That's too abstract a perspective.
Psychotext
Member
Found myself listening to PMQ in the car... what utter bollocks from all sides.
- Status