"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
Jonathan
I'm prepared to wager a tenner to charity with the first taker that Johnson is back within a year
The only good option they have if that means getting re-elected is ...johnson
"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
Jonathan
I'm prepared to wager a tenner to charity with the first taker that Johnson is back within a year
The only good option they have if that means getting re-elected is ...johnson
"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
Which bit of it do you disagree with?
It's ConservativeHome!
But they can say things that are interesting. And/or true.
"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
Which bit of it do you disagree with?
It's ConservativeHome!
But they can say things that are interesting. And/or true.
Jonathan
Ah, forgive me.
You're saying you agree with the content of this piece despite generally disagreeing with most of ConservativeHome?
Jdsk wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 2:54pm
Not quite on the first bit: I'm saying that it's worth reading to show what they're thinking, not that I'm agreeing with it.
If the piece that he has italicised is the most important then I agree with that: there are no good options for them.
From the point of view of Conservative MPs I disagree. Restoring the highest marginal rate of income tax and sacking the Chancellor would buy some time and make them feel a lot better than not doing either.
On the use of Alice I'm mixed. I'd rather that she wasn't associated in any way with this debacle. But I agree that we're deep into magical thinking.
"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
Jonathan
I'm prepared to wager a tenner to charity with the first taker that Johnson is back within a year
The only good option they have if that means getting re-elected is ...johnson
You're on. My charity is hope not hate.
The international donkey charity, il post the correct details when I win
"My purpose is not to argue that the Chancellor must stay. Nor, by the way, to suggest that the Party should have a fourth leadership election within less than ten years. Rather, it is to point out that there are now no good options. An unappetising choice looms before Conservative MPs."
More of the same from the Deputy Editor of the Spectator: