Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

I guess it'll be good if nobody else gets the votes. The whole thing just being a sunak coronation would have awesome optics and get rid of truss asap

[Sheilbh]

Amazingly Sunak will be the first Prime Minister from a Yorkshire seat

Edit: I suppose they'd argue it's a step down from just representing Yorkshire. But still a surprise.

[The Brain]

Amazingly Sunak will be the first Prime Minister from a Yorkshire seat

[Josquius]

Amazingly Sunak will be the first Prime Minister from a Yorkshire seat

Edit: I suppose they'd argue it's a step down from just representing Yorkshire. But still a surprise.

And might hopefully stop the trend I'm noticing more and more of, of people just saying Richmond when they mean Richmond upon Thames

[Sheilbh]

Over half of Tory MPs now supporting Sunak.

Mordaunt still claiming she's close to getting the nominations and not withdrawing - she has 25 declared supporters (and one prominent backer might just have defected). Apparently even her supporters are trying to talk her down as if she doesn't have the support of 50%+1 of Tory MPs, even if she won it would be very difficult to manage a stable government especially if, as it looks like would be the case, she only scrapes through to the membership round.

I think there's something to the comment in the Guardian that she's holding out thinking the longer she goes the better her leverage for a big cabinet job, while I think the opposite is actually the case.

[garbon]

Over half of Tory MPs now supporting Sunak.

Mordaunt still claiming she's close to getting the nominations and not withdrawing - she has 25 declared supporters (and one prominent backer might just have defected). Apparently even her supporters are trying to talk her down as if she doesn't have the support of 50%+1 of Tory MPs, even if she won it would be very difficult to manage a stable government especially if, as it looks like would be the case, she only scrapes through to the membership round.

I think there's something to the comment in the Guardian that she's holding out thinking the longer she goes the better her leverage for a big cabinet job, while I think the opposite is actually the case.

Yeah feels like as she doesn't exit, she's signaling that Tories haven't learned it isn't good to have membership select a PM who doesn't have majority support from MPs.

[Sheilbh]

By the by - found this interesting from Sunder Katwala:

Years from being MP to Prime Minister

2022
*If* Sunak (7)!
Truss (12)

97-2019
Johnson (18)
May (19)
Cameron (9)
Brown (24)
Blair (14)

1964-90
Major (11)
Thatcher (20)
Callaghan (31)
Heath (20)
Wilson (19)

1945-63
Home (32)
Macmillan (32)
Eden (32)
Attlee (23)
Churchill (40)

Starmer also only became an MP in 2015 (like Sunak) so would also be 8-9 years when he was aiming to become PM. Mordaunt was elected in 2010 so would be on 12 years.

Couple of interesting thoughts from Leo Carella - it seems interesting that possibly as politics has become more professionalised, a professional career outside parliament is actually more likely to get you perceived as being "sensible"/help you in leadership ambitions. And interesting that the age when we think of MPs as having "hinterland" and not just being professional politicians many of the top leaders had been in parliament for 20+ years. At the minute if you look at MPs who were first elected in 1997 or 2001, generally they're not in ministerial or shadow cabinet roles - most of them seem pretty firmly in the grandee territory either as backbench/parliamentary grandees chairing select committees etc or in their party (like Theresa May, Hilary Benn etc).

Also striking the extent to which both Sunak and Starmer reflect the recruitment drives of their parties in 2010-15: for Sunak, Cameron's modernisation and appeal to middle class minorities; for Starmer, Miliband's appeal to Brownite-ish public sector professionals. In both cases relying on people who are not already in parliament or factionally organised as MPs.

Edit: On a personal note, I'm not prepared for a Prime Minister who was born in the same decade as me

[The Larch]

Edit: On a personal note, I'm not prepared for a Prime Minister who was born in the same decade as me

For some of us it's worse, he's even younger than me... 

[Sheilbh]

Mordaunt's team apparently chipper - so they might have the numbers?

Edit: At the last leadership she was the members' favourite. Interesting to see if that holds in this context.

Edit: She's withdrawn - Sunak it is.

[Sheilbh]

I've said before how Sunak's rise is quite so striking and via Marie Le Conte it is funny to think that he was originally appointed as Chancellor by Johnson because he wanted a pliable nobody who couldn't challenge him and so Number 10 would just run the Treasury

In part I think it reflects the Treasury's power within government, but also a fairly impressive House of Cards-ish rise (especially given that I'm not actually sure Sunak is that good at politics)

Edit: Incidentally I'm seeing lots of people highlighting his wealth online. He is, after all, possibly our richest PM ever - I think it depends on whether you count the Earl of Rosebery who was married to a Rothschild (but given that Sunak's wealth is from his wife, you probably should) - and richer than the King. I hope Labour avoid that line of attack because I'm not sure it'll land/I think it's priced in - I'm not sure what the best attack is though

[Tamas]

I'm not sure it'll land/I think it's priced in - I'm not sure what the best attack is though

This is a guy who couldn't break through until Johnson needed a cabinet full of Brexit douchebags. Just because he is not an obviously frothing-mouth degenerate like the other candidates he is not automatically a decent PM. An angle of attack will reveal itself soon enough.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm finding his wealth almost reassuring; at least he won't be sponging off shadowy right-wing figures to pay for his wallpaper and holidays....a measure, perhaps, of how far we have fallen.

[Sheilbh]

This is a guy who couldn't break through until Johnson needed a cabinet full of Brexit douchebags. Just because he is not an obviously frothing-mouth degenerate like the other candidates he is not automatically a decent PM. An angle of attack will reveal itself soon enough.

Sort of - until Johnson became PM his career was normal for someone doing well. Elected in 2015, junior minister after a couple of years, very junior cabinet position after a full term. It's the rise after that that's more unusual - as I say because Johnson had fired his first Chancellor because Cummings' didn't like his spads/Johnson wanted a non-entity.

My point is there's a Blair line that he spent a lot of time thinking about how to attack an opponent, in particular, in a way that would get the average voter (who doesn't pay much attention to politics) nodding. So Major was weak; Hague had better jokes than judgement; Howard was an opportunist; Cameron was a flip-flopper.

His view was that you never use lines like liar, fraud, hypocrite, villain - because they just get tuned out by most people. That just sounds like politics as normal, plus voters probably think that's true of most politicians.

I think attacking Sunak for being rich falls into that category - and I hope Labour don't fall into that trap. Maybe take a little bit of time to think it through and work out what is the attack line that'll land/define him.

I'm finding his wealth almost reassuring; at least he won't be sponging off shadowy right-wing figures to pay for his wallpaper and holidays....a measure, perhaps, of how far we have fallen.

He also doesn't have an indeterminate number of children to pay for

[Tamas]

I don't disagree Sheilbh, but the Tory party seems in shambles and I think they'll do Labour's job of sabotaging Sunak even if he fails to self-sabotage.

[Sheilbh]

You're probably right - the best attack may well just be "weak" as the party disintegrates around him.