ml1dch

Although to be fair, it's not a million miles away from what more reputable companies are giving. This is post-Braverman / Cameron, so looks like it's a gamble that isn't paying off yet. Which is good.

I agree. Putting aside the topic of last night's amendments (very big thing to put aside, I appreciate) from a Westminster perspective I don't really blame anyone for what they did. Sensible politicking from the SNP, trying to create divisions in their biggest electoral danger. Understandable response from Labour, laying their own (perfectly reasonable) amendment. Sensible politicking from the Tories in not voting for that (even though it's basically their own position) to help create divisions in their biggest electoral danger, as if they'd voted for it and the Labour amendment passed then the SNP one wouldn't even have been moved. No issue with the Labour MPs who wanted to vote for the SNP amendment. No issue with the shadow front-benchers losing their jobs over it.

Jess Phillips is Yardley, Shabana Mahmood is Ladywood. And you're right that ethnoreligious profile of their constituency is a guide to how their MP might have voted - but it's going to be a mixing pot of doing what they think is right, electoral expedience and genuinely trying to represent the opinions of their constituents in parliament. In what proportion of each probably depends on the MP. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Jess Phillips could wear an "I Netanyahu" t-shirt between now and the next election and she'd still comfortably hold her seat.

So the next step of the plan - send everyone to Rwanda, those whose asylum applications succeed, stay there. Those that fail, have to return to the UK. There's no way that can fail, right?

Call me cynical, but I think a lot of these resignations are going to end up being pretty performative. Resign, let Starmer walk away with his authority intact, they get to "have done the right thing" for their constituents and then they quietly get their job back in the next reshuffle.

It's not. It's Matt Goodwin's PeoplePolling and should be completely ignored, even when it's saying something that people want.

"If there's something that you want to do but it's illegal then you should just do it anyway" is a rich vein running through Toryism. Whether it's deportations, public money or sexual consent.

Although, I believe the judgement also cited the UN Refugee Convention - so even if they *were* to somehow succeed with all of the above, the plan still wouldn't be lawful.

My guess is that the "document with clear terms" which she refers to at the bottom of page one will probably drop in time for the weekend papers. He's SO bad at politics.

I don't think it works. There are two plays that they have, and neither of them are strong enough. (a) they can try and get rid of Sunak, put a new leader in and (in their unaware craziness) think that the country is desperate for their weird fringe politics go for an election once Braverman or NE other is the new leader. This doesn't work, because it requires enough of those Tory MPs to think that Braverman would be electorally better than Sunak. And while both are terrible, they're not that stupid. So if they get 53 letters to trigger a VONC, Sunak still probably wins. (b) they could try and bring down the Government, and hope that after a Labour victory, Sunak is toast and they take over the party. BIG problem here - if they bring down the Government, triggering an election that the party doesn't want, there's no chance they are allowed to stand at said election. They are deselected and somebody who wasn't part of that plot takes over from Sunak after the mother of all election hammerings. Far more likely is just lots of unhelpful sniping for the next six - nine months, followed by an election of Sunak's choosing, him quitting when they lose and a normal Tory leadership bumfight a few weeks after.

Somebody's not a happy bunny.

It would be better though if political decisions were taken with more than that in mind. I don't necessarily think that this is necessarily the issue, but the principle of doing things in politics because they're the right thing to do is probably a better one than the principle of doing whatever you think might get a hypothetical voter to vote for you.

“Yes Boris, the man who won the Conservative Party a massive majority, was unforgivable enough.” I'm inclined to agree with her.

As Stephen Bush pointed out, her job is basically Minister for the Whips doing maths and realising they need someone from the right of the party attending cabinet to keep the nutters as onside as possible.

Because Sunak knows that his time is up when he loses. And a bit like Brown in 2010, he'd rather squeeze another 6-9 months out of being Prime Minister.

I'm prepared to look silly, but I reckon he might see a bit of a jump. Nothing spectacular obviously. But I think a few "Tories + 3" here and there.

Greg Hands binned as Party Chairman. Probably means fewer outings for that 2010 Liam Byrne note from now on.

Probably more importantly, nor is Cleverley.

It's probably not a bad move. Don't really see it changing things massively though.

For "next election" watchers - several junior ministers (Nick Gibb, Jesse Norman, Will Quince, Neil O'Brien) are asking to leave Government, rather than being fired. ACOBA rules say that you need to be out of Government for six months prior to taking on certain jobs outside politics. Six months from now takes us to....May, and one of the potential election windows.

Get Norman Tebbit back in there.

He could only stand as an MP again if he relinquished his baronetcy. He could then do all of that stuff that you mention. But (a) he won't. And (b) definitely not in the time frame in which they will be looking for Sunak's successor.

Already done.