The next PM...

[Nearly Sane]

To return to my actual point.

If MPs and members select Tugendhat, Mourdant, Badenoch or Braverman they will be selecting the least experienced person to become PM since Queen Victoria was on the throne. I find that concerning.

And yet Johnson shows your point about experience is vacuous. Add to that you've already undermined your own point by saying experience is not important if you win an election.

[Udayana]

You mean Sunak who has been Chancellor of the Ecgequer has a clue about getting the country out of a mess which, he, Sunak, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, got the country into?

TBF .. the economy (or rather some parts of it)  has been in a mess since the banking crash in 2008/9. Brown started to deal with it in a cautious way.

I don't doubt Osborne, Hammond, Javid and Sunak, even Zahawi, had/have the skills and ability to put in place teams and policies to deal with the mess to some extent - but they have chosen not to deal with it, even make things worse, for political and other reasons.

I don't believe they have the welfare of ordinary people in this country as a tangible objective, but are good at mis-selling their policies.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Add to that you've already undermined your own point by saying experience is not important if you win an election.

I never said that at all.

What I've said is that since the 1800s every PM has had experience in one of the great offices of state or as leader of the opposition. Clearly the whole point of being leader of the opposition is that it shadows and prepares you to be PM. And to become PM from leader of the opposition you'd need not just to have the experience of that role, but to be successful in that role as to become PM you'd need to won the general election from opposition.

So the point remains - Tugendhat, Mourdant, Badenoch or Braverman (and actually Zahawi) are painfully inexperienced compared to their predecessor PMs all of who (since 1900) had been Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary or a winning Leader of the opposition.

And actually, were you to ask which of the PMs over the past 120 years was least experienced, then probably Johnson, with a tenure of less than two years as Foreign Secretary.

[Nearly Sane]

TBF .. the economy (or rather some parts of it)  has been in a mess since the banking crash in 2008/9. Brown started to deal with it in a cautious way.

I don't doubt Osborne, Hammond, Javid and Sunak, even Zahawi, had/have the skills and ability to put in place teams and policies to deal with the mess to some extent - but they have chosen not to deal with it, even make things worse, for political and other reasons.

I don't believe they have the welfare of ordinary people in this country as a tangible objective, but are good at mis-selling their policies.

I'm not sure I see a big difference between someone not having a clue how to sort the economy, and someone having a clue about how to sort it but choosing not to.

[Nearly Sane]

I never said that at all.

What I've said is that since the 1800s every PM has had experience in one of the great offices of state or as leader of the opposition. Clearly the whole point of being leader of the opposition is that it shadows and prepares you to be PM. And to become PM from leader of the opposition you'd need not just to have the experience of that role, but to be successful in that role as to become PM you'd need to won the general election from opposition.

So the point remains - Tugendhat, Mourdant, Badenoch or Braverman (and actually Zahawi) are painfully inexperienced compared to their predecessor PMs all of who (since 1900) had been Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary or a winning Leader of the opposition.

And actually, were you to ask which of the PMs over the past 120 years was least experienced, then probably Johnson, with a tenure of less than two years as Foreign Secretary.

What actual experience of govt does a leader of the opposition get? And are you actually suggesting that Johnson was a lying twat because he didn't have enough experience?

[ProfessorDavey]

What actual experience of govt does a leader of the opposition get?

The Leader of the Opposition has to lead his party, develop and set out policy and strategy, be subject to intense scrutiny from the press and to be an excellent performer at the despatch box (if they are to be able to win an election). Sure they don't actually implement that policy, which the PM (or rather their ministers) do, but the role is a good training ground for a PM - indeed many of the PMs considered to be the most successful cut their teeth as an ultimately election winning Leader of the Opposition, e.g. Blair, Thatcher.

So I think Leader of the Opposition sits alongside great offices of state as appropriately (and clearly expected) experience for a potential PM, give that every one of our PMs back to (I think) the 14th Earl of Derby in 1852 had held one of the great offices of state or been Leader of the Opposition prior to becoming PM.

[Nearly Sane]

The Leader of the Opposition has to lead his party, develop and set out policy and strategy, be subject to intense scrutiny from the press and to be an excellent performer at the dispatch box (if they are to be able to win an election). Sure they don't actually implement that policy, which the PM (or rather their ministers) do, but the role is a good training ground for a PM - indeed many of the PMs considered to be the most successful cut their teeth as an ultimately election winning Leader of the Opposition, e.g. Blair, Thatcher.

So I think Leader of the Opposition sits alongside great offices of state as appropriately (and clearly expected) experience for a potential PM, give that every one of our PMs back to (I think) the 14th Earl of Derby in 1852 had held one of the great offices of state or been Leader of the Opposition prior to becoming PM.

So that would be no actual experience  (btw, it's the despatch, not dispatch, box).

And a swerve to the Johnson question in my post.

[ProfessorDavey]

So that would be no actual experience  (btw, it's the despatch, not dispatch, box).

And a swerve to the Johnson question in my post.

Swerve all you like - my point was about the experience of people becoming PM, and it is a well versed expectation that PMs have always either held one of the great offices of state or been leader of the opposition. This has held true for 170 years - it is notable that this 170 year old record for required experience may well be broken and if so PM Mourdant, or PM Badenoch will be the least experienced person to have become PM since the populace was still extolling the recently closed Great Exhibition of 1851.

[ProfessorDavey]

So that would be no actual experience  (btw, it's the despatch, not dispatch, box).

Pedantry is rarely a good look - but edited nonetheless.

[ProfessorDavey]

One of the points about experience is that people know who you are and have an understanding of what your skills, strengths, weaknesses, view etc are.

And again on this count the current crop (or at least some of them) are simply completely invisible.

So just 5% of people in a recent poll said they knew "a great deal" about the Conservative candidates Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch and Tom Tugendhat.

This compares to 6% who say they know a great deal about a Conservative MP called Stewart Lewis.

And err - Stewart Lewis is a made up person - he doesn't exist. So fewer people know a great deal about three of the candidates to be our next PM than about a non-existent person.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sunak 88
Mordaunt 67
Truss 50
Badenoch 40
Tugendhat 37
Braverman 32
Zahawi 25
Hunt 18

Hunt and Zahawi out

[Nearly Sane]

Pedantry is rarely a good look - but edited nonetheless.

And yet you wear it so well.

[Nearly Sane]

One of the points about experience is that people know who you are and have an understanding of what your skills, strengths, weaknesses, view etc are.

And again on this count the current crop (or at least some of them) are simply completely invisible.

So just 5% of people in a recent poll said they knew "a great deal" about the Conservative candidates Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch and Tom Tugendhat.

This compares to 6% who say they know a great deal about a Conservative MP called Stewart Lewis.

And err - Stewart Lewis is a made up person - he doesn't exist. So fewer people know a great deal about three of the candidates to be our next PM than about a non-existent person.

Proper LOL there but being notorious is not a good quality, and you seem to be taking that position. I knew Johnson was a liar.

[Nearly Sane]

Swerve all you like - my point was about the experience of people becoming PM, and it is a well versed expectation that PMs have always either held one of the great offices of state or been leader of the opposition. This has held true for 170 years - it is notable that this 170 year old record for required experience may well be broken and if so PM Mourdant, or PM Badenoch will be the least experienced person to have become PM since the populace was still extolling the recently closed Great Exhibition of 1851.

Who swerved? Oh that was you.  'Well versed expectation' is just an ad populum.

[Nearly Sane]

Sunak 88
Mordaunt 67
Truss 50
Badenoch 40
Tugendhat 37
Braverman 32
Zahawi 25
Hunt 18

Hunt and Zahawi out

Hunt's performance is spectacular.

[Harrowby Hall]

I don't doubt he was useless as Foreign Secretary and as PM but that doesn't mean that his experience as Foreign Secretary didn't make a slightly better PM than he would have been had he not had that experience.

Indeed. His most significant and notable achievement as Foreign Secretary - clearly indicating his potential as Prime Minister - getting Nazanin's sentence doubled.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who swerved? Oh that was you.

Nope because my point was nothing to do with Johnson specifically but the situation for all PMs for the past 170 years. You swerved it into a narrow debate about Johnson, not me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Big betting movement towards Mourdant ... the person who in a Savanta survey over the past couple of days just 11% of people (and just 16% of conservative voters) could actually name when showed a picture of her.

Given that she seems to be much more popular than Sunak (and probably Truss) amongst members it is quite likely that were there to be a Sunak/Mourdant final two that Sunak would simply pull out. So someone with such low recognition that nigh on 9 out of 10 people cannot name (and presumably know next to nothing about) could be our PM early next week. Hmmm.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope because my point was nothing to do with Johnson specifically but the situation for all PMs for the past 170 years. You swerved it into a narrow debate about Johnson, not me.

Drivel. You want to ignore Johnson because it doesn't help your 'argument'. Having 'experienced' people by your argument, gave us a serial incompetent liar.

[Nearly Sane]

Big betting movement towards Mourdant ... the person who in a Savanta survey over the past couple of days just 11% of people (and just 16% of conservative voters) could actually name when showed a picture of her.

Given that she seems to be much more popular than Sunak (and probably Truss) amongst members it is quite likely that were there to be a Sunak/Mourdant final two that Sunak would simply pull out. So someone with such low recognition that nigh on 9 out of 10 people cannot name (and presumably know next to nothing about) could be our PM early next week. Hmmm.

And Mordaunt has already lied about her position on women's rights in the last 2 days.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed. His most significant and notable achievement as Foreign Secretary - clearly indicating his potential as Prime Minister - getting Nazanin's sentence doubled.

And do you think, as Prof D does, that this made him a better PM?

[Udayana]

I'm not sure I see a big difference between someone not having a clue how to sort the economy, and someone having a clue about how to sort it but choosing not to.

None of this lot, either as PM or Chancellor, will sort the economy, but could easily make things a lot worse.
 

[Nearly Sane]

None of this lot, either as PM or Chancellor, will sort the economy, but could easily make things a lot worse.

TBH given the energy price rises about to hit and us moving into winter, I think someone not standing is being sensible. It's not clear to me that there won't be another PM, after whoever, before the next election.

[Harrowby Hall]

And do you think, as Prof D does, that this made him a better PM?

Oh dear.  Do I have to warn you that I am being sarcastic?  But it might not be unrealistic to suggest that if this is what he is capable of  doing when Foreign Secretary, what might he cock up when in the top job?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear.  Do I have to warn you that I am being sarcastic?  But it might not be unrealistic to suggest that if this is what he is capable of  doing when Foreign Secretary, what might he cock up when in the top job?

Err, no. I got your sarcasm, and given Prof D's position on him being FS somehow having made Johnson not quite as shite a PM as he might have been, asked whether you agreed.