https://twitter.com/stefan_boscia/status/1462527504997048326?s=21 Seeing a labour leader say "when business profits, we all do" so earnestly. It's enough to make someone depressed.
So there are screenshots of Steve Baker going around of him kicking Nadine Dorries out of some Whatsapp group. It's mostly a glimpse into the circus but otherwise somewhat of a nothing burger
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1472331053775958016
But one of the last texts is very interesting. From Steve Baker:
> The majority was won for many reasons. Among them, two were critical:
> 1) the deal he voted for was rejected
> 2) someone (ahem) but not [Johnson] persuaded Farage not to run against incumbents.
> If Boris had not benefitted from both, we would be on the other benches.
I find this fascinating for a lot of different reasons.
For one, we now have evidence of an electoral pact, negotiated behind closed doors, between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party in 2019. It was obviously extremely one-sided in favour of the Conservatives, but it was not, as reported at the time, a "unilateral" decision by the Brexit Party. It was orchestrated at the top of the Tory campaign as an apparently "critical" strategy to get a majority.
As it stands, the deck was stacked against us all along, and now that the Conservatives recognise the power of it, they may well do it again next election.
The question therefore becomes this: if the Conservatives are making deals with the Brexit/Reform party, and they recognise it as essential to getting into Number 10, on what principle should the opposition ever deny usage of a lighter but more effective and fairer strategy, by way of a paper candidate pact?
So there are screenshots of Steve Baker going around of him kicking Nadine Dorries out of some Whatsapp group. It's mostly a glimpse into the circus but otherwise somewhat of a nothing burger
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1472331053775958016
But one of the last texts is very interesting. From Steve Baker:
> The majority was won for many reasons. Among them, two were critical:
> 1) the deal he voted for was rejected
> 2) someone (ahem) but not [Johnson] persuaded Farage not to run against incumbents.
> If Boris had not benefitted from both, we would be on the other benches.
I find this fascinating for a lot of different reasons.
For one, we now have evidence of an electoral pact, negotiated behind closed doors, between the Conservatives and the Brexit Party in 2019. It was obviously extremely one-sided in favour of the Conservatives, but it was not, as reported at the time, a "unilateral" decision by the Brexit Party. It was orchestrated at the top of the Tory campaign as an apparently "critical" strategy to get a majority.
As it stands, the deck was stacked against us all along, and now that the Conservatives recognise the power of it, they may well do it again next election.
The question therefore becomes this: if the Conservatives are making deals with the Brexit/Reform party, and they recognise it as essential to getting into Number 10, on what principle should the opposition ever deny usage of a lighter but more effective and fairer strategy, by way of a paper candidate pact?
