Badger

1. If you get rid of the players, you are likely to end up paying a significant proportion of their wages anyway. 2. We do not know which players are going to leave yet. 3. All three players can at least be useful subs/ squad players. Young players not likely to start will develop better playing regular football rather than being bench players, so some will be better helped by being loaned out. 4. Experienced players can help develop younger players, especially if they are interested in a career in coaching in the future. They have a lot to pass on.

Did you publish a source for the date so that it can be scrutinised? I suspect that your data may come from a biased source. According to this, from Oxford Universities'' Migration Observatory 21% of 18 to 24 year olds think that Immigration is bad/ very bad but significantly more thought is was either good or very good. In age terms, there is a clear correlation between age and attitude to migration, but young people think that it is a good thing. Level of education is also a clear influence, with those without a degree more like to be anti-immigration than those with a degree. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/

I have a family member in her 80s, a life-long Tory voter (but not a member) who was quite clear that she would not vote for Sunak because of his origins. There is a generation of Tory voters (and I suspect members) to whom the idea of a non-white PM is unthinkable. To put it in context, she would have been nearly 50 when we had our first Black MP in modern times + it all ties in with ideas of Empire etc.

I think that is is so soon after the election + the fact that Lab have said that they want to end the limit + they said during the election that might not be able to do it immediately after the election + it was just after they established a review into the area etc. Zarah Sultana doesn't even seem to know what she was voting on. Sultana refers to the “child benefit cap” but I understood that the cap was on universal credit. Ironically, Corbyn's 2019 manifesto kept the cap! It looked like the "rebels" were spoiling for a fight and were not prepared to even wait to see Govt proposals on the issue. I rather suspect that not all of them will recover the whip (and keep it). Re Blair - 1. I don't think that it was on a confidence issue 2. It was 6 months after the election, not 3 weeks

Yes a great deal is due to its origins. The facts that there were originally only 13 states; the lack of modern communications for the first third of it's exitance combined with sheer size and separate development (+ federalism etc); the disparate origins of its population; the Written Constitution from a very different age etc all had a very big impact.

US parties used to be far less consistent in its ideologies that it is today and so compared to many countries. Much of it was to do with the Civil War. Right wing democrats wouldn't be Republican because of the CW and the emancipation of the slaves even though ideologically they had more in common with many Republicans.

The One Nation term actually originated from Disraeli. For fear of upsetting LYB, the Tories were to the left of the Liberals under Disraeli.

A left back role that "tucks into a three" or "steps into midfield" rather than "bombs forwards" would be an ideal role for Sorenson, I'd have thought.* *Sorry about 3 cliches on one sentence, but in football parlance everybody knows what it means. 😟

Yes, I agree + their cabinet was packed with MPs from ethnic minorities, in contrast to the Labour cabinet. I put £10 on Rachel Reeve to be the next Labour Party leader about 3 years ago (but I think that taking inflation into account that even if I win it will be a pyric victory). It is perhaps significant that when the party had a choice, the party chose Truss over Sunak. I suspect, but cannot prove, that ethnicity may have paid a role in this, but it may just have been that the members preferred the batsh1t crazy economic policies that Truss offered (with IEA backing).

The King's speech is regarded as a Confidence vote by long convention. If you vote against the govt on a confidence issue you have the whip withdrawn. Johnson withdrew the whip from 21 MPs over Brexit and John Major withdrew the whip from 10 MPs over Europe after both PMs declared them confidence issues. From the Institute of Govt: Politically, the King’s Speech is important because it is a test of a government’s ability to command the confidence of the Commons – especially if it is at the beginning of a new parliament, or if a new government has recently taken over... Historically, a defeat on the address has been treated as an implicit loss of confidence in a government as it suggests that there is no majority to be found in the Commons for its programme for government. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/kings-speech You may well be correct that our system of govt is past its sell by date - hence the constitutional reform thread, but these are the rules that currently govern our politics. The MPs concerned must surely have known this, which makes their actions inexplicably stupid.

No - they were suspended for voting against the Govt on the King's speech which is a confidence issue, for any party at any time. Any party leader would have suspended the whip for that. It's why a lot of the "good conservatives*" got kicked out, because Boris declared on of the Brexit votes as a confidence issue, so they all had the whip withdrawn and in many (all?) cases it wasn't returned so they couldn't stand as Tories at the 2019 election. * This feels uncomfortably close to an oxymoron, but you know what I mean... 😀

Who was? I thought he was a nurse?

"I’m not interested in playing up to this macho virility test..." - this is so ironic, because it's precisely what she is doing, trying to establish her credentials as a "rebel" strong, a independent social justice warrior. No problem with that but she's just posing. There's plenty of things that she could do but by playing student gesture politics, she has weakened the chances that she will ever have enough influence to do anybody any good. Like you, I can see her days being very short if she doesn't learn that you achieve things through being united not by being a martyr. Presumably, she'll sit with Corbyn 😉

It was precisely the same sort of political judgement that led to such a disastrous election defeat in 2019. Voting against a King's speech 3 weeks after an election makes it look like you did not support the manifesto upon which you were elected. Furthermore, I believe that the King's Speech is considered a "confidence" issue, so they have greatly weakened their own position - it's not the same as rebelling on other legislation. I suspect that any restoration of the whip will be "conditional" so they may find that they have neutered themselves for any opposition that they were planning in the future or face the risk of being permanently being deprived the whip and thus running as an independent in 2028/9. They really have made it easy for SKS.

I'm not sure that your book is very influential in Westminster (unless you are Erskine May).