Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling on whom would make the best Tory leader after Dave
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling on whom would make the best Tory leader after Dave
YouGov asked If David Cameron were to step down as leader of the Conservative Party, which of the following do you think would make the best leader?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Jas Athwal, leader of the Redbridge Labour party, described the news as an “absolute shock”.
He added: “Queen’s was built for 300,000 people in mind but now it has to cope with 800,000 - it is not right. "
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/two_women_turned_away_from_queen_s_hospital_maternity_department_after_it_closes_for_four_hours_1_3630975
After all, she is doing the nation a service by putting Gove back in his box. For that, we should all rejoice.
What do we do? We stop mass immigration.
Regardless of arguments over the net cost of unlimited mass immigration it is self-evident that if you import millions of extra people - especially when the vast majority are low-skilled - *before* you build the infrastructure to cope with those numbers then you will be harming existing citizens - not where you live or doing the work you do - but millions of others.
Causing that amount of harm to people who nominally fellow citizens should be a crime.
And should Osborne not contest the Cameron succession in 2017/8, I reckon he would stand an excellent chance with the electorate of party members.
Edit: And I wouldn't rule him out as the new broom either in the event of defeat.
Now we are where we are. So what do we do?
I suspect that if those who actually select the candidates were to be polled, i.e. the Tory MPs, Boris would come plumb bottom of this quartet.
Further comment is futile - next thread please.
Importing millions of extra people *before* building the infrastructure self-evidently harms existing citizens.
Last parliament and this one.
2006: Con 39%, Lab 26%, LD 25%, Others 10%
2007: Con 40%, Lab 26%, LD 24%, Others 10%
2008: Con 43%, Lab 24%, LD 23%, Others 10%
2009: Con 35%, Lab 22%, LD 25%, Others 18%
(2010 GE: Con 36%, Lab 29%, LD 23%, Others 12%)
2011: Con 38%, Lab 37%, LD 16%, Others 9%
2012: Con 33%, Lab 39%, LD 15%, Others 13%
2013: Con 26%, Lab 29%, LD 13%, UKIP 22% (Others 10%)
2014: Con 30%, Lab 31%, LD 11%, UKIP 18% (Others 10%)
(1979-2012 p.41 of PDF)
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP12-43/uk-election-statistics-19182012
2013
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-30/local-elections-2013
2014
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1414718.ece
Get the Catholic Church involved like in other countries. We are already involved in the NHS, Poles are already setting up dental surgeries and GP practices and we already are expanding the State school sector. There must be oodles of nurses and doctors in Poland doing nothing.
Planned immigration. Interesting to see what @isam thinks of that.
This is very dangerous advice.
Sajid Javid is a self-confessed "cult science fiction" lover with a 'cultural education' in "U2 and Bollywood Films". He also believes in promoting working class talent within the subsidised arts and in broadening their appeal to "black and ethnic communities" and the "culturally disadvantaged".
He quotes Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "The Next Generation, season three, episode 26."
He believes that the Arts should be funded by banks, successful corporations and the billionaires newly attracted to Britain by Osborne's meritocratic tax regime.
I tell you, John, all this will end in tears.
The last time the banks started to finance Opera they bought boxes at Covent Garden and filled them with champagne drunk market traders who interrupted performances at critical moments with cries of "Bring on the fat lady!".
Such policies lead to our National Theatre funding subversive, Northern playwrights penning political dialectics for the stage.
They lead to political bloggers quoting snippets from the lyrics to the popular tunes of the nineteen eighties.
We have a war to wage, John. All this is fuel to the fire being set by Farage.
What the Arts need is more Nimrod, more folk music, more morris dancing and more Shakespeare. Why is it only the Last Night of the Proms which features patriotic music? We shouldn't need to wait a whole summer.
Javid must mend his ways if he is to be a leadership contender.
People were still subsequently executed, for being on the losing side of political disputes, but such executions were either unlawful, or else had to be authorised by specific Acts of Attainder.
This is what impeachment is for.
All great Italian operas, regardless of the political or historical weight of their plots and characters, boil down to a simple formula: "a tenor and a soprano want to make love and are prevented from doing so by a baritone." [GBS]
It would be fanciful to cast May as the Soprano, Gove as the Tenor and Cameron as the Baritone but the story fits.
Maybe it is just a lower form of opera. This is what the Spectator reports:
So, when Michael Gove slated the Home Secretary’s approach to one of the great issues of our time, Islamic extremism, it was inevitable that there would be a reaction. Particularly, as the civil servant who Gove criticised, Charles Farr, is in a relationship with May’s adviser Fiona Cunningham.
Operatic farce not tragedy is the genre.
This all happened in Maintained Schools.
A dated but nevertheless still excellent article on the operation of the 1351 Act in practice is Stanley B. Chrimes', 'Richard II's Questions to the Judges, 1387', Law Quarterly Review, 72, (1956), pp. 367-390. Other than its excessively Cromwellian bias, G.R. Elton's Policy and Police, (Cambridge, 1972), is good on how Henry VIII's government dealt with opposition from 1530 to 1540.
FPT, those comments on Wings over Scotland are a joy to read. I wonder if Sean T wrote any of them.
That's bad luck for UKIP, as most shire districts have all-out elections next year. In mid-term, they could expect to win hundreds of seats on such authorities.
Still we have a few Free Schools. Are they free to read Of Mice And Men?
I thought 150-200 gains would be the likeliest outcome.
"But hospitals for 300,000 are already serving 800,000. What's the solution?"
Putting it in numbers let's say the excess of people to hospital capacity is one unit of harm so the situation here involves 500,000 units of harm a year.
My definition of "solution" would be reducing the total harm peryear, what's yours?
By my definition adding another 200,000 people would increase the total harm to 700,000 units which on its own self-evidently increases the total harm and makes things worse.
The only way adding an extra 200,000 a year wouldn't increase the total harm would be if the hospital places were increased *faster* than the rate of immigration i.e. *more* than an extra 200,000 capacity was being built each and every year for the foreseeable future.
1) That's not physically possible
2) It's not affordable
Which means the political class *ought* to be criminally liable.
1) I'm surprised this doesn't happen more. I would assume there will be the odd occasional spike in the number of pregnant women coming to the hospital and if they were to always maintain enough capacity to cover unusual spikes in demand it would be very inefficient. Assuming there were other facilities near by with capacity that the women could be transported to this seems fair enough to me - obviously not ideal for those involved but better for everyone as a whole.
2) It was built to handle 300,000 people - has it gone through any upgrades since?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27753398
OK you don't like the idea of the well-off paying, what is your solution?
There's happening and there's reporting. If you have rellies working in the London maternity hospitals you'll hear a new horror story every week.
But we would probably differ on how we pay for it. I would do it by cutting back in other areas. I would start with the 50 billion odd on HS2. I would drastically cut back on the welfare budget. I would extend means testing to everyone when it comes to benefits and dump the idea that because someone has paid in they should automatically get something back even if they don't need it. That would include pensions and all forms of benefits. But I would leave the NHS free at the point of delivery.
I am pretty sure I wouldn't get elected on these policies but since I am not seeking office I am happy to say what I would do. .
It was quite amusing to see the concerted briefing to different journalists on twitter last night from both friends of May and Gove after news broke of their allotted punishments from the PM after being caught fighting in public. It read like two school kids leaving the headmasters office after being caught fighting, and then muttering and bitching at who had been more unfairly punished! I think that Paul Goodman on Conhom has got this one right.
Please, Sir, I do, Sir. But you don't like my idea, possibly because though it is too redistrubutionist and progressive.
Still waiting for your ideas on how to stop the problem getting worse and how to fix th problem that already exists.
The most important thing to note is that this poll is 100% useless. It won't be YouGov's panel who choose. It will be Conservative MPs in the first instance, with Conservative Party members making the final choice between the two who make it to the final round.
Obviously much depends on when and under what circumstances the contest takes place, but from what I hear there is little enthusiasm amongst MPs for Theresa May, and I'm not sure there is much for Boris (who, let us remember, is not even eligible at the moment). Laying the two favourites is probably not a bad strategy, whenever the odds get short.
We need to spend money, we haven't got it therefore it must come from taxation. We can dump the increased tax on our children and grandchildren, but let's be honest, we have already gone so far down that route there isn't much more we can borrow. So increasing taxes is the only route left to us. Who should pay those taxes? Clearly the better off. The only argument is how much.
You may feel that 95% on everything over £35k is excessive, but that won't hurt the vast majority of people and will raise lots of money that we can spend on schools n' hospitals and roads etc.. Fair enough so where would you put the line? Do tell.
You're saying there's a fixed problem i.e. (800,000 people vs 300,000 capacity), when in the real world it's a problem over time i.e. (800,000 people + extra people per year) vs (300,000 capacity + extra capacity per year).
2) I've given my definition of "solution" which is reducing (or at minimum not increasing) the total units of harm per year where harm is defined as excess people to capacity.
3) If the problem is defined correctly as over time then your "solution" which i assume is build more capacity requires building *more* than 200,000 extra capacity per year every year and even if that wasn't impossible then even with 250,000 extra capacity per year the excess 50,000 would still take ten years to make up the current shortfall created by the political class' open borders policy over the last ten years.
Jon Snow @jonsnowC4 2h
He resigned over the Falklands to take the blame from Thatcher at 95 Lord Carrington on war, politics, life: http://bit.ly/1kIU6yY #c4news
MichaelWhite @MichaelWhite 38m
@jonsnowC4 Carrington still a star, isn't he? As sharp as a pin at 95 & a CV that no senior politician still alive can match (even Healey)
Education Cameron
ScoTE Howard
Defence Smith
Wales Hague
CoTE Major
Enviroment Thatcher
ScoTE Heath
Foreign Sec Home
CoTE Macmillan
Deputy PM Eden
PM Churchill
CoTE Chamberlain
5 chancellors/shadows in there.
Again you're wrongly defining it as a fixed problem when it's a problem over time.
When the problem is correctly defined as a problem over time then your solution requires building *more* extra capacity per year than extra people per year.
Which currently is impossible hence why you don't want to admit it's not a fixed problem.
Why not scrap the £4bn + subsidy that TfL get per year or Crossrail?
Or is it only spending on infrastructure that helps the north that is expendable?
If you think that HS2 is expendable I'd suggest you've missed the last 4 years during which none of those opposed to the scheme have provided a viable alternative to deal with issues such as http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/07/31-orr-refuses-virgin-bid-for.html
Politicians from all sides have realised it is not a viable suggestion that there will never, ever be any additional freight or passenger services on the WCML given the rapidly growing populations at many towns along the route and increasing need to move freight with so little road or rail capacity.
Look at all the candidates to replace either Miliband or Cameron after the next election, all strongly in favour of the scheme.
http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities
Summary: more Europe is needed and the British problem needs solving.
IIRC, in the latter stages of the Newark campaign, the Tory candidate appealed to Labour/Libdems voters to help him keep UKIP/Helmer out. Was this, in fact, some kind of Conservative test run of a future GE campaign strategy aimed at certain targeted seats? If so, then it must surely have betting implications in any seat that Farage chooses to run in, I still have my doubts that Farage will in fact stand as a candidate at the next GE.
That and this thread was written in peace gardens, and there were a number of scantily clad females distracting me.
Does the result in Newark confirm Ed Miliband as a Neil Kinnock?
Polls carried out before the by-election had the Tory vote too low and Labour's vote too high
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-the-result-in-newark-confirm-ed-miliband-as-a-neil-kinnock-9506732.html
So I concluded, being an MP enhances your chances of becoming PM.