Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The prospect of fighting a disintegrating LAB could cause
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The prospect of fighting a disintegrating LAB could cause Dave to change his mind about stepping down
Following Cameron’s comments in the BBC interview at the end of March there’s a widespread assumption that at some stage this parliament that he’ll step aside and a new CON leader will be elected presumably becoming PM before the May 2010 general election.
0
Comments
It may be an unexpected side-effect of fixed term parliaments that mid-term handovers become the norm, as two terms cover ten years rather than six to eight under the old system.
After all Cameron didn't particularly "wallop" Labour. His strategy, as posters here have made clear, was to go after his coalition partners while Nicola S did for Labour!
Cameron will step down prior to GE2020, there will be no “second thoughts” because the material reasons for doing so have not changed. A fragrant wife and a young family he wishes to spend more time with. 15 years as party leader + 10 as PM is quite enough for anyone.
Rentoul’s idle speculations, for that is what they are, really are just money for old rope articles.
BTW, there are some LOL comments on there too if you've not read it.
Always leave them wanting more.
As others have said he is well aware of the stresses of the job, and has seen with Thatcher and Blair what happens to those who hang around for too long. He is a family man at heart and would like to see his kids grow up with their father out of the public eye.
Surely the most hilarious quote from the film is Sewell saying "He just shoots from the hip" whilst he cavorts with a call-girl wearing her studded black leather jacket and pink bra.
I'm getting confused over the £200 - isn't he talking about his daily allowance, not how much the lady is charging?
If Corbyn does win the Labour leadership, which I suspect he will not, it probably does add 5% on to the potential LibDem 2020 vote total, almost entirely at the expense of Labour. It may also add 2-3% on the potential vote share of UKIP, but it probably takes away 2-3% from the Greens.
That doesn't mean that the LibDems will do well. But if the Labour Party tacks hard left, then it does open up a space on the centre left for the LibDems. Lots of people on this site asked the question: what are the LibDems for? If it's a Corbyn led Labour Party, then the answer is "vaguely left of centre, non union, slightly religious, a bit civil liberties... with a little bit of fiscal awareness".
There are a lot of Lefties who think the Tories don't care about the poor, but who would loath to vote for someone who would like to nationalise all the banks and utilities and who seems to believe in the magic money tree.
Of course, this is mana from heaven for the Tories. The 1983 and 1987 results were the consequence of a split Left. Corbyn could achieve the same result. (Albeit, with the LDs topping out at 18% rather than 26%).
He's creative like that.
His last major job is the EU re-negotiation and achieving a package that he can sell to the majority of his party and then the country. I think he will continue his policy of letting Ministers get on with their own departments (under the supervision of George of course) and increasingly focus on that.
If he succeeds then that would be a hell of a send off and he will go down as one of our more remarkable PMs. Winning another election against whatever pygmy Labour finally choose would really add nothing to that.
Cameron is a fairly level-headed normal guy. After 13-14 years as Tory leader and 8-9 as Prime Minister, why would he want to do more? Remarkably, he'll have been Tory leader for 10 years this December as it is.
I expect he'll step down to spend more time with Samantha and the kids; she's probably looking forward to it, and I expect part of him is too.
TBH, I didn't even recall how big Thatcher's maj was back then until yesterday when I watched some of the 83 Election. She ended up with 144 and 42.4%. It was notable for Labour getting thrashed, not the size of her win.
Map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/UK_General_Election,_1983.svg/300px-UK_General_Election,_1983.svg.png
Of course if Corbyn wins that situation may change...
I think....
Since he's claimed at least £404k in expenses - that's a lot of disposable income...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRieYv68Q6U
1) David Cameron may well simply have had enough. He doesn't look like the power-crazed type to me. To be honest, he might have been a better Prime Minister if had been a bit more transparently hungry for power.
2) Samantha Cameron may well simply have had enough. She's never struck me as the type of Prime Minister's wife who enjoys the experience. Anyone who is in a relationship will know that the views of other halves can be decisive on such occasions. And Samantha Cameron doesn't look like the type who it would be comfortable disagreeing with on such matters.
3) Life is likely to get considerably harder for the Prime Minister over the next year or two with the EU referendum coming up. And that's when he'll be making this decision.
He might change his mind but I'm not expecting him to.
He did make points of simple logic that would appeal to many - such as why pay subsidies to the train companies when that same money could go to a UK-owned railway. The same logic can be applied all utilities. Again, a bit like EdM, the how to was omitted.
However, he is the only candidate to present a clear way forward with simple and understandable policies and as such will be popular. If he does lose narrowly, then expect not only vigorous and continuing criticism of the new Labour leader by his supporters, but a lot of Union unrest and strikes that will affect many of us. So perhaps the best for the nation in the short term will be to let him win and then resign when he gets fed up.
I can see the attraction of Corbyn, especially to the idealistic, and I suspect that if I were fifty years younger, I might be a fan.
Welfare on tap, lifelong learning paid by the state, everyone with enough money. All paid for by taxing the rich, cutting defence, and corporation tax at eye-watering levels. Seemingly painless for most people. Nationalisation might not be too bad if the unions behaved sensibly, as they would in this land of milk and honey.
But I'm older and the doubts begin to surface. If corporation tax is painless, why do companies head for countries like Ireland where it's low? Would the mobile rich stay and pay 70 or 80% tax?
And think of the immigration that would suck in if we gave everyone who came such largesse. Would any locals work? Does it matter if they're all studying the works of Marx and Rousseau?
And that ignores the International angle of his politics. I look at Venezuela and the success of the old European countries under Soviet occupation.
But this time it will be different, because the Labour MPs would prevent him going too far, even if it blighted their career.
I mean, they always put country before party, don't they?
Perhaps after the referendum on Europe he can announce a timetable to leave in a year or something, assuming he wins, and if none of the others does well change his mind and say he's been persuaded to stay. I don't think so, but we'll see.
There is a solution. If the unions became oppressive, we might have to ban them. After all, they're not needed. And the people have spoken so why keep asking them with pointless elections?
The only problem might be the Murdoch press spreading poison - ban all but the most responsible voices.
Or am I just an old cynic?
The TimesEvil Murdoch Press payingYouGovDiscredited Pollsters, we'd never know he was doing so well. And that'd give Lefties something else to complain and march against."No just an idiot."
And you're a Jeremy fan? Perchance a young one?
Jeez, the thought makes my blood run cold.
Mt StClare might be right. As I get older, I realise I know less than I did at fifteen.
Sad really.
Cameron is also apparently launching a business advisory group to help/guide EU reform.
The only one where I think Corbyn may have a bit more of a point than Foot is nuclear deterrents. I'm in favour of Trident or whatever myself, but the argument back then was that getting rid of nukes would stop the Ruskies dropping them on us.
Given it was Cold War period - most of us thought this was an incredibly naive POV. I recall Crawley having Nuclear Free Zone welcome signs as if that'd make a difference, and the GLC/Lambeth council buildings displaying them too. Almost every student wore a Nuclear War No Thanks! and CND badge back then.
Thank you.
Sorry if my meaning was unclear. I genuinely think I might have supported Jeremy at fifteen. Sad to think that my idealism has disappeared with my brain cells.
1. South West London, assuming the Conservatives do the economically sensible thing of backing a third runway at Heathrow. Locally the LibDems are quite strong, and it's possible they'll have a very good 2018 set of local results. They'll also present themselves as the Stop Heathrow Expansion party. Winning back Kingston and Twickenham is by no means impossible, although I think they'll struggle in Sutton & Cheam. Richmond-upon-Thames, should Zac become London mayor, is also probably the best possibility for a LibDem by-election gain this cycle.
2. South West England where UKIP is likely to strengthen post the Euro referendum (at the Conservatives expense), and where Labour tactical voters can come back. There are perhaps only three or four seats here that could be won back but the Libs, but we'll get a good handle on whether they are recovering from the 2017 locals.
3. Scotland. Don't laugh. The SNP will not remain as popular as it is currently forever. And there are a couple of seats - like Jo Swinson's - where I think they stand to benefit from moderate centre left, anyone but the SNP tactical voting.
Do I think they are going back to 60 (or even 50, 40 or 30) seats in the next decade? No.
But I think with a Corbyn Labour leadership, they can aspire to get back to 20 seats. And even without, they should be able to get to 12-15.
However it would also be best for the party for him to stick to his plans. It would not do any real harm if he were due to some circumstance change his mind, I doubt he will go 'mad' with power and even more importantly there is no mad Brown-like figure that would be a disaster waiting in the wings. And there will always be maneuverings when it becomes clear a leader is going to retire or has passed their sell by date. That should not be an issue.
But overall given where we are now it would be the best thing to stick to the plan - a party needs to evolve and over the next 5 years the tories will have an orderly chance to do that. After 15 years it should be no surprise that the Tories would change their leader and as we see with Labour its important to be sensible about doing it at a time of your own choosing.
Who? Its typical of the dozy Labour Left and all the blind lefty cheerleaders that they have so totally underestimated Osborne. He should be favourite but there are others equally interesting and the next election might throw up a figure who if not this time will set a marker down for the future.
The mechanism or sensible timing is an issue and the question is, does Cameron announce his resignation at the 2019 autumn conference with an election for replacement sometime in the new year? Or over the summer with the hand over at or after the conference?
Since the election is over and won and all the 'will you serve a full term' questions are now irrelevant, then he may retire even earlier as opposed to wanting to 'hang on' as suggested.
Sadly, I don't share your optimism.
You would think that the debacle of Police Scotland, sliding standards in education, oil prices, idiot Cyber SNATs and the Orwellian nightmare of the Named Person policy, that the SNP would have slipped in the polls already.
But they seem more popular now than ever.
I fully expect an increase in the Holyrood majority.
Kendall on Corbyn: "ridiculous"
Cooper on Corbyn: "we will write off the 2020 election"
Burnham on Corbyn: "I'd serve in his Shadow Cabinet"
http://order-order.com/2015/07/27/richs-monday-morning-view-126/#_@/UTBZ5gTADRrT-g
Or as he reads posts about how he'd react to reading them ...
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-07-27/courts-face-disruption-as-barristers-strike-over-cuts/
However it would also be best for the party for him to stick to his plans. It would not do any real harm if he were due to some circumstance change his mind, I doubt he will go 'mad' with power and even more importantly there is no mad Brown-like figure that would be a disaster waiting in the wings. And there will always be maneuverings when it becomes clear a leader is going to retire or has passed their sell by date. That should not be an issue.
But overall given where we are now it would be the best thing to stick to the plan - a party needs to evolve and over the next 5 years the tories will have an orderly chance to do that. After 15 years it should be no surprise that the Tories would change their leader and as we see with Labour its important to be sensible about doing it at a time of your own choosing.
Who? Its typical of the dozy Labour Left and all the blind lefty cheerleaders that they have so totally underestimated Osborne. He should be favourite but there are others equally interesting and the next election might throw up a figure who if not this time will set a marker down for the future.
The mechanism or sensible timing is an issue and the question is, does Cameron announce his resignation at the 2019 autumn conference with an election for replacement sometime in the new year? Or over the summer with the hand over at or after the conference?
Since the election is over and won and all the 'will you serve a full term' questions are now irrelevant, then he may retire even earlier as opposed to wanting to 'hang on' as suggested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11764273/Jeremy-Corbyns-team-the-key-figures-backing-the-left-wingers-leadership-bid.html
On Cameron reading PB, really? Well it is sort of like ConservativeHome 2, in how many Tories there are so I suppose it's not that surprising. On that note, winning an election does not protect you from any criticism, so even from the Evil, ''Bitter'' Left.
On Osborne, I don't think the Left has a whole were remotely surprised to see he was angling for the leadership - that's been talked about for years, they just don't rate him as a future leader of the country.
A National Education Service, how comprehensive is that? How much selection will it have, perhaps his wife might know.
At about 6:35 he calls Lord Sewel a "Tory Peer". Plus ca change....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0649d3j/the-andrew-marr-show-26072015?t=6m35s
As for Osborne, I am constantly amazed that he gets such a good write up on here. The similarities between him and Brown seem to be brushed under the carpet. Granted that Osborne is not,yet, bonkers, but he is a most political chancellor with a penchant for trying to run the whole of government and who is without a doubt maneuvering to ensure his succession to the premiership. Personal ambition before country seems to be his motto as it was with Brown.
So he wants to take all British universities into public ownership? That sounds like a good way to kill one of our world-leading sectors with the dead hand of socialism.
A national education service was an idea that Jim Hacker wanted in a "Yes, Prime Minister" episode. Needless to say Sir Humphrey didn't agree and it never happened. Interesting to see that Corbyn has now come up with it, though I suspect for different reasons than the original.
So he wants to take all British universities into public ownership? That sounds like a good way to kill one of our world-leading sectors with the dead hand of socialism.
Looong wait until Spa. I'll probably start the mid-season review shortly and post it either this weekend or the next.
Cameron should probably go this term. That said, I'm not sure his successor will prove better.
A national education service was an idea that Jim Hacker wanted in a "Yes, Prime Minister" episode. Needless to say Sir Humphrey didn't agree and it never happened. Interesting to see that Corbyn has now come up with it, though I suspect for different reasons than the original.
They should bring back National Service to give the kids a comprehensive education to make up for their comprehensive education.
Just before my time, alas - so I know the stories, but never experienced it, like most good things in politics. That's why insolent mind seeing a good old SDP style split despite the problem of ineffective opposition. I missed out on the good bad old days.
Man, typing on an iPad with one eye closed produces strange outcomes - how did I get 'insolent' instead of 'I don't' ?
What a pity- I was rather in admiration of your prose until you owned up to a typo
There was a time when @Sean_Fear was the only Tory when Labour were riding high.
My wife works in a private school... thats a bit worrying for her too.
There was a stronger Lib Dem presence, diminished in the past by the sad death of Mr. SBS [a top chap], and the departure from the site of Mr. Submarine, who was also a sound a fellow. Obviously it's been knocked more recently by Lib Dem polling woe.
The utter absence of a Scottish Labour poster throughout is baffling, but perhaps that was indicative of the hollow shell the party had become. Miliband and the current ructions probably aren't encouraging Labour posters more generally.
UKIP has clearly seen a rise, whether that's with die hard supporters or those who flit from purple to blue.
The nature of the site is that it does change, as does the composition of those who post.
It's also worth considering that the nation as a whole may be moving in a slightly rightward direction on the economy and immigration.
Another quiet weekend in the Labour party. Karl Marx being discussed on the sunday breakfast shows must be a first!
As for Cameron, only he will know. But maybe he's had enough. Osborne has been frenetic since the election and, according to Keegan in Observer, moving into PM's territory on security and foreign stuff. Perhaps there's been a Granita moment?
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence
The only vaguely conservative thing to do is get rid. Or offer the Americans the right to keep what is essentially their nuclear weapon on our soil for a reasonable fee, not the other way around.
"They should bring back National Service to give the kids a comprehensive education to make up for their comprehensive education"
Arf. That was in Hacker's Grand Design and Sir Humphrey killed that off too.
Going back to Corbyn, when real politicians start to take up ideas from thirty year old TV programmes something is very wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AdVfv6ki54