Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
Jeremy Hunt would seem to me to be a straightforward replacement for Cameron, with Osborne remaining eminence grise in No. 11.
He's a capable salesman, posh, young-looking and something of a blank canvas - all things voters seem to like (even if they say they don't). Best price 28/1 (generally less fancied than Gove, who I think is massively overvalued).
If you're punting around for value, Ed Vaizey is as long as 100/1
Hunt is making a mess of Health, being both patronising and ineffectual. Things are already looking pretty grim:
Yet the plans are for Leicester to lose 250 acute beds in the next five years. Then there is the junior doctors strike looming. We are unlikely to have a repeat of last years mild winter too.
Why are we messing around in the Middle East anyway?
It doesn't win us any friends. It increases the number of migrants heading our way. It doesn't seem to increase the chances of genuinely friendly regimes.
Perhaps the only thing we can justify is trying to make sure the oil keeps flowing. (Somewhere our interests and Putin's diverge.)
There's the idealism thing too, which people tend to underestimate in politicians (some cynicism is sensible but it can be overdone). Western leaders have historically really wanted to help Middle Eastern countries get pleasant, democratic regimes - hence the genuine enthusiasm for the Arab Spring. Most of us got out of that habit after Iraq (not obvious that the successors were an improvement) and Libya has really reinforced the case - surely Gaddafi was better than the current situation?
So like most here I think we should let Putin get on with it and we should stop arming rival factions too. Without the slightest sympathy for either him or Assad, we do not have a viable alternative that is clearly preferable, and without that we have no business helping to kill anyone.
Incidentally, I'm surprised no enterprising journalist has unearthed former patients of Assad when he was an NHS doctor in London. What was he like then, I wonder?
I like the idea of Rory Stewart. Having a PM from the morth of England would be interesting in terms of broadening the party appeal and he would be in his 40s which is a good age.
Interesting. But he did perpetrate what are arguably two flops during the other referendum - the one we had last year. That [edit] human chain along Hadrian's Wall which had to be cancelled because he'd not discussed the details with English Heritage, I believe, plus it isn't even on the Border) ) and that cairn near Solway. Admittedly the Unionists won (just) but I don't think Mr Stewart's two schemes helped much. And if Mr Miliband's [edit] judgement can be criticised ad nauseam on PB for the Edstone of late unlamented memory, then so can Mr Stewart.
The hands across the border failed because there wasnt enough people wanting to take part. The cairn at Gretna was a success though, i cycled there with a stone from England.
I dont think its fair to criticise people for trying things, and then failing, because you end up equating success to those who do nothing.
A successful man is one who has repeatedly failed.
Jeremy Hunt would seem to me to be a straightforward replacement for Cameron, with Osborne remaining eminence grise in No. 11.
He's a capable salesman, posh, young-looking and something of a blank canvas - all things voters seem to like (even if they say they don't). Best price 28/1 (generally less fancied than Gove, who I think is massively overvalued).
If you're punting around for value, Ed Vaizey is as long as 100/1
I've heard from somebody that if Osborne didn't run, Hunt would be Dave's choice.
Dave's always liked him since Hunt was Shadow minister for the disabled, he liked his calmness under fire during the phone hacking saga and crucially he stopped Labour from weaponising the NHS at the election though that might be down to Andy Burnham being really crap.
My mother-in-law is (I think!) almost an archetypal swing voter. She supported Blair from 97 but switched to Cameron from 2010. Not being massively politically engaged, she looks for the person who seems most capable of running the country. Barring a massive and notorious failure (we'll see what happens with this junior doctor thing), I think JH would appeal to her, especially vs Corybn - and probably more so than BoJo, May, Hammond or Gove.
Mr. Palmer, Libya would have been screwed if we hadn't gotten involved, and Gadaffi's victory was far from assured, even without our involvement. Classic case of being damned either way.
Give me a Rational over an Idealist any day. Spock was far more effective than Troi. Septimius Severus knew victory, and Alexander Severus, though a good man, was unable to put his will into effect.
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
It's surely time a Scottish peer was PM again.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
TSE has made the point that the Tories have only once in their history had to elect a leader who became PM on appointment, namely John Major*. And he was Chancellor at the time.
I think looking at the track record of people chosen in opposition or near despair (like Howard) really doesn't tell us much about Cameron's successor. His successor will be PM and looking forward to an election against a muppet who the party will expect to give him an easy win. That is no scenario for a radical change of direction, quite the opposite.
So I disagree with David about looking for the outsiders. This will be an inside job from someone already in the Cabinet and fairly high profile. Like anitfrank I therefore think Osborne is good value. Things can go wrong in political careers and events may move against him but at the moment if he wants it he is on pole position with no one else in the first 3 rows of the grid.
*Though I did wonder about Eden and MacMillan and Douglas Home. I think he meant in recent times where the membership got a vote.
I was only looking at cases since the Magic Circle method ended. Although the membership gets a vote these days, that doesn't really change the election dynamics all that much. The filter still comes from the MPs.
In any case, neither Macmillan nor particularly Douglas-Home would have been favourites four years out. Macmillan was clearly behind Eden in 1953 and though he was a successful Minister of Housing and would have been a serious candidate had Eden lost in 1955/6, the probability - and the reality as it turned out - was a Con win. Eden would then have been expected to serve a full term, by which point Macmillan would have been too old. Douglas-Home's chances were far lower in 1959: a relatively junior cabinet minister and marooned in the Lords (with no disclaimer possible).
But I do think that whether as a result of a lost referendum or simply the passage of time, there will be a mood for something of a change come the leadership election. Whether that will be enough to see off Osborne - if he chooses to stand - remains to be seen but I do think that current odds overstate his chances.
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
When i was in Australia they had a system in which you got a tax on taking money out of your account, it seemed very weird.
Jeremy Hunt would seem to me to be a straightforward replacement for Cameron, with Osborne remaining eminence grise in No. 11.
He's a capable salesman, posh, young-looking and something of a blank canvas - all things voters seem to like (even if they say they don't). Best price 28/1 (generally less fancied than Gove, who I think is massively overvalued).
If you're punting around for value, Ed Vaizey is as long as 100/1
I've heard from somebody that if Osborne didn't run, Hunt would be Dave's choice.
Dave's always liked him since Hunt was Shadow minister for the disabled, he liked his calmness under fire during the phone hacking saga and crucially he stopped Labour from weaponising the NHS at the election though that might be down to Andy Burnham being really crap.
My mother-in-law is (I think!) almost an archetypal swing voter. She supported Blair from 97 but switched to Cameron from 2010. Not being massively politically engaged, she looks for the person who seems most capable of running the country. Barring a massive and notorious failure (we'll see what happens with this junior doctor thing), I think JH would appeal to her, especially vs Corybn - and probably more so than BoJo, May, Hammond or Gove.
Jeremy does somewhat remind me of the jeffrey boozer pitt character from House of Cards series.
Clearly, Patel or Greening are likeliest to succeed.
I largely agree with the outsiders premise, the only counter argument being that electing a leader in government is different to electing one in opposition.
We don't have a lot of precedent to go by though. The Conservatives have only ever actually elected one leader while in office - Major in 1989. They have only had one leadership vacancy while in office in the last fifty years as well (Labour, with its much shorter time in office, has had two).
Moreover, this will be the first time the Conservatives have held a leadership election in the immediate aftermath of a national referendum, and as DH notes, that's bound to have some bearing on the results.
Actually we have no precedent. This will be the first time ever that a new Prime Minister will have been chosen by the party members.
There's never a direct precedent. Party members will have a choice of two; the rest will be as before.
I agree that the history of choices made in opposition needs to be considered in context but I wouldn't ignore it. The elections in 1965 and 1975 were made against the backdrop of a government with a small majority which might easily call a quick election, while in 2003 and 2005, the Labour governments were either struggling in the polls or running mainly on momentum. All of them were choices made with an eye to government in the near future.
"Osborne is a big hitter - a pragmatic doer with a nose for the centre ground. I don't agree with him, but he has a clear view of the world and he delivers. No-one else comes close to him."
I think you're right. He's my favourite senior Tory by a distance. As time goes by and Cameron is increasingly exposed as a useless cloud of gas I find Osborne's clear thinking quite reassuring
If it wasn't for the very weird tastes of Tory selectors (IDS Hague Howard) I'd say Osborne was a certainty
He's impressive. And for someone like me who does not want a Tory government that's frightening. The rest are very very mediocre.
He is indeed, and a good biography will make cracking reading when the end finally comes for him.
I get the impression he is a man who revels in power - which makes me wonder if he would actually want to give up being Chancellor (and effectively DPM), where so much power lies. A bit like Peter Taylor, he needs his Brian Clough to be the figurehead and take the credit/flak, while he gets on with the job of turning Britain's economy around/a sadistic programme of austerity [delete according to political preference].
Jeremy Hunt would seem to me to be a straightforward replacement for Cameron, with Osborne remaining eminence grise in No. 11.
He's a capable salesman, posh, young-looking and something of a blank canvas - all things voters seem to like (even if they say they don't). Best price 28/1 (generally less fancied than Gove, who I think is massively overvalued).
If you're punting around for value, Ed Vaizey is as long as 100/1
I've heard from somebody that if Osborne didn't run, Hunt would be Dave's choice.
Dave's always liked him since Hunt was Shadow minister for the disabled, he liked his calmness under fire during the phone hacking saga and crucially he stopped Labour from weaponising the NHS at the election though that might be down to Andy Burnham being really crap.
My mother-in-law is (I think!) almost an archetypal swing voter. She supported Blair from 97 but switched to Cameron from 2010. Not being massively politically engaged, she looks for the person who seems most capable of running the country. Barring a massive and notorious failure (we'll see what happens with this junior doctor thing), I think JH would appeal to her, especially vs Corybn - and probably more so than BoJo, May, Hammond or Gove.
Jeremy does somewhat remind me of the jeffrey boozer pitt character from House of Cards series.
He gives me the impression of being permanently bemused.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Electoral kryptonite. It would be a serious tactical miscalculation to elect him. He's a smart-arse, a schemer and he looks weird (which we know matters). Corbyn would look enormously sympathetic next to him; a magnanimous and humane don versus Alan B'stard (I'm talking about perceptions here).
I don't really disagree with any of that.
I was just making the point that the most likely profile for someone to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is to be a Scot who denies being Scottish.
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
"Chancellor George Osborne should ..."
And maybe Chancellor George Osborne will, since actually it is quite in tune with Conservative principles -- taxing consumption rather than income, spending rather than earning. The proposal is also to abolish NICs: an income tax in all but name.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Electoral kryptonite. It would be a serious tactical miscalculation to elect him. He's a smart-arse, a schemer and he looks weird (which we know matters). Corbyn would look enormously sympathetic next to him; a magnanimous and humane don versus Alan B'stard (I'm talking about perceptions here).
I don't really disagree with any of that.
I was just making the point that the most likely profile for someone to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is to be a Scot who denies being Scottish.
What about a Scot who Scots deny is Scottish? See T. Blair.
Rather spending a decade undermining the PM, if you had worked with him then it would have been so much easier.
Cameron and Osborne are not that dissimilar from Blair and Brown, with the Chancellor effectively running all of domestic policy while the Prime Minister deals with world issues.
Clearly, Patel or Greening are likeliest to succeed.
I largely agree with the outsiders premise, the only counter argument being that electing a leader in government is different to electing one in opposition.
We don't have a lot of precedent to go by though. The Conservatives have only ever actually elected one leader while in office - Major in 1989. They have only had one leadership vacancy while in office in the last fifty years as well (Labour, with its much shorter time in office, has had two).
Moreover, this will be the first time the Conservatives have held a leadership election in the immediate aftermath of a national referendum, and as DH notes, that's bound to have some bearing on the results.
Actually we have no precedent. This will be the first time ever that a new Prime Minister will have been chosen by the party members.
There's never a direct precedent. Party members will have a choice of two; the rest will be as before.
I agree that the history of choices made in opposition needs to be considered in context but I wouldn't ignore it. The elections in 1965 and 1975 were made against the backdrop of a government with a small majority which might easily call a quick election, while in 2003 and 2005, the Labour governments were either struggling in the polls or running mainly on momentum. All of them were choices made with an eye to government in the near future.
I think a stronger case for both 2003 and 2005 was for the Conservatives' survival as a credible player, rather than as a springboard to government in the near term.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
It's surely time a Scottish peer was PM again.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
Lord Falconer Lord Forsyth Lord Strathclyde Lord Steel
Why are we messing around in the Middle East anyway?
It doesn't win us any friends. It increases the number of migrants heading our way. It doesn't seem to increase the chances of genuinely friendly regimes.
Perhaps the only thing we can justify is trying to make sure the oil keeps flowing. (Somewhere our interests and Putin's diverge.)
Because we were an Imperial power. We like to get involved it's in our DNA.
I think it is a combination of both (Oil and Imperialism).
Up until the end of WW2 we stuck our noses into the affairs of these countries because of our Imperialist past and because of securing trade links and routes to our Imperial holdings. Unfortunately for the Middle East, just as the sun was setting on much of our Empire, oil assumed is preeminent place in Western economic well being. So from that point on the Middle East stopped being an Imperial stop over on the way to the riches of the East and assumed an importance of its own providing the fuel to run the post war world. even if that is now fading, we are still not yet at the point where we feel we can let go of the Middle East.
In addition we have these ridiculous neo-liberal/neo-con mashup concepts of righteous intervention as exemplified by the Blairite foreign policy that Cameron seems to have inherited. This has superseded the far more sensible policy of benighted (or rarely enlightened) self interest and means we are trying to run a moral foreign policy when neither side in these conflicts is interested in morals - at least not our morals - and when there is no moral action we can take that will make a blind bit of difference.
We either need to go back to acting solely in terms of our own national interests - as Russia does - or stay the hell out and try and limit the fallout and its impact on us.
Good morning all. I commend Sir Humphrey's 'masterly inactivity' to those running the UK's foreign affairs.
Anyone else find Corbyn's decision to lead the protest rallies at the Conservative conference, just a bit weird?? We are likely to see some unrest, from what ive garnered from people going to the rally, they are going to cause disruption, i've even seen some claims of violence. The police are of that mind as well and seem to think that is acceptable to tell attendees not to 'ask for it' by wearing a security ID.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Electoral kryptonite. It would be a serious tactical miscalculation to elect him. He's a smart-arse, a schemer and he looks weird (which we know matters).
Not sure if Osborne entirely escapes any of those definitions. After the Crosbycon whipping up of the 'cake having & eating Jocks wanting more of your hard earned taxes' meme, Gove's more pressing problem is that he's identifiably Scottish.
Anyone else find Corbyn's decision to lead the protest rallies at the Conservative conference, just a bit weird?? We are likely to see some unrest, from what ive garnered from people going to the rally, they are going to cause disruption, i've even seen some claims of violence. The police are of that mind as well and seem to think that is acceptable to tell attendees not to 'ask for it' by wearing a security ID.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
I think the Tories should turn out mob-handed and have a proper ruck. The Lefties wouldn't know what hit 'em.
Anyone else find Corbyn's decision to lead the protest rallies at the Conservative conference, just a bit weird?? We are likely to see some unrest, from what ive garnered from people going to the rally, they are going to cause disruption, i've even seen some claims of violence. The police are of that mind as well and seem to think that is acceptable to tell attendees not to 'ask for it' by wearing a security ID.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
I think the Tories should turn out mob-handed and have a proper ruck. The Lefties wouldn't know what hit 'em.
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
Jeremy Hunt would seem to me to be a straightforward replacement for Cameron, with Osborne remaining eminence grise in No. 11.
He's a capable salesman, posh, young-looking and something of a blank canvas - all things voters seem to like (even if they say they don't). Best price 28/1 (generally less fancied than Gove, who I think is massively overvalued).
If you're punting around for value, Ed Vaizey is as long as 100/1
Osborne aside, they're all pretty blank canvasses - even Boris. Gove and IDS have both made a mark over the last five years, but neither are serious leadership contenders.
Dan Jarvis gets stick on here for not offering much beyond a back story, but it's hard to see how he differs that much from any of the names Mr Herdson talks about. Cameron and Osborne stand head and shoulders above the rest. Just as Blair and Brown did.
That's true, although the difference is that several of the names I'm mentioning are 100/1 or thereabouts whereas Jarvis is 8/1JF.
Giles Coren has quite an amusing/perceptive article in the Times about why Tories aren't too worried about placard wavers - its a substitute for actually being grown-up and trying to come up with alternatives.
Anyone else find Corbyn's decision to lead the protest rallies at the Conservative conference, just a bit weird?? We are likely to see some unrest, from what ive garnered from people going to the rally, they are going to cause disruption, i've even seen some claims of violence. The police are of that mind as well and seem to think that is acceptable to tell attendees not to 'ask for it' by wearing a security ID.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
"Chancellor George Osborne should ..."
And maybe Chancellor George Osborne will, since actually it is quite in tune with Conservative principles -- taxing consumption rather than income, spending rather than earning. The proposal is also to abolish NICs: an income tax in all but name.
Maybe if this happened people would ask for wages to be paid in cash - I can't imagine anything that could do more to boost the 'black economy' and deprive the Government of revenue.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Electoral kryptonite. It would be a serious tactical miscalculation to elect him. He's a smart-arse, a schemer and he looks weird (which we know matters). Corbyn would look enormously sympathetic next to him; a magnanimous and humane don versus Alan B'stard (I'm talking about perceptions here).
I don't really disagree with any of that.
I was just making the point that the most likely profile for someone to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is to be a Scot who denies being Scottish.
What about a Scot who Scots deny is Scottish? See T. Blair.
Well Blair himself was probably the most emphatic denier of his heritage. His opponents, including those in Scotland, didn't deny it, they used it as a way to goad him by continually pointing it out while he wanted it buried.
TSE has made the point that the Tories have only once in their history had to elect a leader who became PM on appointment, namely John Major*. And he was Chancellor at the time.
I think looking at the track record of people chosen in opposition or near despair (like Howard) really doesn't tell us much about Cameron's successor. His successor will be PM and looking forward to an election against a muppet who the party will expect to give him an easy win. That is no scenario for a radical change of direction, quite the opposite.
So I disagree with David about looking for the outsiders. This will be an inside job from someone already in the Cabinet and fairly high profile. Like anitfrank I therefore think Osborne is good value. Things can go wrong in political careers and events may move against him but at the moment if he wants it he is on pole position with no one else in the first 3 rows of the grid.
*Though I did wonder about Eden and MacMillan and Douglas Home. I think he meant in recent times where the membership got a vote.
I was only looking at cases since the Magic Circle method ended. Although the membership gets a vote these days, that doesn't really change the election dynamics all that much. The filter still comes from the MPs.
In any case, neither Macmillan nor particularly Douglas-Home would have been favourites four years out. Macmillan was clearly behind Eden in 1953 and though he was a successful Minister of Housing and would have been a serious candidate had Eden lost in 1955/6, the probability - and the reality as it turned out - was a Con win. Eden would then have been expected to serve a full term, by which point Macmillan would have been too old. Douglas-Home's chances were far lower in 1959: a relatively junior cabinet minister and marooned in the Lords (with no disclaimer possible).
But I do think that whether as a result of a lost referendum or simply the passage of time, there will be a mood for something of a change come the leadership election. Whether that will be enough to see off Osborne - if he chooses to stand - remains to be seen but I do think that current odds overstate his chances.
[Minister] is making a mess of [department], being both patronising and ineffectual.
That's what they do, no?
Fair point!
The next year or two will be fairly punishing for the NHS. The total deficit nationally is looking to be £2 billion this year, so not easily ignored.
We saw the problems in Cambridge a month ago, but there are some others set to fall too. In Leicester we have a good SMT, but I am not convinced that anyone can cut 250 beds in 5 years without having a major adverse impact on services.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Electoral kryptonite. It would be a serious tactical miscalculation to elect him. He's a smart-arse, a schemer and he looks weird (which we know matters). Corbyn would look enormously sympathetic next to him; a magnanimous and humane don versus Alan B'stard (I'm talking about perceptions here).
I don't really disagree with any of that.
I was just making the point that the most likely profile for someone to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is to be a Scot who denies being Scottish.
What about a Scot who Scots deny is Scottish? See T. Blair.
Blair was born in Scotland and went to secondary school there but spent his early years in the Northeast and Australia and was also a Northeast MP
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
There's going to be a feck of a lot of money under mattresses in Corbyn's New Socialist Utopia....
Jeremy Hunt would seem to me to be a straightforward replacement for Cameron, with Osborne remaining eminence grise in No. 11.
He's a capable salesman, posh, young-looking and something of a blank canvas - all things voters seem to like (even if they say they don't). Best price 28/1 (generally less fancied than Gove, who I think is massively overvalued).
If you're punting around for value, Ed Vaizey is as long as 100/1
Osborne aside, they're all pretty blank canvasses - even Boris. Gove and IDS have both made a mark over the last five years, but neither are serious leadership contenders.
Dan Jarvis gets stick on here for not offering much beyond a back story, but it's hard to see how he differs that much from any of the names Mr Herdson talks about. Cameron and Osborne stand head and shoulders above the rest. Just as Blair and Brown did.
That's true, although the difference is that several of the names I'm mentioning are 100/1 or thereabouts whereas Jarvis is 8/1JF.
Pretty similar odds to Javid and May. Boris is 9/2. We lnow as much about their political beliefs as we do about Jarvis's.
Are there any odds for Robert Halfon? Robert who, you may ask. If not, then there should be. Now a Conservative Deputy Chairman who attends Cabinet, champion of Blue Collar Toryism, tireless campaigner who has turned Harlow into a safe Tory seat....and very close to George Osborne, who if he didn't stand, may transfer his favour from Jarvid who is under-performing.
I'm all green on this market but my two big winners at present are George Osborne and Robert Halfon. If the latter gets it I shall be asking Charles for wine recommendations.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
It's surely time a Scottish peer was PM again.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
Lord Falconer Lord Forsyth Lord Strathclyde Lord Steel
A life peer as PM. I think not.
I was musing idly, as one does, on the merits of our fine Scottish hereditary peers.
A couple of months ago some PBers jumped down my throat when I suggested that we were are losng GPs because some of the highly paid ones were retirnigintheir 1950s due to maxed out pension allowances making them pay full tax on further pension contributions.
I had heard interviews with several GPs who had done just that.
Today:
"A total of 5,117 have left since 2012-13 and their average retirement age is now just 59, and falling.
Accountants say there has been an ‘acceleration’ in the numbers retiring in their mid-fifties in the past 12 months and the issue is a ‘ticking time bomb’ for GP provision.
Anyone else find Corbyn's decision to lead the protest rallies at the Conservative conference, just a bit weird?? We are likely to see some unrest, from what ive garnered from people going to the rally, they are going to cause disruption, i've even seen some claims of violence. The police are of that mind as well and seem to think that is acceptable to tell attendees not to 'ask for it' by wearing a security ID.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
I think the Tories should turn out mob-handed and have a proper ruck. The Lefties wouldn't know what hit 'em.
Surely the police should use it as an opportunity to lock up some thugs.
TSE has made the point that the Tories have only once in their history had to elect a leader who became PM on appointment, namely John Major*. And he was Chancellor at the time.
I think looking at the track record of people chosen in opposition or near despair (like Howard) really doesn't tell us much about Cameron's successor. His successor will be PM and looking forward to an election against a muppet who the party will expect to give him an easy win. That is no scenario for a radical change of direction, quite the opposite.
So I disagree with David about looking for the outsiders. This will be an inside job from someone already in the Cabinet and fairly high profile. Like anitfrank I therefore think Osborne is good value. Things can go wrong in political careers and events may move against him but at the moment if he wants it he is on pole position with no one else in the first 3 rows of the grid.
*Though I did wonder about Eden and MacMillan and Douglas Home. I think he meant in recent times where the membership got a vote.
I was only looking at cases since the Magic Circle method ended. Although the membership gets a vote these days, that doesn't really change the election dynamics all that much. The filter still comes from the MPs.
In any case, neither Macmillan nor particularly Douglas-Home would have been favourites four years out. Macmillan was clearly behind Eden in 1953 and though he was a successful Minister of Housing and would have been a serious candidate had Eden lost in 1955/6, the probability - and the reality as it turned out - was a Con win. Eden would then have been expected to serve a full term, by which point Macmillan would have been too old. Douglas-Home's chances were far lower in 1959: a relatively junior cabinet minister and marooned in the Lords (with no disclaimer possible).
But I do think that whether as a result of a lost referendum or simply the passage of time, there will be a mood for something of a change come the leadership election. Whether that will be enough to see off Osborne - if he chooses to stand - remains to be seen but I do think that current odds overstate his chances.
Home was Foreign Secretary by 1960
Yes, but four years before he became PM he wasn't. And even if he had been FS, he'd still have been a massive outsider because he was stuck in the Lords. It was only the happenstance of Macmillan standing down within 12 months of Benn's Peerage Act becoming law that enabled him to be a contender. As that Act, never mind the timing of it, was not a consideration 3-4 years earlier, most people wouldn't have given him a chance.
A couple of months ago some PBers jumped down my throat when I suggested that we were are losng GPs because some of the highly paid ones were retirnigintheir 1950s due to maxed out pension allowances making them pay full tax on further pension contributions.
I had heard interviews with several GPs who had done just that.
Today:
"A total of 5,117 have left since 2012-13 and their average retirement age is now just 59, and falling.
Accountants say there has been an ‘acceleration’ in the numbers retiring in their mid-fifties in the past 12 months and the issue is a ‘ticking time bomb’ for GP provision.
Mr. Palmer, Libya would have been screwed if we hadn't gotten involved, and Gadaffi's victory was far from assured, even without our involvement. Classic case of being damned either way.
Give me a Rational over an Idealist any day. Spock was far more effective than Troi. Septimius Severus knew victory, and Alexander Severus, though a good man, was unable to put his will into effect.
Giles Coren has quite an amusing/perceptive article in the Times about why Tories aren't too worried about placard wavers - its a substitute for actually being grown-up and trying to come up with alternatives.
Anyone else find Corbyn's decision to lead the protest rallies at the Conservative conference, just a bit weird?? We are likely to see some unrest, from what ive garnered from people going to the rally, they are going to cause disruption, i've even seen some claims of violence. The police are of that mind as well and seem to think that is acceptable to tell attendees not to 'ask for it' by wearing a security ID.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
A great article... I've noticed a much greater zeal now, its as if any kind of restraining influences on the Labour party have been removed. You have softer left as well as the usual suspects going down and planning on getting tooled up. It's very strange. There are so many hotheads out there. People who seem to genuinely believe that IDS is an actual murderer, a genocidal evil man, and they give the impression that they are angry enough to actually end his life.
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
"Chancellor George Osborne should ..."
And maybe Chancellor George Osborne will, since actually it is quite in tune with Conservative principles -- taxing consumption rather than income, spending rather than earning. The proposal is also to abolish NICs: an income tax in all but name.
It is a transaction tax on all the flows in and out of your bank accounts, not a consumption tax.
I think we passed Peak Murphaloon some time ago. I don't think even his budgie takes him seriously.
A couple of months ago some PBers jumped down my throat when I suggested that we were are losng GPs because some of the highly paid ones were retirnigintheir 1950s due to maxed out pension allowances making them pay full tax on further pension contributions.
I had heard interviews with several GPs who had done just that.
Today:
"A total of 5,117 have left since 2012-13 and their average retirement age is now just 59, and falling.
Accountants say there has been an ‘acceleration’ in the numbers retiring in their mid-fifties in the past 12 months and the issue is a ‘ticking time bomb’ for GP provision.
It is all part of the growing recruitment/retention crisis in British Medicine. How does Hunt address this? By a 20% pay cut for junior doctors - and more than that for those working in emergency services and out of hours.
On topic, I'm not at all sure what to do with this market.
I am just on Mr Hammond, Mr Hunt and Mr Stewart at 70, 66, and 1000 respectively for the total price of a couple of bottles of "not Charles" wine in total.
Mr. Palmer, Libya would have been screwed if we hadn't gotten involved, and Gadaffi's victory was far from assured, even without our involvement. Classic case of being damned either way.
Give me a Rational over an Idealist any day. Spock was far more effective than Troi. Septimius Severus knew victory, and Alexander Severus, though a good man, was unable to put his will into effect.
And Libya isn’t screwed now?
I think that was rather inevitable. Hell, Gaddafi couldn't even get Russia or China to object to a resolution against him which they must have known would be used for regime change, so his days were probably numbered even if at the time of that resolution his forces were advancing.
King Cole, that's my point. Picking a future for Libya was a choice between screwed up, or screwed up. And either way, the West gets the blame.
Why did you destabilise Libya?!
Why didn't you stop Gadaffi massacring innocent people?!
If Gadaffi could have held on, without mass murder, that would have been the best option. But, he couldn't. Most likely, we'd have witnessed mass murder, and Gadaffi controlling a part of Libya, while battling it out with rival factions.
Giles Coren has quite an amusing/perceptive article in the Times about why Tories aren't too worried about placard wavers - its a substitute for actually being grown-up and trying to come up with alternatives.
Anyone else find Corbyn's decision to lead the protest rallies at the Conservative conference, just a bit weird?? We are likely to see some unrest, from what ive garnered from people going to the rally, they are going to cause disruption, i've even seen some claims of violence. The police are of that mind as well and seem to think that is acceptable to tell attendees not to 'ask for it' by wearing a security ID.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
A great article... I've noticed a much greater zeal now, its as if any kind of restraining influences on the Labour party have been removed. You have softer left as well as the usual suspects going down and planning on getting tooled up. It's very strange. There are so many hotheads out there. People who seem to genuinely believe that IDS is an actual murderer, a genocidal evil man, and they give the impression that they are angry enough to actually end his life.
The level of bile is quite extraordinary.
Indeed. Frankly, it seems exhausting to get so worked up and believe such extrem things - The world must be a a scary place for such people, with millions of people who refuse to see reason, as they see it.
This pretty much demonstrates how appalling Cameron has been as PM.
It clearly shows that the entire GDP growth in the economy is due to the asset bubble from QE and nothing else.
The alternative was 5 million unemployed, ongoing civil unrest, and then enforced austerity (the proper version) by the IMF. QE clearly the most appalling option there...
The only person pleased with that outcome would be Danny Blanchflower, who would enjoy the unusual feeling of actually being right about something.
A couple of months ago some PBers jumped down my throat when I suggested that we were are losng GPs because some of the highly paid ones were retirnigintheir 1950s due to maxed out pension allowances making them pay full tax on further pension contributions.
I had heard interviews with several GPs who had done just that.
Today:
"A total of 5,117 have left since 2012-13 and their average retirement age is now just 59, and falling.
Accountants say there has been an ‘acceleration’ in the numbers retiring in their mid-fifties in the past 12 months and the issue is a ‘ticking time bomb’ for GP provision.
It is all part of the growing recruitment/retention crisis in British Medicine. How does Hunt address this? By a 20% pay cut for junior doctors - and more than that for those working in emergency services and out of hours.
Personally I'd be more tempted by a 20% pay cut for *senior* GPs, and the all money plus some more used to recruit extra. I'd aim for a salary more in keeping with Western European norms. I haven't redone the analysis for a couple of years, but I think the principle holds.
I can also see a justification for a surcharge on pensions of those who benefited from the Patricia Hewitt disaster by locking in inflated pensions for the next 3 or 4 decades.
The BMA would squeal like a pig struck in a poke, but they are the BMA and squealing like a pig stuck in a poke is their normal mode of existence.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
It's surely time a Scottish peer was PM again.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
Lord Falconer Lord Forsyth Lord Strathclyde Lord Steel
A life peer as PM. I think not.
I was musing idly, as one does, on the merits of our fine Scottish hereditary peers.
There are hardly any hereditary peers left in the Lords though Strathclyde is I believe
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
It's surely time a Scottish peer was PM again.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
Lord Falconer Lord Forsyth Lord Strathclyde Lord Steel
A life peer as PM. I think not.
I was musing idly, as one does, on the merits of our fine Scottish hereditary peers.
There are hardly any hereditary peers left in the Lords though Strathclyde is I believe
Is that the gloriously named Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de bliquey Galbraith? A PM worthy name if ever I saw one.
TSE has made the point that the Tories have only once in their history had to elect a leader who became PM on appointment, namely John Major*. And he was Chancellor at the time.
I think
So I disagree with David about looking for the outsiders. This will be an inside job from someone already in the Cabinet and fairly high profile. Like anitfrank I therefore think Osborne is good value. Things can go wrong in political careers and events may move against him but at the moment if he wants it he is on pole position with no one else in the first 3 rows of the grid.
*Though I did wonder about Eden and MacMillan and Douglas Home. I think he meant in recent times where the membership got a vote.
I was only looking at cases since the Magic Circle method ended. Although the membership gets a vote these days, that doesn't really change the election dynamics all that much. The filter still comes from the MPs.
In any case, neither Macmillan nor particularly Douglas-Home would have been favourites four years out. Macmillan was clearly behind Eden in 1953 and though he was a successful Minister of Housing and would have been a serious candidate had Eden lost in 1955/6, the probability - and the reality as it turned out - was a Con win. Eden would then have been expected to serve a full term, by which point Macmillan would have been too old. Douglas-Home's chances were far lower in 1959: a relatively junior cabinet minister and marooned in the Lords (with no disclaimer possible).
But I do think that whether as a result of a lost referendum or simply the passage of time, there will be a mood for something of a change come the leadership election. Whether that will be enough to see off Osborne - if he chooses to stand - remains to be seen but I do think that current odds overstate his chances.
Home was Foreign Secretary by 1960
Yes, but four years before he became PM he wasn't. And even if he had been FS, he'd still have been a massive outsider because he was stuck in the Lords. It was only the happenstance of Macmillan standing down within 12 months of Benn's Peerage Act becoming law that enabled him to be a contender. As that Act, never mind the timing of it, was not a consideration 3-4 years earlier, most people wouldn't have given him a chance.
Yes but the peerage issue is irrelevant now to contenders but what it does show is it was being Foreign Secretary which made Home a contender confirming the next leader will likely be Chancellor or Foreign Secretary
A couple of months ago some PBers jumped down my throat when I suggested that we were are losng GPs because some of the highly paid ones were retirnigintheir 1950s due to maxed out pension allowances making them pay full tax on further pension contributions.
I had heard interviews with several GPs who had done just that.
Today:
"A total of 5,117 have left since 2012-13 and their average retirement age is now just 59, and falling.
Accountants say there has been an ‘acceleration’ in the numbers retiring in their mid-fifties in the past 12 months and the issue is a ‘ticking time bomb’ for GP provision.
It is all part of the growing recruitment/retention crisis in British Medicine. How does Hunt address this? By a 20% pay cut for junior doctors - and more than that for those working in emergency services and out of hours.
Personally I'd be more tempted by a 20% pay cut for *senior* GPs, and the all money plus some more used to recruit extra. I'd aim for a salary more in keeping with Western European norms. I haven't redone the analysis for a couple of years, but I think the principle holds.
I can also see a justification for a surcharge on pensions of those who benefited from the Patricia Hewitt disaster by locking in inflated pensions for the next 3 or 4 decades.
The BMA would squeal like a pig struck in a poke, but they are the BMA and squealing like a pig stuck in a poke is their normal mode of existence.
Hewitt and Lansley have contributed considerably to the problems of the NHS.
We now have GP’s, as Chairs of CCG’s, standing up and saying they’re going to cut services.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
It's surely time a Scottish peer was PM again.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
Lord Falconer Lord Forsyth Lord Strathclyde Lord Steel
A life peer as PM. I think not.
I was musing idly, as one does, on the merits of our fine Scottish hereditary peers.
There are hardly any hereditary peers left in the Lords though Strathclyde is I believe
Excellent Scottish hereditary peers have of course sat in the Commons ....
Although Viscount Thurso is a UK peer who is Scottish rather than a holder of a Scottish peerage.
TSE has made the point that the Tories have only once in their history had to elect a leader who became PM on appointment, namely John Major*. And he was Chancellor at the time.
I think
So I disagree with David about looking for the outsiders. This will be an inside job from someone already in the Cabinet and fairly high profile. Like anitfrank I therefore think Osborne is good value. Things can go wrong in political careers and events may move against him but at the moment if he wants it he is on pole position with no one else in the first 3 rows of the grid.
*Though I did wonder about Eden and MacMillan and Douglas Home. I think he meant in recent times where the membership got a vote.
I was only looking at cases since the Magic Circle method ended. Although the membership gets a vote these days, that doesn't really change the election dynamics all that much. The filter still comes from the MPs.
In any case, neither Macmillan nor particularly Douglas-Home would have been favourites four years out. Macmillan was clearly behind Eden in 1953 and though he was a successful Minister of Housing and would have been a serious candidate had Eden lost in 1955/6, the probability - and the reality as it turned out - was a Con win. Eden would then have been expected to serve a full term, by which point Macmillan would have been too old. Douglas-Home's chances were far lower in 1959: a relatively junior cabinet minister and marooned in the Lords (with no disclaimer possible).
But I do think that whether as a result of a lost referendum or simply the passage of time, there will be a mood for something of a change come the leadership election. Whether that will be enough to see off Osborne - if he chooses to stand - remains to be seen but I do think that current odds overstate his chances.
Home was Foreign Secretary by 1960
Yes, but four years before he became PM he wasn't. And even if he had been FS, he'd still have been a massive outsider because he was stuck in the Lords. It was only the happenstance of Macmillan standing down within 12 months of Benn's Peerage Act becoming law that enabled him to be a contender. As that Act, never mind the timing of it, was not a consideration 3-4 years earlier, most people wouldn't have given him a chance.
Yes but the peerage issue is irrelevant now to contenders but what it does show is it was being Foreign Secretary which made Home a contender confirming the next leader will likely be Chancellor or Foreign Secretary
There is plenty of time yet for Osborne to become FS, indeed to swap jobs with Hammond, or for Javed to become CoE.
This pretty much demonstrates how appalling Cameron has been as PM.
It clearly shows that the entire GDP growth in the economy is due to the asset bubble from QE and nothing else.
The alternative was 5 million unemployed, ongoing civil unrest, and then enforced austerity (the proper version) by the IMF. QE clearly the most appalling option there...
The only person pleased with that outcome would be Danny Blanchflower, who would enjoy the unusual feeling of actually being right about something.
The problem now is what is left in the locker if there is another big recession. Minus interest rates?
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Electoral kryptonite. It would be a serious tactical miscalculation to elect him. He's a smart-arse, a schemer and he looks weird (which we know matters).
Not sure if Osborne entirely escapes any of those definitions. After the Crosbycon whipping up of the 'cake having & eating Jocks wanting more of your hard earned taxes' meme, Gove's more pressing problem is that he's identifiably Scottish.
He's more sinister than weird. I think sinister is more electable than weird.
Now Jeremy Corbyn economic adviser wants to raise £100billion by taxing the spending from your bank account
Exclusive Richard Murphy, who is credited as the creator of 'Corbynomics', said the Chancellor George Osborne should start to tax people’s money as they spend it from their bank accounts
"Chancellor George Osborne should ..."
And maybe Chancellor George Osborne will, since actually it is quite in tune with Conservative principles -- taxing consumption rather than income, spending rather than earning. The proposal is also to abolish NICs: an income tax in all but name.
It is a transaction tax on all the flows in and out of your bank accounts, not a consumption tax.
I think we passed Peak Murphaloon some time ago. I don't think even his budgie takes him seriously.
TSE has made the point that the Tories have only once in their history had to elect a leader who became PM on appointment, namely John Major*. And he was Chancellor at the time.
I think
So I disagree with David about looking for the outsiders. This will be an inside job from someone already in the Cabinet and fairly high profile. Like anitfrank I therefore think Osborne is good value. Things can go wrong in political careers and events may move against him but at the moment if he wants it he is on pole position with no one else in the first 3 rows of the grid.
*Though I did wonder about Eden and MacMillan and Douglas Home. I think he meant in recent times where the membership got a vote.
I was only looking at cases since the Magic Circle method ended. Although the membership gets a vote these days, that doesn't really change the election dynamics all that much. The filter still comes from the MPs.
In any case, neither Macmillan nor particularly Douglas-Home would have been favourites four years out. Macmillan was clearly behind Eden in 1953 and though he was a successful Minister of Housing and would have been a serious candidate had Eden lost in 1955/6, the probability - and the reality as it turned out - was a Con win. Eden would then have been expected to serve a full term, by which point Macmillan would have been too old. Douglas-Home's chances were far lower in 1959: a relatively junior cabinet minister and marooned in the Lords (with no disclaimer possible).
.
Home was Foreign Secretary by 1960
Yes, but four years before he became PM he wasn't. And even if he had been FS, he'd still have been a massive outsider because he was stuck in the Lords. It was only the happenstance of Macmillan standing down within 12 months of Benn's Peerage Act becoming law that enabled him to be a contender. As that Act, never mind the timing of it, was not a consideration 3-4 years earlier, most people wouldn't have given him a chance.
Yes but the peerage issue is irrelevant now to contenders but what it does show is it was being Foreign Secretary which made Home a contender confirming the next leader will likely be Chancellor or Foreign Secretary
There is plenty of time yet for Osborne to become FS, indeed to swap jobs with Hammond, or for Javed to become CoE.
Agree on Osborne and Hammond, Javid is more likely to be Osborne's Chancellor in my view than actually run for the leadership
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Scots running the UK again on the one hand then complaining of Westminster oppression on the other. Wales has not had a PM since Lloyd George, with only Callaghan representing a Welsh seat, the last PM from the West Midlands was Eden and the Southwest and Cornwall have never had a PM only a few LD leaders
It's surely time a Scottish peer was PM again.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
Lord Falconer Lord Forsyth Lord Strathclyde Lord Steel
A life peer as PM. I think not.
I was musing idly, as one does, on the merits of our fine Scottish hereditary peers.
There are hardly any hereditary peers left in the Lords though Strathclyde is I believe
Excellent Scottish hereditary peers have of course sat in the Commons ....
Although Viscount Thurso is a UK peer who is Scottish rather than a holder of a Scottish peerage.
This pretty much demonstrates how appalling Cameron has been as PM.
It clearly shows that the entire GDP growth in the economy is due to the asset bubble from QE and nothing else.
The alternative was 5 million unemployed, ongoing civil unrest, and then enforced austerity (the proper version) by the IMF. QE clearly the most appalling option there...
The only person pleased with that outcome would be Danny Blanchflower, who would enjoy the unusual feeling of actually being right about something.
I'm not disputing the need for a mechanism like QE, although a Tax Refund putting the money in individuals hands would have been much better.
What I am pointing out is that Cameron has done nothing to benefit the real economy, although this is unsurprising when you consider how much demand has been sucked out of the economy through public spending cuts.
I have a lot of time for Douglas Hurd, he came to speak for me at Warwick University when many others made excuses and was very pleasant. The reviewer in question is Terry Eagleton, a Marxist literary theorist I also had to try to read when studying the usual 'postmodernism' that has to be incorporated in most humanities degrees nowadays. The review says more about his republicanism than it does about the book
Timpson's in quite involved in training prisoners for work outside - it's possibly one place where having a criminal record could help you get a skilled job.
Going by history, Michael Gove surely needs to be considered.
Five of the last ten PMs have been Scottish and four of those five did like to pretend they were not. Gove is a pretty good fit for the profile.
Electoral kryptonite. It would be a serious tactical miscalculation to elect him. He's a smart-arse, a schemer and he looks weird (which we know matters). Corbyn would look enormously sympathetic next to him; a magnanimous and humane don versus Alan B'stard (I'm talking about perceptions here).
I don't really disagree with any of that.
I was just making the point that the most likely profile for someone to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is to be a Scot who denies being Scottish.
What about a Scot who Scots deny is Scottish? See T. Blair.
Blair was born in Scotland and went to secondary school there but spent his early years in the Northeast and Australia and was also a Northeast MP
Sean Connery had a milk round in Glasgow but now lives in Switzerland. Blair went to the poshest private school in the country, allegedly posher than Eton, it just happens to be in Scotland. His secondary education was in fact at a nice private school in Durham, which is a posh way of saying 'north east' I suppose.
Timpsons.... I bring shoes over from Italy to have them repaired at Timpsons.. good job and a reasonable price. SO .. I would go and have a curry too.. keep a side dish of Vindaloo handy
Taking a trend line across a period with a bubble and without a recession with a major pre-recession deficit is just dodgy statistics. Only a delusional Brownite who thought boom and bust was eliminated and thought that deficit spending could be done indefinitely would believe that nonsense.
Over the long-term there is an economic cycle of peaks and troughs, if you want to show a long-term trend line then look at the long-term. Look at post-war years don't just cherrypick Brown's artificial and unsustainable inflated peak before the recession.
Taking a trend line across a period with a bubble and without a recession with a major pre-recession deficit is just dodgy statistics. Only a delusional Brownite who thought boom and bust was eliminated and thought that deficit spending could be done indefinitely would believe that nonsense.
Over the long-term there is an economic cycle of peaks and troughs, if you want to show a long-term trend line then look at the long-term. Look at post-war years don't just cherrypick Brown's artificial and unsustainable inflated peak before the recession.
Comments
http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Emas-calls-crisis-meeting-ambulance-delays/story-27890632-detail/story.html
Yet the plans are for Leicester to lose 250 acute beds in the next five years. Then there is the junior doctors strike looming. We are unlikely to have a repeat of last years mild winter too.
So like most here I think we should let Putin get on with it and we should stop arming rival factions too. Without the slightest sympathy for either him or Assad, we do not have a viable alternative that is clearly preferable, and without that we have no business helping to kill anyone.
Incidentally, I'm surprised no enterprising journalist has unearthed former patients of Assad when he was an NHS doctor in London. What was he like then, I wonder?
I dont think its fair to criticise people for trying things, and then failing, because you end up equating success to those who do nothing.
A successful man is one who has repeatedly failed.
Give me a Rational over an Idealist any day. Spock was far more effective than Troi. Septimius Severus knew victory, and Alexander Severus, though a good man, was unable to put his will into effect.
I appreciate that for some PBers the Earl of Home was PM in the far distant past but for the more seasoned PBers it only seems like yesterday.
In any case, neither Macmillan nor particularly Douglas-Home would have been favourites four years out. Macmillan was clearly behind Eden in 1953 and though he was a successful Minister of Housing and would have been a serious candidate had Eden lost in 1955/6, the probability - and the reality as it turned out - was a Con win. Eden would then have been expected to serve a full term, by which point Macmillan would have been too old. Douglas-Home's chances were far lower in 1959: a relatively junior cabinet minister and marooned in the Lords (with no disclaimer possible).
But I do think that whether as a result of a lost referendum or simply the passage of time, there will be a mood for something of a change come the leadership election. Whether that will be enough to see off Osborne - if he chooses to stand - remains to be seen but I do think that current odds overstate his chances.
I agree that the history of choices made in opposition needs to be considered in context but I wouldn't ignore it. The elections in 1965 and 1975 were made against the backdrop of a government with a small majority which might easily call a quick election, while in 2003 and 2005, the Labour governments were either struggling in the polls or running mainly on momentum. All of them were choices made with an eye to government in the near future.
I get the impression he is a man who revels in power - which makes me wonder if he would actually want to give up being Chancellor (and effectively DPM), where so much power lies. A bit like Peter Taylor, he needs his Brian Clough to be the figurehead and take the credit/flak, while he gets on with the job of turning Britain's economy around/a sadistic programme of austerity [delete according to political preference].
Rather spending a decade undermining the PM, if you had worked with him then it would have been so much easier.
I was just making the point that the most likely profile for someone to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is to be a Scot who denies being Scottish.
And maybe Chancellor George Osborne will, since actually it is quite in tune with Conservative principles -- taxing consumption rather than income, spending rather than earning. The proposal is also to abolish NICs: an income tax in all but name.
https://twitter.com/benchu_/status/649618811457548288
Samoa Vs Japan at 2.30, then South Africa and Scotland at 4.45, ending with England and Australia at 8.
Hope Scotland and England win. If Japan win, they might yet quality (I think). And if they *and* Scotland win, South Africa could be out.
"Can muslims visiting the mosque please not wear any clothes that identity you as muslims, as we have a crowd of protestors who despise you and we cant control them. If you insist on wearing a hijab can you please put it on only after you get through the doors. Thank you."
After the Crosbycon whipping up of the 'cake having & eating Jocks wanting more of your hard earned taxes' meme, Gove's more pressing problem is that he's identifiably Scottish.
Giles Coren has quite an amusing/perceptive article in the Times about why Tories aren't too worried about placard wavers - its a substitute for actually being grown-up and trying to come up with alternatives.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4574838.ece
And maybe Chancellor George Osborne will, since actually it is quite in tune with Conservative principles -- taxing consumption rather than income, spending rather than earning. The proposal is also to abolish NICs: an income tax in all but name.
Maybe if this happened people would ask for wages to be paid in cash - I can't imagine anything that could do more to boost the 'black economy' and deprive the Government of revenue.
The next year or two will be fairly punishing for the NHS. The total deficit nationally is looking to be £2 billion this year, so not easily ignored.
We saw the problems in Cambridge a month ago, but there are some others set to fall too. In Leicester we have a good SMT, but I am not convinced that anyone can cut 250 beds in 5 years without having a major adverse impact on services.
It clearly shows that the entire GDP growth in the economy is due to the asset bubble from QE and nothing else.
I was musing idly, as one does, on the merits of our fine Scottish hereditary peers.
I had heard interviews with several GPs who had done just that.
Today:
"A total of 5,117 have left since 2012-13 and their average retirement age is now just 59, and falling.
Accountants say there has been an ‘acceleration’ in the numbers retiring in their mid-fifties in the past 12 months and the issue is a ‘ticking time bomb’ for GP provision.
They put it down to the Government imposing a £1.25million cap on the amount all employees can put into their pensions over their careers."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258310/Rise-GPs-retire-50s.html
Worth recalling Cameron inherited a monstrous deficit and an already huge debt.
But I would have thought that a few will want to do a session or two a week to top the pension up.
The level of bile is quite extraordinary.
And maybe Chancellor George Osborne will, since actually it is quite in tune with Conservative principles -- taxing consumption rather than income, spending rather than earning. The proposal is also to abolish NICs: an income tax in all but name.
It is a transaction tax on all the flows in and out of your bank accounts, not a consumption tax.
I think we passed Peak Murphaloon some time ago. I don't think even his budgie takes him seriously.
Asking for a friend...
Why did you destabilise Libya?!
Why didn't you stop Gadaffi massacring innocent people?!
I am just on Mr Hammond, Mr Hunt and Mr Stewart at 70, 66, and 1000 respectively for the total price of a couple of bottles of "not Charles" wine in total.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel tipped to win Nobel Peace Prize after opening her country's doors to desperate refugees
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3257521/German-Chancellor-Angela-Merkel-tipped-win-Nobel-Peace-Prize-opening-country-s-doors-desperate-refugees.html#ixzz3nUossulR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
As someone who supports Wales I've an element of ABE, just as in cricket it’s ABA.
I wonder how Mr MG, claymore wielder in chief, would view such a text?
What’s more, we oscillated between regarding him as a pariah and a hero. Given his support for the IRA, I wonder how a PM JC would have regarded him!
The only person pleased with that outcome would be Danny Blanchflower, who would enjoy the unusual feeling of actually being right about something.
I can also see a justification for a surcharge on pensions of those who benefited from the Patricia Hewitt disaster by locking in inflated pensions for the next 3 or 4 decades.
The BMA would squeal like a pig struck in a poke, but they are the BMA and squealing like a pig stuck in a poke is their normal mode of existence.
Next week should nail Corbyn's avuncular 'kinder politics' for what it is. An outrageous lie.
Its a big game for Australia too. If they get beat they are under big pressure themselves.
'Elizabeth II by Douglas Hurd review – bootlicking obsequiousness'
http://tinyurl.com/o8va7fa
Anyone who bought "56" merchandise from the SNP shop may now be holding a valuable rarity as they have been withdrawn from sale.
'we' decided to keep employment up, at the cost of wages and productivity.
I'd also like to see what the trend is pre-1997, because what this could show is something slightly different.
We now have GP’s, as Chairs of CCG’s, standing up and saying they’re going to cut services.
Although Viscount Thurso is a UK peer who is Scottish rather than a holder of a Scottish peerage.
(Though I don't think he'll be leader anyway).
I think we passed Peak Murphaloon some time ago. I don't think even his budgie takes him seriously.
:-)
But Corbyn does!
What I am pointing out is that Cameron has done nothing to benefit the real economy, although this is unsurprising when you consider how much demand has been sucked out of the economy through public spending cuts.
Blair went to the poshest private school in the country, allegedly posher than Eton, it just happens to be in Scotland. His secondary education was in fact at a nice private school in Durham, which is a posh way of saying 'north east' I suppose.
SO .. I would go and have a curry too.. keep a side dish of Vindaloo handy
Taking a trend line across a period with a bubble and without a recession with a major pre-recession deficit is just dodgy statistics. Only a delusional Brownite who thought boom and bust was eliminated and thought that deficit spending could be done indefinitely would believe that nonsense.
Over the long-term there is an economic cycle of peaks and troughs, if you want to show a long-term trend line then look at the long-term. Look at post-war years don't just cherrypick Brown's artificial and unsustainable inflated peak before the recession.
Interesting discussion on airports yesterday with two qualified pilots and someone who chooses not to buy a private jet. Ain't PB great?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/files/2015/03/valero-budget-fig-1.png
The long term trend is very very clear and since 2008, it's been broken.