David Cameron is a popular leader of the Conservative party. He has consistently outpolled it, tugging it along in his wake. His brisk, warm, unideological Conservativism (which is closer to the Christian Democracy found on the continent than to the Thatcherism that has prevailed in the Conservative party for the last 30 years in Britain) appeals to many.
Comments
In my mind the key decision will be whether Cameron allows ministers to campaign according to their conscience - if he doesn't then the party could well end up split down the middle, with half the Cabinet forced to resign and everyone aggressively taking their side as they position for life after Dave.
Alternatively the referendum is for "out" then whoever was the most senior gutsy opportunist to defect to the "out" side will take over leadership of the party instead, so it will no longer matter who is and isn't still speaking to David Cameron.
PS. Politics throws up some strange alliances sometimes but Right-wing British Eurosceptics + Anti-Austerity European Communists has to be the weirdest one for a while.
You are forgetting that Cameron doesn't want his legacy to be the man who split the Tory Party. Peel might have got a second chance and redeemed himself, but Cameron won't.
If he backs Remain, wins a marginal victory, and leave 1/3 of the Tory party split that's a terrible result for him.
Unfortunately too little too late though, we're never going to chase 350 on this pitch.
Your clock setting needs updating for BST. It's still goddamm early
This is a complete nonsense of a paragraph. I'm someone that generally likes Cameron (although am willing to criticise on occasion), and is undecided on my referendum vote. Wanting to have a fair question, an election free from undue use of taxpayer cash, or the same freedom for cabinet members to argue their honest beliefs as they had in 1975 is not a symptom of loathing of David Cameron, but a basic commitment to the democratic process.
This article tries to pre-emptively blame the eurosceptics for any split, when actually it is dishonest tactics like eliminating purdah or pre-emptively sacking cabinet ministers that would be the cause of it. In fact, given such nefarious tactics, I think the eurosceptics have been remarkable restrained.
In any case I'm seeing the times in JST here. I guess it's getting the time from your browser - maybe try logging out and logging back in again? If that doesn't work, you should be able to fix it by moving to Japan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/11951120/There-must-be-no-surrender-on-tax-credit-reform.html
Back in July, Harriet Harman, Labour’s relatively sensible acting leader, admitted that the British people want welfare reform. Explaining why her party would not fight Tory plans to scrap child tax credits for more than two children, she said that she had met mothers angry that there were those who could afford larger families thanks to benefits. Ms Harman is not the only Left-winger to have addressed the toxic legacy of Gordon Brown’s tax credit revolution. Alistair Darling, chancellor under Mr Brown, said they were “subsidising lower wages”
...
It turned out that trying to make the welfare system more efficient and equitable was actually one of the Conservative’s most popular policies – a point conceded by Ms Harman during her summer of sanity. The public, she admitted, “did not trust [Labour] on the economy and benefits”. They do, by contrast, trust the Tories to try to get it right. Mr Osborne must not let them down.
Isn't this the case already?
F1: qualifying scheduled for 2pm, which is a shame as the P3 times would give us a nice grid.
On-topic: Out would be better for the Conservatives than In, on a purely party political basis. Because of the timing of Cameron's departure, the leadership contest (if In wins) could become an Outers versus Inners civil war, or allow a unity candidate to exert influence [that said, the question of whether and when to have another vote would be a vexed matter].
However, there is a crucial difference. Whoever is leading the Conservatives will be from the mainstream part of the party, and the fringe will be seen to be attacking them. Whoever is leading Labour - assuming, for the moment, that it is either Corbyn or a nominated successor like Trickett, which is the likeliest scenario - will be leading the fringe in an attack on the mainstream. Moreover, the Conservatives will be split over Europe (same old, same old) Labour will be split over whether to renationalise the Royal Mail (Back to the Future Part IV).
At the present time, I do not think that there is any major political issue that is toxic enough to drive voters back to a Labour party in the middle of a civil war who are dominated by a group of geriatric nobodies with low IQs, a past history that they are fortunate not to be explaining to a judge and a lingering bitterness about the fact that Socialism has failed disastrously everywhere it has been tried. Tax credits might do it, but it doesn't seem likely that it will have wildly more traction than the bedroom tax even though it will affect considerably more people. The European referendum almost certainly won't, as it is a non-party problem and will split all the major parties (although I have no doubt the Conservatives will be the most publicly split).
For the moment that leaves the Conservatives, whatever the situation, as the only game in town for a government. The snag is, divided parties produce on the whole quite bad governments (cf John Major, Gordon Brown, James Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, Alec Douglas-Home...)
A good article, but Cameron could make a virtue out of necessity. A natural politician would come back from negotiations and admit that they haven't got everything they wanted, but nevertheless, on balance, he'd recommend remain as they've negotiated some very useful changes for the UK. However, he's happy for the MPs to make their own decision and campaign accordingly.
It would be far more difficult to lay a glove on him, especially if Jezza is in Stalinist mood.
Somehow, I can't see it. He may think he's rather good at politics but is he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34613855
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-34615001
It will doubtless get torrents of online abuse calling for him to be sacked/burned at the stake/forced to listen to Iain Duncan Smith's speeches for 15 hours straight...
But if you cannot say something offensive, we do not have freedom of speech. Nobody needs permission to say something true or polite.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond
The thing to remember here is that it's not the split in the MPs that's important. As Labour have found, what matters far more is how the membership of the party reacts. And unless there's a big swing towards Remain, it looks like the bulk will be on the Leave side of the argument. If those people feel the Remainers within the Conservative Party are dishonest, they will take it out on them in the next leadership election.
The current migrant crisis and consequent discussion of open borders, entitlement to welfare and also of pan-European co-operation does give an unusually receptive time for a new EU treaty. It is not just us that may want some tighter rules.
I like to think that every post I make gives them deep offence, and that they are sufficiently adult to ignore them. But that's only what I like to think...
The EU ref result was 51 - 49 to REMAIN.
Will the Tory Right or the Kippers just accept it for ever ?
The man’s name is Shao Jiang. He witnessed the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Peking’s Tiananmen Square in 1989 so he knows in detail what modern China is really like, as most of us don’t.
Suddenly he was barged by a police officer in a crash helmet, quickly joined by two colleagues, who pushed him backwards at the double, as he feebly protested. I have watched the film at least 50 times and can see no justification for the level of force used. But I can explain it. It looks as if the police were ordered at all costs to ensure that China’s leader did not see or hear any protests.
(Here, at just after 4 minutes 20 seconds (no whingeing, please, about the exact time), is film of what happened to Shao Jiang:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid601325122001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_Vh4qBcIZDrvZlvNCU8nxccG&bctid=4570666989001 )
Two Tibetan women, who did no more than try to wave the flag of their stolen country, were also arrested.
All three were held overnight, on suspicion of offences which expert lawyers think are quite absurd, and which look to me as if they were devised to keep them off the streets until the Chinese leader had gone home.
They must wait until Christmas to find out if they will be prosecuted. Worse still, their homes were raided and searched, and some personal possessions removed, just as they would have been in Peking. This, for holding up a couple of placards and a flag? Where are we, exactly?
It looks to me as if David Cameron and President Xi did indeed discuss freedom, law and civil rights in their private meetings. And that China’s despot persuaded Mr Cameron that the Chinese way of dealing with opposition was better than ours.'
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
“My arrest has brought back memories of my arrests in 1989 when my parents were harassed, and in 1995 when my wife became repressed by the government and they searched our home,” he said. “It feels like it is happening again, but unlike campaigners in China I have been able to speak to a lawyer who can defend my rights. That couldn’t happen in China, my lawyer would be arrested or ‘disappeared’.”
His wife, Johanna Zhang, said the couple were more “positive” now after taking legal advice and again rejected suggestions he was planning to threaten anybody. “He was protesting peacefully,” she said. “I am so nervous when the door knocks now, my first reaction is that it is the police.” '
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shao-jiang-protester-says-uk-now-as-bad-as-china-over-human-rights-a6706846.html
Given the risk of suicide bombers, the strong reaction to someone apparently only having flags does not in itself sound unreasonable. Trumped up nonsense charges are another matter, but even more serious is the taking of personal possessions and the searching of their home (be interested to know if a warrant was attained and, if so, on what premise).
Posted earlier on freedom of speech. There seem to be three major concerns: religious zealots who demand the right to never hear anything that disagrees with their own view, the hysterics who fetishise victimhood, and governments.
Morris Dancer: "Mr. Abroad, who has asked for the right to never be offended?"
Mr. Abroad: "I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. And you know I didn't."
In that case... you appear to be equating taking offence with just cause for something being forbidden. I don't mind if people are offended. I mind if they consider the sentence "I am offended" as an actual argument for someone else to be forbidden from saying something.
Freedom of speech matters more than placating the terminally hyper-sensitive, the religious fundamentalist or the weak-kneed government.
Friday? Austria to Slovenia and Trieste
The array of blazer, shirt & trouser combos was a triumph... He even managed to carry off UKIP gold and purple which I believe is a first
Plod has history of this type of thing.
The republicans arrested on the day of the royal wedding and driven around London on a bus for hours on end to keep them off the street until the wedding had finished for example.
Antifrank is right that if there is ever going to be pay back for this insouciance then it is going to be over this issue and over the last 2 or 3 years of his Premiership. On one view a man coming to the end of his term may be more vulnerable but I think that this underestimates the extent to which the Cameron/Osborne project has changed the party.
Unlike when he took over more than 10 years ago now the party is no longer dominated by people obsessed with the EU. More moderate, centralist voices have been promoted and nurtured and the more aggressively anti EU voices have been side lined. Any politician with any kind of aspirations for office will have noted that the choice is to get with the program or to be left bitter and ignored on the back benches.
For the right wing, however, this is the totem, the last stand, the issue. And there is no doubt that despite all the work done over the last decade that on this issue feelings run strong and deep, even deeper than the desire for office. The potential for real damage to the government is very high.
In seeking to resolve this issue Cameron is doing one last service to the Conservative party that he has led so brilliantly and which he has restored so effectively from the dark days of Blair. Hopefully his successor, whoever that turns out to be, will not have the same problems.
Mr. Rentool, congrats
My father got a first in history from the OU, largely after he retired. His father was killed in the war and he had to leave school at 16 to work to help the family. It gave him enormous pleasure, great company and new friends. I have plans to do a degree in something genuinely interesting when I get to retirement too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBeXPNBhi8
For those who missed him in Plovdiv:
twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/657336599600992258?s=09
I'm the only one in my wife's family who doesn't have a degree (*), yet alone a masters! I'm the family's thicko.
No, don't be surprised.
(*) Aside from the little 'un, that is. I think Mrs J wants him to have a degree by the time he's fifteen...
Portillo has mellowed a great deal since his "Portillo moment" in 1997. Liz Kendall was looking and sounding good on This Week also.
Had 2 bets 4folds and an Acca in the weekend football using a new system I'm working on
Both teams to score NO / under 2.5
Leicester
Norwich
Stoke
Newcastle
Both to score YES / over 2.5
Liverpool
All to play for!! Excited!!