4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
OK, I am going to put my reputation (as this site's longest serving local Tory activist with over 40 years in the poor bloody infantry) on the line and politely but firmly inform you all that the party will NOT suffer any serious internal divisions following the refendum, assuming:
1. Collective ministerial responsibility is suspended during the campaign (Dave will have taken leave of his senses were he to insist otherwise) and
2. The margin of victory for remain is comfortable, say a minimum of 10% or so.
There simply is no appetite among us rank and file for self-immolation and I am confident that applies to the vast majority of MPs as well.
This will mean that the EU will not be a defining issue for the leadership election in 2019/20.
I agree. The Labour party was riven in the 70's on membership of the Common Market, yet within six months after the referendum it was a non-issue.
The result then was 67 - 33. Are you saying the "Leave"'s will just accept it if the result was 51 - 49. Really ? What kind of Euro-sceptics are these people then ?
His chances would be better if he replaced Hammond as Foreign Secretary, in power the Tories either pick the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor as their leader
I like Hammond, he has a quiet dignity about him.
I have no idea who will lead the Conservatives after Dave but I'll be keeping my powder dry until after the EU referendum, everything hinges on that.
I like Hammond too. He is the slightly dull but very competent leader that the Tories will crave after a divisive Euro-ref. He too would make minced falafel out of Corbyn.
If Hammond as FS is seen as having played a part in securing a Remain vote then he won't be seen as a uniting or healing candidate.
He would be if he was on the winning side, not if he is on the losing side, but that goes for all possible candidates. It is also why the whole referendum is going to be so toxic for the Tories. Labour by contrast will be demonstrating a rare unity.
Its going to be a funny old year politically.
I'm not sure Labour are as united as you say. A director of Labour Leave claims 6 of the Shadow Cabinet plan to back Leave (yes he would say that) and Corbyn is very sceptical for very different reasons than people like Hannan. I'm also curious how many "meh" Labour voters will take the opportunity to give Cameron a kicking, a win for Leave and Cameron stands down with his tail between his legs, plenty of Labour people would enjoy that.
But in essence I agree it's going to be a funny/interesting year.
213 of 231 Labour MPs including all the Shadow Cabinet are backing Remain according to the Independent.
OK, I am going to put my reputation (as this site's longest serving local Tory activist with over 40 years in the poor bloody infantry) on the line and politely but firmly inform you all that the party will NOT suffer any serious internal divisions following the refendum, assuming:
1. Collective ministerial responsibility is suspended during the campaign (Dave will have taken leave of his senses were he to insist otherwise) and
2. The margin of victory for remain is comfortable, say a minimum of 10% or so.
There simply is no appetite among us rank and file for self-immolation and I am confident that applies to the vast majority of MPs as well.
This will mean that the EU will not be a defining issue for the leadership election in 2019/20.
I agree. The Labour party was riven in the 70's on membership of the Common Market, yet within six months after the referendum it was a non-issue.
The result then was 67 - 33. Are you saying the "Leave"'s will just accept it if the result was 51 - 49. Really ? What kind of Euro-sceptics are these people then ?
I'm firmly in the 'Leave' camp. But if my fellow citizens vote to remain, however narrow the margin, what am I supposed to do? Declare UDI in the Welsh marches?
I shall console myself by watching the EU shenanigans if we do vote to remain. As others have repeatedly pointed out, remain does not equate to the status quo. The EZ will integrate (it has to) and drag us along with it, like it or not.
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Not where i worked in the 90s. It was two weeks nothing more. You might have been able to negotiate a contract that gave you that, i can guarantee you, that wasnt the case in retail.
OK, I am going to put my reputation (as this site's longest serving local Tory activist with over 40 years in the poor bloody infantry) on the line and politely but firmly inform you all that the party will NOT suffer any serious internal divisions following the refendum, assuming:
1. Collective ministerial responsibility is suspended during the campaign (Dave will have taken leave of his senses were he to insist otherwise) and
2. The margin of victory for remain is comfortable, say a minimum of 10% or so.
There simply is no appetite among us rank and file for self-immolation and I am confident that applies to the vast majority of MPs as well.
This will mean that the EU will not be a defining issue for the leadership election in 2019/20.
I agree. The Labour party was riven in the 70's on membership of the Common Market, yet within six months after the referendum it was a non-issue.
The result then was 67 - 33. Are you saying the "Leave"'s will just accept it if the result was 51 - 49. Really ? What kind of Euro-sceptics are these people then ?
I think the word you're looking for is sensible.
You know, the sort of people who will never vote for Corbyn.
If UKIP had not taken a solid chunk of Conservative BOOers, I think this analysis would be right. But I simply cannot believe, should the vote be for In, that the conservatives will suddenly become the party of Out.
A moderate eurosceptic, like Hammond, would seem the most likely outcome of an 55:45 in vote.
There are still masses of BOO voters who support the Tories, I'm one of them (so are you!). If it is anything like 55:45 remain then it won't be a settled issue and UKIP can try and agitate for another referendum once Dave's treaty changes are shot down by France after we have voted to stay in. Leaving 45% of the vote only one place to go seems like a poor idea, in Scotland it has reshaped the political landscape. I'm not saying I would absolutely 100% vote UKIP, but the scenario is going to be very similar to Scotland, the Remain side will end up promising the Earth, fail to deliver after a close vote and it will leave a very large minority not knowing where to go other than the party who opposed our membership altogether.
There is no way that the EU is going to deliver treaty change, whatever Dave agrees with the EC. It's too hard to get 27 other nations to vote through changes that will not be in their favour. WRT in working benefits changes being withheld for 3 or 4 years, the whole Eastern Bloc is going to be against that, whatever arrangement Dave and Merkel come up with in a few months. Too much British (and German) money is remitted to families back in Poland and other Eastern countries and it will be economically damaging to turn that tap off for new arrivals.
Anyway, the way I see it, the Tories can't leave UKIP standing as the only party of Leave or Out should the vote for Leave be anything like 45%. The lessons of Scotland need to be heeded by the Tories.
JohnO is right, there is absolutely no appetite to make the 2019/20 leadership election about the EU nor is there one to make the election about that, but we all know this is a phony war and the EU will never deliver on the treaty change. Without that in hand, the Tories would need to ensure that they have the vast majority of the 45% voting for them in 2020, to do that they need to be the party of Out and have a a BOOer as leader.
If, unlikely as it seems, the EU does deliver treaty change and enshrines Dave's changes then obviously there won't an issue. I just don't see it.
No - its money wasted. Granted he is Scottish and went to St Andrews but for a start he will be 68 at next election. And ''...he resigned from the front-bench owing to ill-health in October 1998..." Long may he live and he is doing a good job at defence... but...
The statistic to look at are economic ones. From David Smith of The Sunday Times "... two things. The first is the argument that this recovery is so long in the tooth that we should be ready for the next downturn. We are now into the seventh year of a recovery that began in the middle of 2009. It sounds like a long time but the recovery that preceded it, from the early 1990s to 2000, ran for more than 16 years. The one before that, in the 1980s, lasted for over nine years. Given how far the economy fell in 2008-9, it is far too early to be calling time on the recovery.
The second thing is to deal with the end of year flurry of nonsense about Britain being in the middle of some kind of debt-fuelled consumer boom. In the national accounts released just before Christmas, the Office for National Statistics reported that aggregate wages and salaries in the third quarter were 4.6% up on a year earlier, pushed higher by both pay rises and employment growth, at a time of zero inflation. Real household disposable incomes were up by 4%. Consumer spending growth of 3% over the same period looks modest by comparison.
And, while household borrowing has picked up a little, it remains remarkably restrained. Overall borrowing has risen by less than 5% over the past seven years, and is significantly lower in real terms and relative to income than it was before the crisis. Unsecured borrowing is 15% lower in cash terms than before the crisis."
A positive economic future outlook (Smith points to fairly solid world growth) - who does that suggest you should put your money on...?
I'm always sceptical of "time for a recession" stories - recessions are typically the result of economies running above capacity, leading to consumers and businesses to pile on debt, and ending when the central bank raises interest rates to prevent inflation getting out of hand.
We are clearly not running above capacity. Debt levels are considerably lower in the private sector than they were before the last financial crisis. And inflation is extremely limited.
So: I'd say the odds on a recession in 2016 are relatively modest.
Manufacturing is already in a recession. 3 negative quarters in a row. And Q4 is almost certainly going to be negative.
His chances would be better if he replaced Hammond as Foreign Secretary, in power the Tories either pick the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor as their leader
I like Hammond, he has a quiet dignity about him.
I have no idea who will lead the Conservatives after Dave but I'll be keeping my powder dry until after the EU referendum, everything hinges on that.
I like Hammond too. He is the slightly dull but very competent leader that the Tories will crave after a divisive Euro-ref. He too would make minced falafel out of Corbyn.
If Hammond as FS is seen as having played a part in securing a Remain vote then he won't be seen as a uniting or healing candidate.
He would be if he was on the winning side, not if he is on the losing side, but that goes for all possible candidates. It is also why the whole referendum is going to be so toxic for the Tories. Labour by contrast will be demonstrating a rare unity.
Its going to be a funny old year politically.
I'm not sure Labour are as united as you say. A director of Labour Leave claims 6 of the Shadow Cabinet plan to back Leave (yes he would say that) and Corbyn is very sceptical for very different reasons than people like Hannan. I'm also curious how many "meh" Labour voters will take the opportunity to give Cameron a kicking, a win for Leave and Cameron stands down with his tail between his legs, plenty of Labour people would enjoy that.
But in essence I agree it's going to be a funny/interesting year.
213 of 231 Labour MPs including all the Shadow Cabinet are backing Remain according to the Independent.
Fallon makes Hammond look charismatic - and I don't think his attack on Miliband was the game-changer you suggest. In retrospect it's pretty clear that floating voters had already made their mind up about Ed - and the knifing his brother line was irrelevant.
His chances would be better if he replaced Hammond as Foreign Secretary, in power the Tories either pick the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor as their leader
I like Hammond, he has a quiet dignity about him.
I have no idea who will lead the Conservatives after Dave but I'll be keeping my powder dry until after the EU referendum, everything hinges on that.
I like Hammond too. He is the slightly dull but very competent leader that the Tories will crave after a divisive Euro-ref. He too would make minced falafel out of Corbyn.
If Hammond as FS is seen as having played a part in securing a Remain vote then he won't be seen as a uniting or healing candidate.
He would be if he was on the winning side, not if he is on the losing side, but that goes for all possible candidates. It is also why the whole referendum is going to be so toxic for the Tories. Labour by contrast will be demonstrating a rare unity.
Its going to be a funny old year politically.
I'm not sure Labour are as united as you say. A director of Labour Leave claims 6 of the Shadow Cabinet plan to back Leave (yes he would say that) and Corbyn is very sceptical for very different reasons than people like Hannan. I'm also curious how many "meh" Labour voters will take the opportunity to give Cameron a kicking, a win for Leave and Cameron stands down with his tail between his legs, plenty of Labour people would enjoy that.
But in essence I agree it's going to be a funny/interesting year.
213 of 231 Labour MPs including all the Shadow Cabinet are backing Remain according to the Independent.
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
His chances would be better if he replaced Hammond as Foreign Secretary, in power the Tories either pick the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor as their leader
I like Hammond, he has a quiet dignity about him.
I have no idea who will lead the Conservatives after Dave but I'll be keeping my powder dry until after the EU referendum, everything hinges on that.
I like Hammond too. He is the slightly dull but very competent leader that the Tories will crave after a divisive Euro-ref. He too would make minced falafel out of Corbyn.
If Hammond as FS is seen as having played a part in securing a Remain vote then he won't be seen as a uniting or healing candidate.
He would be if he was on the winning side, not if he is on the losing side, but that goes for all possible candidates. It is also why the whole referendum is going to be so toxic for the Tories. Labour by contrast will be demonstrating a rare unity.
Its going to be a funny old year politically.
I'm not sure Labour are as united as you say. A director of Labour Leave claims 6 of the Shadow Cabinet plan to back Leave (yes he would say that) and Corbyn is very sceptical for very different reasons than people like Hannan. I'm also curious how many "meh" Labour voters will take the opportunity to give Cameron a kicking, a win for Leave and Cameron stands down with his tail between his legs, plenty of Labour people would enjoy that.
But in essence I agree it's going to be a funny/interesting year.
213 of 231 Labour MPs including all the Shadow Cabinet are backing Remain according to the Independent.
Fallon makes Hammond look charismatic - and I don't think his attack on Miliband was the game-changer you suggest. In retrospect it's pretty clear that floating voters had already made their mind up about Ed - and the knifing his brother line was irrelevant.
It was absolutely a game changer because it got other bad news off the air and moved the agenda back to firm Tory ground. Trident renewal, national defence, the idea of a cosy Lab/SNP relationship to screw over England, Wales and NI.
The Scottish ref polling was trending towards a win for the independents - and they had a worse economic case and started from a lower polling base.
The Indy Ref (EU) has every chance of being for Leave, as I don't think the EU changes will amount to much and that will filter through to the polling.
The presumption that Remain will win, and basing predictions of new leaders on that, could well be completely flawed.
His chances would be better if he replaced Hammond as Foreign Secretary, in power the Tories either pick the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor as their leader
I like Hammond, he has a quiet dignity about him.
I have no idea who will lead the Conservatives after Dave but I'll be keeping my powder dry until after the EU referendum, everything hinges on that.
I like Hammond too. He is the slightly dull but very competent leader that the Tories will crave after a divisive Euro-ref. He too would make minced falafel out of Corbyn.
If Hammond as FS is seen as having played a part in securing a Remain vote then he won't be seen as a uniting or healing candidate.
He would be if he was on the winning side, not if he is on the losing side, but that goes for all possible candidates. It is also why the whole referendum is going to be so toxic for the Tories. Labour by contrast will be demonstrating a rare unity.
Its going to be a funny old year politically.
I'm not sure Labour are as united as you say. A director of Labour Leave claims 6 of the Shadow Cabinet plan to back Leave (yes he would say that) and Corbyn is very sceptical for very different reasons than people like Hannan. I'm also curious how many "meh" Labour voters will take the opportunity to give Cameron a kicking, a win for Leave and Cameron stands down with his tail between his legs, plenty of Labour people would enjoy that.
But in essence I agree it's going to be a funny/interesting year.
213 of 231 Labour MPs including all the Shadow Cabinet are backing Remain according to the Independent.
On an unrelated note, the UK media now has a Jihadi John 2 to knock on about..complete with his young son, Jihadi Junior, just to crank up the outrage.
On the Tory leadership, not Osborne. After that, take your pick.
"Amid the chaos Jess Phillips MP, one of Labour’s high flying 2015 intake, has said the party's thinking at the moment is "like a drunk game of Boggle."
At least one person in Labour still has their finger on the pulse. Give her a top job.
What do you expect on the first sunday after the two week Christmas & New Year Break. The most, most people are doing is trying to forget that tomorrow is an early start and back to the daily grind
Not if you live in God's country , another holiday for us.
My computer rather throw me when it announced this morning that tomorrow was January 2nd - Bank Holiday (Scotland).
Fortunately I do live in God's country - its called Yorkshire.....
Fallon makes Hammond look charismatic - and I don't think his attack on Miliband was the game-changer you suggest. In retrospect it's pretty clear that floating voters had already made their mind up about Ed - and the knifing his brother line was irrelevant.
It was absolutely a game changer because it got other bad news off the air and moved the agenda back to firm Tory ground. Trident renewal, national defence, the idea of a cosy Lab/SNP relationship to screw over England, Wales and NI.
We all remember it and the 24 hour furore that followed, but for the average non-obsessive (i.e. 99% of the population) I suspect it didn't even momentarily impinge on their consciousness.
The Scottish ref polling was trending towards a win for the independents - and they had a worse economic case and started from a lower polling base.
The Indy Ref (EU) has every chance of being for Leave, as I don't think the EU changes will amount to much and that will filter through to the polling.
The presumption that Remain will win, and basing predictions of new leaders on that, could well be completely flawed.
Would I be correct that out of 650 MPs today, far fewer than 200, possibly even 150 will support LEAVE ?
On an unrelated note, the UK media now has a Jihadi John 2 to knock on about..complete with his young son, Jihadi Junior, just to crank up the outrage.
On the Tory leadership, not Osborne. After that, take your pick.
Countdown to CAGE describing him as a wonderful man...The terrorist not Osborne, not even CAGE would describe Osborne like that ;-)
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
The Scottish ref polling was trending towards a win for the independents - and they had a worse economic case and started from a lower polling base.
The Indy Ref (EU) has every chance of being for Leave, as I don't think the EU changes will amount to much and that will filter through to the polling.
The presumption that Remain will win, and basing predictions of new leaders on that, could well be completely flawed.
Again false comparisons are being made here.
The Scottish government and Scottish First Minister was backing Yes in the Indy ref.
The British government and British Prime Minister* will be backing Remain in the EU ref.
* Assuming as expected and as he's said he will Cameron backs Remain following his negotiations. If he backs Leave I fully expect the country will too.
On an unrelated note, the UK media now has a Jihadi John 2 to knock on about..complete with his young son, Jihadi Junior, just to crank up the outrage.
On the Tory leadership, not Osborne. After that, take your pick.
Countdown to CAGE describing him as a wonderful man...The terrorist not Osborne, not even CAGE would describe Osborne like that ;-)
On an unrelated note, the UK media now has a Jihadi John 2 to knock on about..complete with his young son, Jihadi Junior, just to crank up the outrage.
On the Tory leadership, not Osborne. After that, take your pick.
Countdown to CAGE describing him as a wonderful man...The terrorist not Osborne, not even CAGE would describe Osborne like that ;-)
'Beautiful' man, I think.
Sorry yes. Definitely rules out Osborne then, even after his makeover ;-)
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
Meme#1
(Meme#1: The EU is a Universal Villain. Anything good it does must be characterised as "would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly Meme#2: The statement "I would have voted Remain if Cameron had negotiated X but he didn't so I'll vote Leave, such a pity" where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
I think he may be right. After all why should Corbyn give a free vote to preserve unity and then sack the dissenters to create a division? But the speculation is becoming so rife that he will hurt himself if he does nothing. However, quite how much he is in charge of himself must remain an open question.
But if Corbyn does sack Benn and Eagle (I guess that the other Eagle will then follow) he may succeed in putting his fellow travellers in place but what was previously a schism between him and the PLP would surely turn into a chasm. Schism to chasm - a form of progress I suppose
He has to sack Shadow Cabinet dissenters. They can go on talking "crap conscience" from the back benches.
It's impossible to dissent on a free vote though right?
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
Of course, a minimum protection has to be provided. WE did not have that, if I am correct. That is why the EU is so good.
What do you expect on the first sunday after the two week Christmas & New Year Break. The most, most people are doing is trying to forget that tomorrow is an early start and back to the daily grind
Not if you live in God's country , another holiday for us.
My computer rather throw me when it announced this morning that tomorrow was January 2nd - Bank Holiday (Scotland).
Fortunately I do live in God's country - its called Yorkshire.....
notme In fact I was given 5 weeks annual leave plus all statutory national holidays in 1968..Double time at weekends..35 hour week and overtime after the normal working day at 1.5 times the hourly rate...Plus private health insurance for my family and a monthly allocation of company shares..Nowt to do with any EU Directives....
The Scottish ref polling was trending towards a win for the independents - and they had a worse economic case and started from a lower polling base.
The Indy Ref (EU) has every chance of being for Leave, as I don't think the EU changes will amount to much and that will filter through to the polling.
The presumption that Remain will win, and basing predictions of new leaders on that, could well be completely flawed.
Again false comparisons are being made here.
The Scottish government and Scottish First Minister was backing Yes in the Indy ref.
The British government and British Prime Minister* will be backing Remain in the EU ref.
* Assuming as expected and as he's said he will Cameron backs Remain following his negotiations. If he backs Leave I fully expect the country will too.
And? There have been other occasions in other European countries where the public have voted against the endorsement of the country's government (especially on EU-related matters).
@BryanAppleyard: Here is Trump’s spokeshuman wearing a necklace made of bullets. Only Don appearing naked can stop this campaign https://t.co/GBaJliKA3s
I think he may be right. After all why should Corbyn give a free vote to preserve unity and then sack the dissenters to create a division? But the speculation is becoming so rife that he will hurt himself if he does nothing. However, quite how much he is in charge of himself must remain an open question.
But if Corbyn does sack Benn and Eagle (I guess that the other Eagle will then follow) he may succeed in putting his fellow travellers in place but what was previously a schism between him and the PLP would surely turn into a chasm. Schism to chasm - a form of progress I suppose
He has to sack Shadow Cabinet dissenters. They can go on talking "crap conscience" from the back benches.
It's impossible to dissent on a free vote though right?
The "free vote" was foisted on Corbyn. "Free vote" for backbenchers is one thing, for the Shadow Cabinet another.
Now that we know, the majority in the Shadow Cabinet were against bombing Syria, the majority of the PLP were against as is the party membership, therefore, the "bombers" cannot serve in the shadow cabinet. Back benches, fine. They can do what they want.
What do you expect on the first sunday after the two week Christmas & New Year Break. The most, most people are doing is trying to forget that tomorrow is an early start and back to the daily grind
Not if you live in God's country , another holiday for us.
My computer rather throw me when it announced this morning that tomorrow was January 2nd - Bank Holiday (Scotland).
Fortunately I do live in God's country - its called Yorkshire.....
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
Of course, a minimum protection has to be provided. WE did not have that, if I am correct. That is why the EU is so good.
All the Tory possibles are a bit "meh" to my mind, with the exception of Osborne, who has rather grown on me, though I seem to be the only person on PB who thinks like this. The only one who comes across as a bit feisty and different is Ruth Davidson and she's not even an MP. I quite like what I've seen of Johnny Mercer.
Boring competence is fine but a good leader has to have some ability to define or describe preferably in a sunny, vaguely inspirational way, where they want to lead the country. And assuming Corbyn is still in place they need to have some level of political cunning and controlled fury about how awful Corbyn is and would be as PM and the willingness to take the argument to him and his acolytes and win it, brutally if need be.
Hammond would make a good Chancellor. As FS he's been invisible and his speech on Syria was pedestrian. Javid seems a bit dull. Boris is past it and not at all sure about May: she can certainly have the killer instinct, when needed. Can she do the inspiration bit?
I think there is a fair case for dropping Maria Eagle. She screwed up - badly - when the CGS said all those stupid things and she endorsed his view. Whatever your views on Corbyn, she was clearly wrong to publicly back Dannatt who was bang out of order. I doubt if that's why it's happening, but there is at least a fair pretext. With that, you can understand why it might be difficult for Angela Eagle to remain in the Shadow Cabinet too. It is unfortunate that they are two of the three shadow ministers who have actually established a reasonably high public profile and have seemed to be doing quite well, but these things happen.
However, Hilary Benn is a rather different matter. Whether or not Corbyn was forced into conceding a free vote is irrelevant. In fact, the reason he was 'forced' into conceding a free vote is because he himself had said given his radical minority views, he would allow members to dissent on foreign and defence policy without reprisal, before trying to renege on that and impose a three-line-whip on the Syria vote. The PLP angrily reminded him of his pledge and he backed down. The fact is, he said there would be a free vote. And he allowed one. And he is now victimising those who were foolish enough to take him at his word and follow their principles by rebelling against the leadership - something, let it not be forgotten, that Corbyn has done on average twenty times a year since he entered Parliament usually, in an ironic twist, to endorse violence himself. That looks more than a bit dodgy - it suggests that Corbyn cannot be trusted. (Of course, we all knew that anyway just by looking at his record, but it's not exactly a great advert for the new politics he's talking about.)
The other crucial problem is that in firing these, and promoting complete idiots like Thornberry, Abbott, Burgon and Lewis, while keeping Mcdonnell, who are not merely eccentric, controversial and have a track record of failure, but are also highly unpopular in the PLP, he is severely weakening his bench strength and giving ammunition to those who say he rules by clique. This might not matter so much were his own performance not so uniformly dismal. As it is, Labour appear to be promoting failures and sacking successes. It's not even as though they had lots of successes.
@BryanAppleyard: Here is Trump’s spokeshuman wearing a necklace made of bullets. Only Don appearing naked can stop this campaign https://t.co/GBaJliKA3s
Incidentally, I haven't posted today partly because I have been getting ready for school tomorrow and partly because I have been eating the largest humble pie ever cooked. I have been saying for ages that England should pick a specialist keeper and drop Stokes, who's not really world class with bat or ball, to accommodate him. In fact, I was saying that as recently as yesterday.
Between that and saying Cook should not have put the opposition in at Trent Bridge, I think I'm going to have to give up talking about cricket, because clearly I know even less about cricket than Mcdonnell and Corbyn know about electoral strategy.
All the Tory possibles are a bit "meh" to my mind, with the exception of Osborne, who has rather grown on me, though I seem to be the only person on PB who thinks like this. The only one who comes across as a bit feisty and different is Ruth Davidson and she's not even an MP. I quite like what I've seen of Johnny Mercer.
Boring competence is fine but a good leader has to have some ability to define or describe preferably in a sunny, vaguely inspirational way, where they want to lead the country. And assuming Corbyn is still in place they need to have some level of political cunning and controlled fury about how awful Corbyn is and would be as PM and the willingness to take the argument to him and his acolytes and win it, brutally if need be.
Hammond would make a good Chancellor. As FS he's been invisible and his speech on Syria was pedestrian. Javid seems a bit dull. Boris is past it and not at all sure about May: she can certainly have the killer instinct, when needed. Can she do the inspiration bit?
It's a crying shame that Dr Sarah Wollaston chose the (mildly) rebellious route (though you can understand from her NHS background) leading to becoming Chairman of the Health Select Committee, as IMHO she is by far and away the most 'normal' and politically attractive of the 2010 intake. Maybe Dave will be bold and promote her (as he did with John Whittingdale) fast. But her odds of becoming Leader must be 1000-1.
In truth, none of Dave's likely putative successors are anything like in the same league as himself. We are not being spoilt for choice. I would have probably plumped for Robert Halfon but he has now pretty well self-destructed.
Good effort by the Prime Minister at the BDO World Darts today ,although he lost 3-0 to Ted 'the count' Hankey he did well to qualify with limited practice time due to the election and flooding etc
All the Tory possibles are a bit "meh" to my mind, with the exception of Osborne, who has rather grown on me, though I seem to be the only person on PB who thinks like this. The only one who comes across as a bit feisty and different is Ruth Davidson and she's not even an MP. I quite like what I've seen of Johnny Mercer.
Boring competence is fine but a good leader has to have some ability to define or describe preferably in a sunny, vaguely inspirational way, where they want to lead the country. And assuming Corbyn is still in place they need to have some level of political cunning and controlled fury about how awful Corbyn is and would be as PM and the willingness to take the argument to him and his acolytes and win it, brutally if need be.
Hammond would make a good Chancellor. As FS he's been invisible and his speech on Syria was pedestrian. Javid seems a bit dull. Boris is past it and not at all sure about May: she can certainly have the killer instinct, when needed. Can she do the inspiration bit?
I've seen Osborne as a potential leader since about 2013. He held his nerve and the tories won an election when round about 2013 the all supposedly knowing seers were predicting his and downfall. Sure some people will not like him because he has been proved right and they have been proved wrong (haven;t you Mr Montgomerie?). You have to be a bit edgy to be a leader, it requires you to lead the inevitably differing factions of the coalition which make up any great party. Being likeable is not the highest ranking quality. And Osborne showed his shrewdness and to be fair his good sense in picking up the need for a 'northern powerhouse'.
I think he may be right. After all why should Corbyn give a free vote to preserve unity and then sack the dissenters to create a division? But the speculation is becoming so rife that he will hurt himself if he does nothing. However, quite how much he is in charge of himself must remain an open question.
But if Corbyn does sack Benn and Eagle (I guess that the other Eagle will then follow) he may succeed in putting his fellow travellers in place but what was previously a schism between him and the PLP would surely turn into a chasm. Schism to chasm - a form of progress I suppose
He has to sack Shadow Cabinet dissenters. They can go on talking "crap conscience" from the back benches.
It's impossible to dissent on a free vote though right?
The "free vote" was foisted on Corbyn. "Free vote" for backbenchers is one thing, for the Shadow Cabinet another.
Now that we know, the majority in the Shadow Cabinet were against bombing Syria, the majority of the PLP were against as is the party membership, therefore, the "bombers" cannot serve in the shadow cabinet. Back benches, fine. They can do what they want.
They can do what they since it was a free vote, that is the definition of a free vote.
Had Corbyn not wanted a free vote he should have said so before the vote. To do so after the vote is dishonest.
The Scottish ref polling was trending towards a win for the independents - and they had a worse economic case and started from a lower polling base.
The Indy Ref (EU) has every chance of being for Leave, as I don't think the EU changes will amount to much and that will filter through to the polling.
The presumption that Remain will win, and basing predictions of new leaders on that, could well be completely flawed.
Again false comparisons are being made here.
The Scottish government and Scottish First Minister was backing Yes in the Indy ref.
The British government and British Prime Minister* will be backing Remain in the EU ref.
* Assuming as expected and as he's said he will Cameron backs Remain following his negotiations. If he backs Leave I fully expect the country will too.
And? There have been other occasions in other European countries where the public have voted against the endorsement of the country's government (especially on EU-related matters).
Of course its possible comparable but to suggest that Leave [or even more absurdly UKIP] are comparable to Yes [or the SNP] is absurd. They are only related on a purely superficial basis.
In truth, none of Dave's likely putative successors are anything like in the same league as himself. We are not being spoilt for choice. I would have probably plumped for Robert Halfon but he has now pretty well self-destructed.
People thought that David Cameron himself would never cut it against Boris Johnson - that he did not have Johnson's charisma, or energy, or popular appeal, or public profile. When he entered the Tory leadership contest, hardly anyone outside a few political nerds and the parliamentary party had heard of him. But he gambled, won the leadership and has by common consent grown into the role - first as leader, then as PM.
Admittedly, it's harder for an unknown to mount a similar coup in government. But I think we must remember that it's quite possible somebody whom we don't really rate might suddenly find that bit extra at the right moment.
On the substantive point, Fallon (I typed Farron ) will never be Tory leader. There is one simple reason why. What does he offer that Philip Hammond does not offer a great deal more of? Answer; nothing; and Hammond is also somewhat younger. So anyone who might back Fallon would back Hammond ahead of him. And I am not quite sure why people think Hammond wants the top job, as he clearly does. None of his recent manoeuvering makes sense unless he is to position himself as the leader of the, 'OK, well, we're in, but we still need to screw a better deal out of Europe or at least make sure they keep their word' brigade. Could easily be a vote winner.
notme In fact I was given 5 weeks annual leave plus all statutory national holidays in 1968..Double time at weekends..35 hour week and overtime after the normal working day at 1.5 times the hourly rate...Plus private health insurance for my family and a monthly allocation of company shares..Nowt to do with any EU Directives....
Bully for you. In 1997 I didnt get double time at weekends, or even extra, I was on a 30 hour contract, but would take as many hours as I could, no overtime, time and a half on bank holidays (which i had to work, I even had to work christmas morning), I even got paid less for doing the same job as my female colleagues, because, and I quote "you dont have a family to look after".
There was no company share allocations, but I did get free coffee.
Mr. O, I agree, but compared to Labour (not just Corbyn but those against whom he ran) the Conservatives are in a relatively good position.
Oh yes, no doubt about that....and an increased majority is the most probable result in 2020 whoever succeeds Dave (well, within reason!)
I now reckon Jarvid will be a challenger to Osborne (whose devoted protege he has long been...but all's fair in love and politics) and as things stand at the moment, I think he will win, a prospect that would not fill me with unalloyed joy. But this all just for fun - and I sincerely mean it, folks - for the next couple of years.
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
Yes, my individual negotiation went like this: Boss: "thanks for coming in today, I would like to offer you the job, when do you think you can start?" Me "Would monday be ok?" Boss "see you then".
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
Yes, my individual negotiation went like this: Boss: "thanks for coming in today, I would like to offer you the job, when do you think you can start?" Me "Would monday be ok?" Boss "see you then".
notme.the point I was making..which you seem to have missed ..was that my Tand C were very good and achieved by negotiation..without a directive from the EU..
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
Yes, my individual negotiation went like this: Boss: "thanks for coming in today, I would like to offer you the job, when do you think you can start?" Me "Would monday be ok?" Boss "see you then".
I take it it was the equivalent of a ZHC then? Which still has basically all those same problems now - no overtime, or holiday time, and unfairness over hours worked.
I'd be surprised if there was a gender pay differential now (it was just as illegal then but it's unlikely anyone would have enforced it for a man) but the rest still seems to hold good.
Mr. O, Javid seems to be like Anakin Skywalker in the prequels. On paper, looks good. In practice, severely underwhelming.
Javid's got a nice back story. I'm not convinced, from the few times I've seen him on TV, he's got anything else.
Spot on. He was favourite to win the nomination for Esher and Walton in 2010 (and I recall the hour over tea and biscuits my five fellow Hersham Councillors spent 'interviewing' him and his charming wife....talk about grass-roots straw polls, puts Iowa to shame!). He is a genuinely nice bloke, but he performed way below par at the full primary meeting, losing out to Dominic Raab. However, a few weeks later he was successful in Bromsgrove.
But the sum is less than the constituent parts at present, perhaps promoted slightly too soon. However, there is the capacity to mature and grow in stature. We shall see.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
4 weeks holiday a year was in place in the 1970s..
Yes, it's odd the way that people seem to think that we didn't have worker's rights in the 60s and 70s. In my entire career I've never worked anywhere that didn't have at least twenty days, and it was more normally at least 25.
"The United Kingdom did not implement a general statutory right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
Not everything has to be legislated. The UK's position (until the 90s) was to leave it to collective bargaining and individual negotiation. That doesn't seem particularly outrageous.
Yes, my individual negotiation went like this: Boss: "thanks for coming in today, I would like to offer you the job, when do you think you can start?" Me "Would monday be ok?" Boss "see you then".
End of individual negotiations.
And because you didn't bother to negotiate, legislation was required?
The Scottish ref polling was trending towards a win for the independents - and they had a worse economic case and started from a lower polling base.
The Indy Ref (EU) has every chance of being for Leave, as I don't think the EU changes will amount to much and that will filter through to the polling.
The presumption that Remain will win, and basing predictions of new leaders on that, could well be completely flawed.
Virtually all polls in indyref had No ahead in the final weeks, apart from that one yougov and No had the backing of the UK PM and the main UK party leaders. Nonetheless 45% was a credible result for Yes. On the balance of probabilities I expect Remain to win, especially with Cameron again backing it, but for it to be even tighter than indyref, maybe up to 48/49% Leave is more than possible
OK, I am going to put my reputation (as this site's longest serving local Tory activist with over 40 years in the poor bloody infantry) on the line and politely but firmly inform you all that the party will NOT suffer any serious internal divisions following the refendum, assuming:
1. Collective ministerial responsibility is suspended during the campaign (Dave will have taken leave of his senses were he to insist otherwise) and
2. The margin of victory for remain is comfortable, say a minimum of 10% or so.
There simply is no appetite among us rank and file for self-immolation and I am confident that applies to the vast majority of MPs as well.
This will mean that the EU will not be a defining issue for the leadership election in 2019/20.
I agree. The Labour party was riven in the 70's on membership of the Common Market, yet within six months after the referendum it was a non-issue.
The result then was 67 - 33. Are you saying the "Leave"'s will just accept it if the result was 51 - 49. Really ? What kind of Euro-sceptics are these people then ?
I'm firmly in the 'Leave' camp. But if my fellow citizens vote to remain, however narrow the margin, what am I supposed to do? Declare UDI in the Welsh marches?
I shall console myself by watching the EU shenanigans if we do vote to remain. As others have repeatedly pointed out, remain does not equate to the status quo. The EZ will integrate (it has to) and drag us along with it, like it or not.
We are outside the Eurozone now and will remain outside the Eurozone regardless of the result, the British people may just about accept EU membership they will certainly not accept the Euro. There are other nations outside the Euro but inside the EU too, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for example so we are not alone
His chances would be better if he replaced Hammond as Foreign Secretary, in power the Tories either pick the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor as their leader
I like Hammond, he has a quiet dignity about him.
I have no idea who will lead the Conservatives after Dave but I'll be keeping my powder dry until after the EU referendum, everything hinges on that.
If the UK votes Remain then clearly the Tories are unlikely to pick a BOO backer however tight the margin, that would only be the case if Leave won, however nor will they pick a Europhile given the likely closeness of the result so Hammond's moderate Euroscepticism would be a good bet. Personality wise he is like a Tory Mitt Romney and he also had a successful business career before politics, against a charismatic, moderate Labour leader that may not be enough, against Corbyn it probably would be
What Europhiles are there left in the Conservative Party?
You don't have to be either a Ken Clarke style Europhile or a Redwood style Eurosceptic, most now seem to be rather boring Eurorealists - the EU has flaws, the Euro is a bad idea, but we're on balance better in the EU for the Single Market than out. Rather perfect if the vote is Remain.
His chances would be better if he replaced Hammond as Foreign Secretary, in power the Tories either pick the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor as their leader
I like Hammond, he has a quiet dignity about him.
I have no idea who will lead the Conservatives after Dave but I'll be keeping my powder dry until after the EU referendum, everything hinges on that.
If the UK votes Remain then clearly the Tories are unlikely to pick a BOO backer however tight the margin, that would only be the case if Leave won, however nor will they pick a Europhile given the likely closeness of the result so Hammond's moderate Euroscepticism would be a good bet. Personality wise he is like a Tory Mitt Romney and he also had a successful business career before politics, against a charismatic, moderate Labour leader that may not be enough, against Corbyn it probably would be
They are absolutely going to have to pick a BOOer otherwise the fate of SLAB awaits them since the majority of people in the Tory party back out and putting a Europhile in will lead to a stampede to the only party willing to back Leave.
SLAB went on exactly the path you are suggesting after the No vote with Jim Murphy trying to appeal to the 55% and they got smashed by FPTP with the 45% uniting behind a single party. The Tories need to make sure that the 45% who vote to leave in the event of a remain don't even contemplate uniting behind UKIP. One thing we learned from the independence vote is that the 45% don't magically disappear overnight, SLAB thought they would and now they are fighting bloody Tories (of all people) for second place in Scotland this year.
No way, if the Tories revel in the victory of Remain and push a europhile in they will be asking for trouble. In the same way that independence was a niche argument for so many years before the vote, the EU argument has been as well. After the vote it won't be until it is settled one way or the other. A narrow Remain victory is not going to settle it and pushing a europhile agenda would destroy the Tory party after one.
Hammond is a very unlikely bet, he is also a BOOer and has said many times he would vote to Leave if given the chance.
If it was a close vote I never said the Tories would pick a Europhile, they could only do that if it is a Remain landslide but Hammond is a moderate Eurosceptic rather than a convinced BOOer who could hold the party together in the event of a narrow Remain win
I think he may be right. After all why should Corbyn give a free vote to preserve unity and then sack the dissenters to create a division? But the speculation is becoming so rife that he will hurt himself if he does nothing. However, quite how much he is in charge of himself must remain an open question.
But if Corbyn does sack Benn and Eagle (I guess that the other Eagle will then follow) he may succeed in putting his fellow travellers in place but what was previously a schism between him and the PLP would surely turn into a chasm. Schism to chasm - a form of progress I suppose
He has to sack Shadow Cabinet dissenters. They can go on talking "crap conscience" from the back benches.
It's impossible to dissent on a free vote though right?
The "free vote" was foisted on Corbyn. "Free vote" for backbenchers is one thing, for the Shadow Cabinet another.
Now that we know, the majority in the Shadow Cabinet were against bombing Syria, the majority of the PLP were against as is the party membership, therefore, the "bombers" cannot serve in the shadow cabinet. Back benches, fine. They can do what they want.
They can do what they since it was a free vote, that is the definition of a free vote.
Had Corbyn not wanted a free vote he should have said so before the vote. To do so after the vote is dishonest.
Indeed - and in allowing cabinet ministers to campaign and vote against the EU, Cameron is doing the same thing. If the vote is won then they go on being in the cabinet. Equally if the vote is lost Cameron carries on being PM and the other remainers carry on being in govt too. Cameron is retiring anyway. From both sides of the argument it would be absurd to allow the views to be expressed, only to start a civil war afterwards
I think he may be right. After all why should Corbyn give a free vote to preserve unity and then sack the dissenters to create a division? But the speculation is becoming so rife that he will hurt himself if he does nothing. However, quite how much he is in charge of himself must remain an open question.
But if Corbyn does sack Benn and Eagle (I guess that the other Eagle will then follow) he may succeed in putting his fellow travellers in place but what was previously a schism between him and the PLP would surely turn into a chasm. Schism to chasm - a form of progress I suppose
He has to sack Shadow Cabinet dissenters. They can go on talking "crap conscience" from the back benches.
It's impossible to dissent on a free vote though right?
The "free vote" was foisted on Corbyn. "Free vote" for backbenchers is one thing, for the Shadow Cabinet another.
Now that we know, the majority in the Shadow Cabinet were against bombing Syria, the majority of the PLP were against as is the party membership, therefore, the "bombers" cannot serve in the shadow cabinet. Back benches, fine. They can do what they want.
I always thought that duress rendered resulting evidence unreliable: obviously not for new old Labour.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
PS I am sure Sturgeon would be concerned that either of you losers don't like her
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
All the Tory possibles are a bit "meh" to my mind, with the exception of Osborne, who has rather grown on me, though I seem to be the only person on PB who thinks like this. The only one who comes across as a bit feisty and different is Ruth Davidson and she's not even an MP. I quite like what I've seen of Johnny Mercer.
Boring competence is fine but a good leader has to have some ability to define or describe preferably in a sunny, vaguely inspirational way, where they want to lead the country. And assuming Corbyn is still in place they need to have some level of political cunning and controlled fury about how awful Corbyn is and would be as PM and the willingness to take the argument to him and his acolytes and win it, brutally if need be.
Hammond would make a good Chancellor. As FS he's been invisible and his speech on Syria was pedestrian. Javid seems a bit dull. Boris is past it and not at all sure about May: she can certainly have the killer instinct, when needed. Can she do the inspiration bit?
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists, labour join the Tories as Lepers, the clock is ticking.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
notme.the point I was making..which you seem to have missed ..was that my Tand C were very good and achieved by negotiation..without a directive from the EU..
No, i get the point you are making. Private negotiations between two parties, in your situation meant you had excellent terms and conditions.....
My situation was more difficult, i needed the job more than the boss needed me to do the job. There was no shortage of applicants. This was pre minimum wage also....
The reality is at the bottom end of the job market there's no real bargaining power for the employee on an individual basis. I think its possible that the minimum wage (though massively increasing pay) has aggravated this, and with such a surplus of labour, without the ability to job the hourly rate to meet supply, there are no fringe benefits outside the bare minimum.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists, labour join the Tories as Lepers, the clock is ticking.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keep insisting that there won't be one.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists, labour join the Tories as Lepers, the clock is ticking.
Does that make Scotland a leper colony?
Politically we have many , they are called unionists.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keeps insisting that there won't be one.
Actually, it's not strange at all.
Those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum: the Scottish Parliament.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
OK, I am going to put my reputation (as this site's longest serving local Tory activist with over 40 years in the poor bloody infantry) on the line and politely but firmly inform you all that the party will NOT suffer any serious internal divisions following the refendum, assuming:
1. Collective ministerial responsibility is suspended during the campaign (Dave will have taken leave of his senses were he to insist otherwise) and
2. The margin of victory for remain is comfortable, say a minimum of 10% or so.
There simply is no appetite among us rank and file for self-immolation and I am confident that applies to the vast majority of MPs as well.
This will mean that the EU will not be a defining issue for the leadership election in 2019/20.
Seconded. On your assumptions, the idea that the party will engage in civil war after the referendum - which will have settled the matter for a generation - is barmy. Almost as silly is the idea that, after the referendum, the candidates' exact positioning on Europe will matter much if it's a vote to Remain.
If it's a vote to Leave, it would be very different, because in that case the most urgent task for the next PM will be negotiating the terms of our departure. That could only really be done by someone who is identified with the Leave campaign.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keeps insisting that there won't be one.
Nicola was talking about another one only today.
Dud you miss the memo?
Your obsession is quite scary, strange how unionists spend their lives talking about the SNP, nothing to offer for their parties donkeys. I never hear anything from you on the Tories , very odd or maybe not.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keeps insisting that there won't be one.
Actually, it's not strange at all.
Those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum: the Scottish Parliament.
That's at the very least debatable. It wasn't Dave & the Yoons who wanted the 2014 referendum.
You having no power, influence or say in the matter is otoh not debatable.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists, labour join the Tories as Lepers, the clock is ticking.
Absolutely the clock is ticking on the SNP. Politics follows a natural pendulum, just as one day the Tories will lose control of Westminster, one day the SNP won't control Holyrood - and when that day comes then Scotland will still be a part of the United Kingdom thanks to that 55%.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Ignorance is no excuse for petulence
So what is your excuse then?
you really are a dullard, I suspect you would be better employed with crayons and a colouring book.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keeps insisting that there won't be one.
Actually, it's not strange at all.
Those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum: the Scottish Parliament.
That's at the very least debatable. It wasn't Dave & the Yoons who wanted the 2014 referendum.
You having no power, influence or say in the matter is otoh not debatable.
It was Dave who permitted the 2014 "once in a generation" referendum in the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keeps insisting that there won't be one.
Actually, it's not strange at all.
Those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum: the Scottish Parliament.
That's at the very least debatable. It wasn't Dave & the Yoons who wanted the 2014 referendum.
As may be. The Scottish Parliament (through its executive) has agreed that it doesn't have the power to call a referendum and that the last referendum reflects the indisputable will of the Scottish people.
Comments
I shall console myself by watching the EU shenanigans if we do vote to remain. As others have repeatedly pointed out, remain does not equate to the status quo. The EZ will integrate (it has to) and drag us along with it, like it or not.
You know, the sort of people who will never vote for Corbyn.
There is no way that the EU is going to deliver treaty change, whatever Dave agrees with the EC. It's too hard to get 27 other nations to vote through changes that will not be in their favour. WRT in working benefits changes being withheld for 3 or 4 years, the whole Eastern Bloc is going to be against that, whatever arrangement Dave and Merkel come up with in a few months. Too much British (and German) money is remitted to families back in Poland and other Eastern countries and it will be economically damaging to turn that tap off for new arrivals.
Anyway, the way I see it, the Tories can't leave UKIP standing as the only party of Leave or Out should the vote for Leave be anything like 45%. The lessons of Scotland need to be heeded by the Tories.
JohnO is right, there is absolutely no appetite to make the 2019/20 leadership election about the EU nor is there one to make the election about that, but we all know this is a phony war and the EU will never deliver on the treaty change. Without that in hand, the Tories would need to ensure that they have the vast majority of the 45% voting for them in 2020, to do that they need to be the party of Out and have a a BOOer as leader.
If, unlikely as it seems, the EU does deliver treaty change and enshrines Dave's changes then obviously there won't an issue. I just don't see it.
There is only one party split over Europe, the Tory party.
Labour have a monopoly over all of those issues.
right to paid leave until it was obliged to do so by the Working Time Directive." It took an ECJ decision to force us to put it in place.
The Indy Ref (EU) has every chance of being for Leave, as I don't think the EU changes will amount to much and that will filter through to the polling.
The presumption that Remain will win, and basing predictions of new leaders on that, could well be completely flawed.
On the Tory leadership, not Osborne. After that, take your pick.
"Amid the chaos Jess Phillips MP, one of Labour’s high flying 2015 intake, has said the party's thinking at the moment is "like a drunk game of Boggle."
At least one person in Labour still has their finger on the pulse. Give her a top job.
Then sack her....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=god's+own+country&biw=1366&bih=599&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiR1erMkI7KAhVDuhQKHcj5CMMQ_AUIBygC
The Scottish government and Scottish First Minister was backing Yes in the Indy ref.
The British government and British Prime Minister* will be backing Remain in the EU ref.
* Assuming as expected and as he's said he will Cameron backs Remain following his negotiations. If he backs Leave I fully expect the country will too.
(Meme#1: The EU is a Universal Villain. Anything good it does must be characterised as "would have happened anyway". Anything bad that happens must be blamed on it, no matter how implausibly
Meme#2: The statement "I would have voted Remain if Cameron had negotiated X but he didn't so I'll vote Leave, such a pity" where X is a member of the set of all possible things)
Now that we know, the majority in the Shadow Cabinet were against bombing Syria, the majority of the PLP were against as is the party membership, therefore, the "bombers" cannot serve in the shadow cabinet. Back benches, fine. They can do what they want.
Boring competence is fine but a good leader has to have some ability to define or describe preferably in a sunny, vaguely inspirational way, where they want to lead the country. And assuming Corbyn is still in place they need to have some level of political cunning and controlled fury about how awful Corbyn is and would be as PM and the willingness to take the argument to him and his acolytes and win it, brutally if need be.
Hammond would make a good Chancellor. As FS he's been invisible and his speech on Syria was pedestrian. Javid seems a bit dull. Boris is past it and not at all sure about May: she can certainly have the killer instinct, when needed. Can she do the inspiration bit?
I think there is a fair case for dropping Maria Eagle. She screwed up - badly - when the CGS said all those stupid things and she endorsed his view. Whatever your views on Corbyn, she was clearly wrong to publicly back Dannatt who was bang out of order. I doubt if that's why it's happening, but there is at least a fair pretext. With that, you can understand why it might be difficult for Angela Eagle to remain in the Shadow Cabinet too. It is unfortunate that they are two of the three shadow ministers who have actually established a reasonably high public profile and have seemed to be doing quite well, but these things happen.
However, Hilary Benn is a rather different matter. Whether or not Corbyn was forced into conceding a free vote is irrelevant. In fact, the reason he was 'forced' into conceding a free vote is because he himself had said given his radical minority views, he would allow members to dissent on foreign and defence policy without reprisal, before trying to renege on that and impose a three-line-whip on the Syria vote. The PLP angrily reminded him of his pledge and he backed down. The fact is, he said there would be a free vote. And he allowed one. And he is now victimising those who were foolish enough to take him at his word and follow their principles by rebelling against the leadership - something, let it not be forgotten, that Corbyn has done on average twenty times a year since he entered Parliament usually, in an ironic twist, to endorse violence himself. That looks more than a bit dodgy - it suggests that Corbyn cannot be trusted. (Of course, we all knew that anyway just by looking at his record, but it's not exactly a great advert for the new politics he's talking about.)
The other crucial problem is that in firing these, and promoting complete idiots like Thornberry, Abbott, Burgon and Lewis, while keeping Mcdonnell, who are not merely eccentric, controversial and have a track record of failure, but are also highly unpopular in the PLP, he is severely weakening his bench strength and giving ammunition to those who say he rules by clique. This might not matter so much were his own performance not so uniformly dismal. As it is, Labour appear to be promoting failures and sacking successes. It's not even as though they had lots of successes.
00:44 "I like keeping a low profile"
Between that and saying Cook should not have put the opposition in at Trent Bridge, I think I'm going to have to give up talking about cricket, because clearly I know even less about cricket than Mcdonnell and Corbyn know about electoral strategy.
In truth, none of Dave's likely putative successors are anything like in the same league as himself. We are not being spoilt for choice. I would have probably plumped for Robert Halfon but he has now pretty well self-destructed.
You have to be a bit edgy to be a leader, it requires you to lead the inevitably differing factions of the coalition which make up any great party. Being likeable is not the highest ranking quality. And Osborne showed his shrewdness and to be fair his good sense in picking up the need for a 'northern powerhouse'.
Had Corbyn not wanted a free vote he should have said so before the vote. To do so after the vote is dishonest.
Admittedly, it's harder for an unknown to mount a similar coup in government. But I think we must remember that it's quite possible somebody whom we don't really rate might suddenly find that bit extra at the right moment.
On the substantive point, Fallon (I typed Farron
There was no company share allocations, but I did get free coffee.
I now reckon Jarvid will be a challenger to Osborne (whose devoted protege he has long been...but all's fair in love and politics) and as things stand at the moment, I think he will win, a prospect that would not fill me with unalloyed joy. But this all just for fun - and I sincerely mean it, folks - for the next couple of years.
Boss: "thanks for coming in today, I would like to offer you the job, when do you think you can start?"
Me "Would monday be ok?"
Boss "see you then".
End of individual negotiations.
Javid's got a nice back story. I'm not convinced, from the few times I've seen him on TV, he's got anything else.
I'd be surprised if there was a gender pay differential now (it was just as illegal then but it's unlikely anyone would have enforced it for a man) but the rest still seems to hold good.
But the sum is less than the constituent parts at present, perhaps promoted slightly too soon. However, there is the capacity to mature and grow in stature. We shall see.
PS I am sure Sturgeon would be concerned that either of you losers don't like her
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
My situation was more difficult, i needed the job more than the boss needed me to do the job. There was no shortage of applicants. This was pre minimum wage also....
The reality is at the bottom end of the job market there's no real bargaining power for the employee on an individual basis. I think its possible that the minimum wage (though massively increasing pay) has aggravated this, and with such a surplus of labour, without the ability to job the hourly rate to meet supply, there are no fringe benefits outside the bare minimum.
http://wee-do.com/wee-loves-irn-bru-tunnocks-tea-cake-haggis-wedding-cake/
Actually, it's not strange at all.
Dud you miss the memo?
If it's a vote to Leave, it would be very different, because in that case the most urgent task for the next PM will be negotiating the terms of our departure. That could only really be done by someone who is identified with the Leave campaign.
You having no power, influence or say in the matter is otoh not debatable.