On topic, Trump is still too long for the nomination. One chance in three for a candidate who's led the polls for six months and through several debates, is leading both nationally and in the early states (possibly not Iowa but if not he's certainly close and he and Cruz are way clear of third), seems unusually generous.
I can only put it down to punters not believing that such an unorthodox individual could do it on the day(s). Such thinking ignores recent precedent from various countries across the world (including the UK), and America's unusually open political system. While that openness rarely permeates up to presidential level, it's common at very senior levels below it for non-politicians to come in, run for, and win office.
The problem with that approach is that most of the polling to date has really been not much more than name awareness where Trump undoubtedly scores high. I agree that American politics is unusually open but I really cannot see a Trump figure being selected by the GOP. I think you would have to go back to Eisenhower to find someone less republican getting the nomination.
Expected outcome? Trump v Clinton, with America feeling good about electing its first woman President.
Clinton is a whisker away from being impeached. The FBI is in open rebellion right now over her and if she is not impeached there is a very high likelihood of the FBI director having to stand down. FBI staff have a damning dossier on Hillary / Benghazi and other things. So...in the hypothetical scenario where we see a clean / unencumbered / un-outed / undamaged / un-Donalded Clinton fighting a fair fight against Trump - she might well win (but don't underestimate how viscerally the right and many independents hate her - Hillary Rodham AntiChrist). In the real world trump will go to town on her. Buy some popcorn.
If it gets to the point where the FBI Chief(s) stand down claiming political interference, then she's the proverbial cooked bread. Time to start laying?
I've been laying Hillary for the Presidency. I'm on a couple of long-shot Dems for the nomination too.
Hillary's appeal totally eludes me.
I don't particularly like her politics or style from a "European" perspective, so God knows how she gets a fair wind in the States. Particularly since she's a perennial has-been.
Mr. 1000, I fundamentally disagree with that view of the EU.
It's not 28 individuals (or countries). It's got its own mind, as it were, now. And the ratchet effect means powers almost always move from nation-states to Brussels.
For me the key driver of the US election outcome is going to be the debasement and anger of middle America. Sure GDP/capita is higher in the US than Europe - but it is grossly more unequally distributed. Have any PB'ers been to the US lately? I have. It's a bit of a depressing dump. Middle America is doing really badly, is really worried, and is losing hope (just look at the suicide stats). They're very very down on the political elites of both parties. I saw a poll yesterday that showed just 42% of Americans now associate themselves with either party. The NOTA party (independents) is much the largest constituency. And they're angry.
Many of these angry NOTAs were the ones who elected Republicans to the Senate and state governments. They sent them there to do a job which they have simply failed to come good on. Republican elites are just as venal and self serving as Democrat ones. This is, incidentally, why the GOP machine is so very scared of Cruz - he really means it when he says he wants to end the gravy train. They hate Trump but fear Cruz. Rubio is much more a GOP machine candidate.
So... I think the 'big mo' is with the candidate who is most likely to speak to the fears and grievances of the man in the street. Right now that is clearly Trump. Possibly Cruz. For damn sure it ain't Hillary. Us liberal, wishy washy, civilised, snooty Europeans may look at Trump with a certain de-haut-en-bas disdain. Get over it. I think he is going to win the presidency. Actually I hope he is too. Their political system has become ossified and corrupt - it needs to be broken before it can be rebuilt. And that is clearly the view of a massive number of ordinary Americans too.
If Trump gets elected, he will turn out to be a pragmatic, socially liberal guy. He will not get the Mexicans to build (and pay for) a wall. He will not prevent Muslims from entering the US.
He will, in other words, end up like Obama - as a man who made many promises, but failed to deliver on them. Not least because the panacea promised by Trump does not exist. Cutting yourself off from the rest of the world will not make you rich.
For me the key driver of the US election outcome is going to be the debasement and anger of middle America. Sure GDP/capita is higher in the US than Europe - but it is grossly more unequally distributed. Have any PB'ers been to the US lately? I have. It's a bit of a depressing dump. Middle America is doing really badly, is really worried, and is losing hope (just look at the suicide stats). They're very very down on the political elites of both parties. I saw a poll yesterday that showed just 42% of Americans now associate themselves with either party. The NOTA party (independents) is much the largest constituency. And they're angry.
Many of these angry NOTAs were the ones who elected Republicans to the Senate and state governments. They sent them there to do a job which they have simply failed to come good on. Republican elites are just as venal and self serving as Democrat ones. This is, incidentally, why the GOP machine is so very scared of Cruz - he really means it when he says he wants to end the gravy train. They hate Trump but fear Cruz. Rubio is much more a GOP machine candidate.
So... I think the 'big mo' is with the candidate who is most likely to speak to the fears and grievances of the man in the street. Right now that is clearly Trump. Possibly Cruz. For damn sure it ain't Hillary. Us liberal, wishy washy, civilised, snooty Europeans may look at Trump with a certain de-haut-en-bas disdain. Get over it. I think he is going to win the presidency. Actually I hope he is too. Their political system has become ossified and corrupt - it needs to be broken before it can be rebuilt. And that is clearly the view of a massive number of ordinary Americans too.
If you want the system to be broken from the inside then Cruz is probably a better bet. DC would find it a lot easier to block Trump, who has little to no experience of how the system works (or doesn't work).
Mr. Thompson, I agree it's unlikely we'd be forced [or an attempt made] to join the euro, but I'm more concerned about the critical mass eurozone countries have in QMV.
* I keep debating about whether Denmark would make the shift. While they are not members of the Euro in theory, they have maintained a (incredibly tight) currency peg with it. They are therefore de facto, rather than de jure, members of the Eurozone.
Yes - the population is on the whole Eurosceptical, the Government on the whole not, so the position is a fudge - Denmark is nominally detached from the Euro and other aspects of integration, but in practice integrates as much as they can without making it formal. They recently tried to get a referendum through allowing full integration on law and policing, and narrowly failed.
If Britain were to pull out, I think they'd find it really hard to decide. The political class would generally want to stay in (the Danish People's Party is the big exception, but nowhere near a majority); the older population feels very attached to Britain. On balance I think they'd decide to stay - and Sweden too. Certainly Poland would despite current quarrels - the whole of Eastern Europe sees the EU as strategically important as a counterweight to Russia (though Orban likes to play the two off against each other). What about Ireland? - it'd be really awkward to stay in if we withdrew, but they've done well out of membership.
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary. A sensible, young, fresh, Hispanic, Republican without ethical issues, at a time when the US wants a Republican President. It'd be a landslide.
Trump: it could go either way. I'd reckon the 44% chance of the Presidency in the event of being nominee is about right. He'd lost California, New York and Florida to Hillary, but would gain a bunch of rust belt states.
Cruz comes across very well in Texas and the South. But he's not got national appeal outside that evangelical demographic. He's also a bit weird. I think Hillary beats Cruz three out of four times.
Rubio is an excellent candidate: his oratory is inspiring and he's an excellent debater.
So far as I can tell he's got two main problems:
(1) His platform seems to be based around saying he wants a 2nd American Century, and talking about how his father was a bartender and he is a senator, which is the American Dream. But that's it. I can't see anything else distinctive he's offering. 2) He looks too shiny, glossy, well-turned out and perfect which makes him look like an establishment candidate, even when he is not, and that isn't helped by his liberal position on immigration.
I think Republican voters this time round want a bit of rough.
He's also not remotely centrist. His well-turned-out-ness masks a pretty extreme policy record.
Mr. 1000, I fundamentally disagree with that view of the EU.
It's not 28 individuals (or countries). It's got its own mind, as it were, now. And the ratchet effect means powers almost always move from nation-states to Brussels.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the EU bureaucracy has much less power than you think.
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.
"There is no reason to worry about UK household debt"
"Debt did not cause the banking crash, it is not driving Britain’s economic recovery, it is not needed for Mr Osborne’s deficit reduction to work, it is dwarfed by rising household assets and its distribution has not changed materially. Why worry? That is a question without a compelling answer."
ronically, the one time when I actually got a political poll (Populus), in an intermission during a Labour event, I happily answered questions for about 10 minutes and then had to hang up and invalidate the responses as Ed Miliband wanted to see me. Sigh.
Far be it for me to suggest that might be the summation of a wasted life, Nick, but....
lol! I see what you mean.
But it's been good so far, four quite different careers, all of them fun, familiarity with 25 countries, four books and good health. Not grumbling.
Carlotta - FWIW the mainstream media are reporting gun battles downtown. But I'm sure you'[re right that the traffic is a bigger menace. It's a general issue that terrorism is objectively a very minor risk for nearly all of us, so if the media didn't like sensations it ought to be page 17 news, along with "outbreak of cholera in Paraguay", and that would probably make terrorism much less interesting too, so I can see a case for voluntary restraint in coverage. But there's something about people deliberately trying to kill each other that makes good media copy...
@SamCoatesTimes · 5m5 minutes ago Lambeth, London Pressure from some Tories to broaden the leadership ballot choice from 2 to 3 candidates. My story: http://thetim.es/201MlXd
You'd have thought that a recent example from another party would be a deterrent to giving the membership more power.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
Just finished marathon Making A Murderer. No spoilers, but what a cracking docus.
I enjoyed it too - very well done - the judicial system at least as guilty as the accused. The accused may well have done it, but the concept of "reasonable doubt" appeared to be AWOL....
This is interesting for those who have the polling habit.
Pre-election polls had suggested the result was too close to call, but the Conservatives went on to win an absolute majority, with 331 seats. Prof Curtice, who wrote the report for research agency NatCen, suggested polling difficulties arose "primarily because [pollsters] interviewed too many Labour supporters and not enough Conservatives". NatCen interviewed 4,238 people between July and November last year for its British Social Attitudes Survey. It said it had made "repeated efforts" over the four months to make contact with the people it had selected to interview - and among those it was able to contact most easily, Labour had a six-point lead. However, among the harder-to-contact group, who took between three and six calls to track down, the Conservatives were 11 points ahead.
@SamCoatesTimes · 5m5 minutes ago Lambeth, London Pressure from some Tories to broaden the leadership ballot choice from 2 to 3 candidates. My story: http://thetim.es/201MlXd
You'd have thought that a recent example from another party would be a deterrent to giving the membership more power.
He's got another story that is linked to that. Honestly George Osborne is a genius
George Osborne wants Sajid Javid to join the Brexit campaign to boost his own leadership hopes, Eurosceptic Tory MPs believe.
The business secretary, a key ally of the chancellor, could be given “licence to dissent” during the referendum to help Mr Osborne to win back support after the vote among Tories who wanted Britain to leave the EU.
'But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.'
On the other hand, plenty of people used to dismiss the idea of the euro as a pipe dream that would never be implemented as well, yet here it is. Moreover, many of economic criticisms of the idea which were laid out in the 1990s (and earlier) have been shown to be spot on - yet it endures and will I suspect continue to do so.
The focus on 'the bureaucracy' is wrong. The issue is political commitment to stepped-up integration across the top level of politics including elected officials, national civil services and the European Commission (I could add judicial authorities too). And that commitment is very strong and will push forward such integration, making our EU membership increasingly painful as time goes on.
It's time to shake hands with our EU partners and for both of us to move on in our different desired directions.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), huzzah! Let us hope other copies have been made, and spread, so that all may wonder at the mysterious white that once fell, long ago, in our land.
Mr. Thompson, I agree it's unlikely we'd be forced [or an attempt made] to join the euro, but I'm more concerned about the critical mass eurozone countries have in QMV.
If the Eurozone countries had one unified interest then that would be more relevant but they don't so its more of a moot point. The notion that the Dutch are identical to the Greeks is innovative to say the least.
@SamCoatesTimes · 5m5 minutes ago Lambeth, London Pressure from some Tories to broaden the leadership ballot choice from 2 to 3 candidates. My story: http://thetim.es/201MlXd
You'd have thought that a recent example from another party would be a deterrent to giving the membership more power.
He's got another story that is linked to that. Honestly George Osborne is a genius
George Osborne wants Sajid Javid to join the Brexit campaign to boost his own leadership hopes, Eurosceptic Tory MPs believe.
The business secretary, a key ally of the chancellor, could be given “licence to dissent” during the referendum to help Mr Osborne to win back support after the vote among Tories who wanted Britain to leave the EU.
And presumably if Leave then win and Osborne was seen as a no hoper for the leadership, Javid would go for it and keep Osborne on says an olive branch to the Cameroons. The student becomes the master.
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.
Well said.
The biggest problem with the EU is not it being overly-active but the exact opposite, it is sclerotic.
Agreeing and implementing new ideas happens very piecemeal and slowly. The biggest problem is not the EU doing new activities but what happens when we want to undo something the EU is already doing. EG the Common Agricultural Policy.
There the sclerosis that prevents changes works against us because it will take effectively unanimous agreement to undo what was previously agreed.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
''He's got another story that is linked to that. Honestly George Osborne is a genius.''
Yeh right. Economic failure is going to blow little Georgey away. His next budget will see big tax increases for middle class voters as he desperately tries to balance the books.
The back benches will be incandescent after he blew 26 billion trying to make friends.
''He's got another story that is linked to that. Honestly George Osborne is a genius.''
Yeh right. Economic failure is going to blow little Georgey away. His next budget will see big tax increases for middle class voters as he desperately tries to balance the books.
The back benches will be incandescent after he blew 26 billion trying to make friends.
Leader? Not a chance.
Not a chance ? So you'll be offering PBers 100/1 on Ozzy as next Tory leader.
Lots of PBers will be willing to you offer money.
Should be free money for you, because you say he's no chance.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It happened with IDS.
The proposal is foolish and that it comes from 'senior Tories' is no surprise: the people who have most to gain from such a proposal are non-front running potential candidates.
''He's got another story that is linked to that. Honestly George Osborne is a genius.''
Yeh right. Economic failure is going to blow little Georgey away. His next budget will see big tax increases for middle class voters as he desperately tries to balance the books.
The back benches will be incandescent after he blew 26 billion trying to make friends.
Leader? Not a chance.
Not a chance ? So you'll be offering PBers 100/1 on Ozzy as next Tory leader.
Lots of PBers will be willing to you offer money.
Should be free money for you, because you say he's no chance.
What amused me about the sentence "George Osborne wants Sajid Javid to join the Brexit campaign to boost his own leadership hopes, Eurosceptic Tory MPs believe" was the idea that, somehow, having the Business Secretary join your corner is part of a plot against you.
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
'not a chance ? So you'll be offering PBers 100/1 on Ozzy as next Tory leader.''
Well if you;'re going to get testy over a figure of speech then maybe I need to chose my words more carefully. Point taken
I am, however, entitled to the view George Osborne will not become tory leader for the reasons I have outlined. and I am entitled to express that view here.
As a Thatcherite I am furious with Osborne, to be honest, but there it is. In his case, I believe he is about to reap what he has sown.
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.
We aren't in it and yet will still get caught in the net. The FTT is a classic example of how Brussels fights dirty, if they can't get nations to agree to their stupid ideas they just impose them anyway by the back door. The Lisbon Treaty is another one, it is the same text as the EU Constitution that was voted down by the French and Dutch. They just rebadged it as a treaty so it didn't require public consent in all 25 nations.
Oh btw I see Grayling has broken cover and called membership of the EU disastrous. I'm curious to see if this is the start of a concerted campaign from Tory rebels or if he turns out to be the sacrificial lamb.
I haven't read or heard Grayling's words directly, but the summary of his views on R5L seemed utterly reasonable. But I would say that, as they appeared to match my views rather well.
I cannot see the EU moving away from further EZ integration, or treating the non-EZ countries significantly differently from the EZ countries (two-speed Europe). This means that eventually we would have to join the Euro. And that's somewhere I don't want to go.
I'm sorry but what on earth are you talking about? There is no way we can leave the EU and join the Euro
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Does Boris actually believe in anything at all?
A not unreasonable point, although it's something people have said about Cameron for a long time as well, so it doesn't preclude him succeeding.
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.
We aren't in it and yet will still get caught in the net. The FTT is a classic example of how Brussels fights dirty, if they can't get nations to agree to their stupid ideas they just impose them anyway by the back door. The Lisbon Treaty is another one, it is the same text as the EU Constitution that was voted down by the French and Dutch. They just rebadged it as a treaty so it didn't require public consent in all 25 nations.
'not a chance ? So you'll be offering PBers 100/1 on Ozzy as next Tory leader.''
Well if you;'re going to get testy over a figure of speech then maybe I need to chose my words more carefully. Point taken
I am, however, entitled to the view George Osborne will not become tory leader for the reasons I have outlined. and I am entitled to express that view here.
As a Thatcherite I am furious with Osborne, to be honest, but there it is. In his case, I believe he is about to reap what he has sown.
The simple fact is that Osborne has done the same as Thatcher, in a good way.
Spending as a proportion of GDP has come down in just five years under Osborne in a way that would make Thatcher blush.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
If the race were held today, George Osborne might have 180 nominations (I'm sceptical, to be honest). But the race isn't going to be held today and may well not be held for three years. Support is not irrevocable and many MPs are going to be giving warm words to a very powerful figure in the hope of preferment. Many of those MPs are likely to have reassessed their hope of preferment by the time they make their choice.
'The biggest problem is not the EU doing new activities but what happens when we want to undo something the EU is already doing. EG the Common Agricultural Policy.'
There is no chance of undoing the CAP or any other major pillars of the EU because there is zero appetite among the main countries for doing so.
It's incredible how people in the UK still can't comprehend what the EU is about. There is only one direction - more integration. It's a manifest destiny thing for the political elites of our European neighbours (and indeed for a lot of the voters as well).
You can resist this, to an extent, but never move the other way. And eventually your resistance will be broken either by judicial activism or other work arounds.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
If the race were held today, George Osborne might have 180 nominations (I'm sceptical, to be honest). But the race isn't going to be held today and may well not be held for three years. Support is not irrevocable and many MPs are going to be giving warm words to a very powerful figure in the hope of preferment. Many of those MPs are likely to have reassessed their hope of preferment by the time they make their choice.
We know how Tories operate - he's probably made them swear on a pig's head.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
If the race were held today, George Osborne might have 180 nominations (I'm sceptical, to be honest). But the race isn't going to be held today and may well not be held for three years. Support is not irrevocable and many MPs are going to be giving warm words to a very powerful figure in the hope of preferment. Many of those MPs are likely to have reassessed their hope of preferment by the time they make their choice.
Correct odds for Osborne to be on the next Tory leader ballot ?
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.
We aren't in it and yet will still get caught in the net. The FTT is a classic example of how Brussels fights dirty, if they can't get nations to agree to their stupid ideas they just impose them anyway by the back door. The Lisbon Treaty is another one, it is the same text as the EU Constitution that was voted down by the French and Dutch. They just rebadged it as a treaty so it didn't require public consent in all 25 nations.
But there isn't going to be an FTT
I don't think so either, but they are still ploughing ahead with it. I read that Estonia are the latest country to pull out and Slovenia aren't too fare behind them. What's the minimum threshold for enhanced co-operation?
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Does Boris actually believe in anything at all?
He believes he'd make a great Prime Minister.
To be fair, ability to sit on the fence elegantly is an important Prime Ministerial skill.
Oh btw I see Grayling has broken cover and called membership of the EU disastrous. I'm curious to see if this is the start of a concerted campaign from Tory rebels or if he turns out to be the sacrificial lamb.
I haven't read or heard Grayling's words directly, but the summary of his views on R5L seemed utterly reasonable. But I would say that, as they appeared to match my views rather well.
I cannot see the EU moving away from further EZ integration, or treating the non-EZ countries significantly differently from the EZ countries (two-speed Europe). This means that eventually we would have to join the Euro. And that's somewhere I don't want to go.
I'm not sure about us having to join the Euro.
There is no way to force a country to join the Euro who doesn't want to join. We have no treaty obligation to join. And the ECJ has no competence to make us. (And if they did, we'd just invoke Article 50, anyway.)
Really, the only reason we'd join the Euro would be if - for some reason - the Euro were to become an enormous success, and the willingness of the world's investors to hold pounds was severely diminished. I.e., in some kind of major, multi decade, sterling crisis.
I think you are correct. Furthermore its easy to be blind and dismiss the Euro but in 20 years who can tell how well or poorly it will have performed?
As I understand what Grayling says he said that the EU and the Euro as it is now is bad for us. Well that is not surprising and that is why we have the negotiations for reforms in the first place. If the results make sense then I suspect staying will be little different from being in the EEA.
Oh btw I see Grayling has broken cover and called membership of the EU disastrous. I'm curious to see if this is the start of a concerted campaign from Tory rebels or if he turns out to be the sacrificial lamb.
I haven't read or heard Grayling's words directly, but the summary of his views on R5L seemed utterly reasonable. But I would say that, as they appeared to match my views rather well.
I cannot see the EU moving away from further EZ integration, or treating the non-EZ countries significantly differently from the EZ countries (two-speed Europe). This means that eventually we would have to join the Euro. And that's somewhere I don't want to go.
I'm sorry but what on earth are you talking about? There is no way we can leave the EU and join the Euro
Boris still trying to have it both ways in The Waugh Zone today:
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Does Boris actually believe in anything at all?
He believes he'd make a great Prime Minister.
To be fair, ability to sit on the fence elegantly is an important Prime Ministerial skill.
'The biggest problem is not the EU doing new activities but what happens when we want to undo something the EU is already doing. EG the Common Agricultural Policy.'
There is no chance of undoing the CAP or any other major pillars of the EU because there is zero appetite among the main countries for doing so.
It's incredible how people in the UK still can't comprehend what the EU is about. There is only one direction - more integration. It's a manifest destiny thing for the political elites of our European neighbours (and indeed for a lot of the voters as well).
You can resist this, to an extent, but never move the other way. And eventually your resistance will be broken either by judicial activism or other work arounds.
Indeed, the only way to stop paying for French farmers is to either leave and become EEA only members (who aren't in the CAP and CFP) or to secure an opt-out. Since Dave isn't negotiating for the latter and the EU would never given an EU member an opt-out for such a large spending commitment the only way we can do stop paying for French farmers is to leave the EU.
'not a chance ? So you'll be offering PBers 100/1 on Ozzy as next Tory leader.''
Well if you;'re going to get testy over a figure of speech then maybe I need to chose my words more carefully. Point taken
I am, however, entitled to the view George Osborne will not become tory leader for the reasons I have outlined. and I am entitled to express that view here.
As a Thatcherite I am furious with Osborne, to be honest, but there it is. In his case, I believe he is about to reap what he has sown.
Testy? Pah! This is a betting site, don't be surprised if punters take you on over terms like no chance.
IIRC at the time of the Autumn Statement, someone posted some stats showing Osborne had cut public spending more than Thatcher, but you keep on ranting on.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
If the race were held today, George Osborne might have 180 nominations (I'm sceptical, to be honest). But the race isn't going to be held today and may well not be held for three years. Support is not irrevocable and many MPs are going to be giving warm words to a very powerful figure in the hope of preferment. Many of those MPs are likely to have reassessed their hope of preferment by the time they make their choice.
We know how Tories operate - he's probably made them swear on a pig's head.
Whilst the Labour equivalent would be made whilst wearing a black balaclava and draped in the Daesh Flag.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
If the race were held today, George Osborne might have 180 nominations (I'm sceptical, to be honest). But the race isn't going to be held today and may well not be held for three years. Support is not irrevocable and many MPs are going to be giving warm words to a very powerful figure in the hope of preferment. Many of those MPs are likely to have reassessed their hope of preferment by the time they make their choice.
I know, but there's still enough personal loyalty to Osborne to ensure he's going to make the final two.
Election data Cluster map of proportion of households renting privately, by constituency (2011 Census): London and the Kent coast https://t.co/BODzNENDep
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Just for you, I've written a thread for Sunday saying why Osborne shouldn't be Tory leader.
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
ronically, the one time when I actually got a political poll (Populus), in an intermission during a Labour event, I happily answered questions for about 10 minutes and then had to hang up and invalidate the responses as Ed Miliband wanted to see me. Sigh.
Far be it for me to suggest that might be the summation of a wasted life, Nick, but....
Carlotta - FWIW the mainstream media are reporting gun battles downtown. .
From what I can tell so far - a gang of some number (claims of 14, but unproven) on motorbikes attempted an attack in Central Jakarta with home made bombs, guns and grenades. Within minutes they were either dead or pinned down by police fire and the survivors either blew themselves up or had one of their bombs detonated by a police bullet.
It looks like it was pretty much over before the story hit twitter, where like Topsy it grew.....
Another scenario I was talking about with someone yesterday, if we do vote to leave. What does Dave do with Osborne? He will surely have to take the fall which then opens up the second most powerful job in the country. I could see Dave shifting Osborne to the FCO and Hammond into the Treasury, a job swap, but then he might use the opportunity to refresh the whole team.
Another scenario I was talking about with someone yesterday, if we do vote to leave. What does Dave do with Osborne? He will surely have to take the fall which then opens up the second most powerful job in the country. I could see Dave shifting Osborne to the FCO and Hammond into the Treasury, a job swap, but then he might use the opportunity to refresh the whole team.
Why would Osborne take the fall? Surely if anyone does then Dave (who is going anyway) will take the fall?
Besides if Osborne is to be moved then moving him to the FCO at a time we need to negotiate Brexit seems most unlikely. I would expect a Leaver to be moved into the FCO if necessary.
ronically, the one time when I actually got a political poll (Populus), in an intermission during a Labour event, I happily answered questions for about 10 minutes and then had to hang up and invalidate the responses as Ed Miliband wanted to see me. Sigh.
Far be it for me to suggest that might be the summation of a wasted life, Nick, but....
lol! I see what you mean.
But it's been good so far, four quite different careers, all of them fun, familiarity with 25 countries, four books and good health. Not grumbling.
Carlotta - FWIW the mainstream media are reporting gun battles downtown. But I'm sure you'[re right that the traffic is a bigger menace. It's a general issue that terrorism is objectively a very minor risk for nearly all of us, so if the media didn't like sensations it ought to be page 17 news, along with "outbreak of cholera in Paraguay", and that would probably make terrorism much less interesting too, so I can see a case for voluntary restraint in coverage. But there's something about people deliberately trying to kill each other that makes good media copy...
Nick, every best wish for careers five, six and seven. Especially if any are in the animal welfare sphere.
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.
We aren't in it and yet will still get caught in the net. The FTT is a classic example of how Brussels fights dirty, if they can't get nations to agree to their stupid ideas they just impose them anyway by the back door. The Lisbon Treaty is another one, it is the same text as the EU Constitution that was voted down by the French and Dutch. They just rebadged it as a treaty so it didn't require public consent in all 25 nations.
But there isn't going to be an FTT
I don't think so either, but they are still ploughing ahead with it. I read that Estonia are the latest country to pull out and Slovenia aren't too fare behind them. What's the minimum threshold for enhanced co-operation?
They're not ploughing ahead with it. The last draft was more than two years ago. There is no active progress.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Just for you, I've written a thread for Sunday saying why Osborne shouldn't be Tory leader.
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
LOL
nobody voted for Le Crapaud . People voted against Sturgeon courtesy of Sir Lynton.
Mr. 1000, it's not just what's written down. It's the ideal. Leaders actively think of sacrificing the national interest on the altar of Brussels, or using Brussels to try and damage others (cf Financial Transactions Tax), unaware or unconcerned this only increases the centralised power.
But the FTT is also a clear example of the fact that it's 28 countries. Firstly, it was clear that all 28 wouldn't agree. Then about a dozen tried to get it together inside "enhanced co-operation", and they couldn't agree. The Brussels bureaucracy is powerless to make countries do things they truly don't want to do.
We aren't in it and yet will still get caught in the net. The FTT is a classic example of how Brussels fights dirty, if they can't get nations to agree to their stupid ideas they just impose them anyway by the back door. The Lisbon Treaty is another one, it is the same text as the EU Constitution that was voted down by the French and Dutch. They just rebadged it as a treaty so it didn't require public consent in all 25 nations.
But there isn't going to be an FTT
I don't think so either, but they are still ploughing ahead with it. I read that Estonia are the latest country to pull out and Slovenia aren't too fare behind them. What's the minimum threshold for enhanced co-operation?
They're not ploughing ahead with it. The last draft was more than two years ago. There is no active progress.
Maybe a case of lets hope everyone forgets about it. I know they wanted it to come into force in January, but obviously that never happened.
I'm not fully up to date on it, but what happened with the French FTT? I read that it didn't go very well, but that was a while ago.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Just for you, I've written a thread for Sunday saying why Osborne shouldn't be Tory leader.
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
LOL
nobody voted for Le Crapaud . People voted against Sturgeon courtesy of Sir Lynton.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
LOL! I'm feeling a little happier about my bet with @blackburn63 this morning. Still can't see Leicester keeping it up though, they'll start being tired/injured/suspended at some point soon and don't have the squad depth of those around them. Not that that's much consolation to the Spurs fans.
LOL! I'm feeling a little happier about my bet with @blackburn63 this morning. Still can't see Leicester keeping it up though, they'll start being tired/injured/suspended at some point soon and don't have the squad depth of those around them. Not that that's much consolation to the Spurs fans.
Indeed, I'm lower than Ed Miliband on May 8th.
Become a Liverpool fan. We're going to win the title next season if we get a decent keeper/defence
Nah, you've gone backwards under Klopp. I went to Anfield last night and thought Liverpool were average; you should have stuck with Rodgers. Don't be fooled by a decent performance against the only team in the PL that plays 4-1-5.
Really!?
On TV I thought they matched Arsenal, exceeded them going forward (although Giroud was excellent, second goal truly superb)
Defence is bobbins, that corner was embarrassing again. That performance would have beaten 15 or so Prem teams though.
As Liverpool fan the agony is that we know there is a very high chance that next game will be inexplicably flat and poor. 4-1 at City then lose 3-0 to Watford, that sort of thing...
Consistency, Sturridge back for more than a few hours at a time and a new keeper and we will be top 4 next year. Title may be ambitious!
Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary. A sensible, young, fresh, Hispanic, Republican without ethical issues, at a time when the US wants a Republican President. It'd be a landslide.
Trump: it could go either way. I'd reckon the 44% chance of the Presidency in the event of being nominee is about right. He'd lost California, New York and Florida to Hillary, but would gain a bunch of rust belt states.
Cruz comes across very well in Texas and the South. But he's not got national appeal outside that evangelical demographic. He's also a bit weird. I think Hillary beats Cruz three out of four times.
Rubio is an excellent candidate: his oratory is inspiring and he's an excellent debater.
So far as I can tell he's got two main problems:
(1) His platform seems to be based around saying he wants a 2nd American Century, and talking about how his father was a bartender and he is a senator, which is the American Dream. But that's it. I can't see anything else distinctive he's offering. 2) He looks too shiny, glossy, well-turned out and perfect which makes him look like an establishment candidate, even when he is not, and that isn't helped by his liberal position on immigration.
I think Republican voters this time round want a bit of rough.
He's also not remotely centrist. His well-turned-out-ness masks a pretty extreme policy record.
You mean on God, Guns and Gays?
It would seem that's not enough to win with the Republican base these days.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Just for you, I've written a thread for Sunday saying why Osborne shouldn't be Tory leader.
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
LOL
nobody voted for Le Crapaud . People voted against Sturgeon courtesy of Sir Lynton.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Just for you, I've written a thread for Sunday saying why Osborne shouldn't be Tory leader.
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
LOL
nobody voted for Le Crapaud . People voted against Sturgeon courtesy of Sir Lynton.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
Osborne won.
ROFL
yes it was all his personal doing nobody else did anything.
LOL! I'm feeling a little happier about my bet with @blackburn63 this morning. Still can't see Leicester keeping it up though, they'll start being tired/injured/suspended at some point soon and don't have the squad depth of those around them. Not that that's much consolation to the Spurs fans.
LOL! I'm feeling a little happier about my bet with @blackburn63 this morning. Still can't see Leicester keeping it up though, they'll start being tired/injured/suspended at some point soon and don't have the squad depth of those around them. Not that that's much consolation to the Spurs fans.
Indeed, I'm lower than Ed Miliband on May 8th.
Become a Liverpool fan. We're going to win the title next season if we get a decent keeper/defence
Nah, you've gone backwards under Klopp. I went to Anfield last night and thought Liverpool were average; you should have stuck with Rodgers. Don't be fooled by a decent performance against the only team in the PL that plays 4-1-5.
Really!?
On TV I thought they matched Arsenal, exceeded them going forward (although Giroud was excellent, second goal truly superb)
Defence is bobbins, that corner was embarrassing again. That performance would have beaten 15 or so Prem teams though.
As Liverpool fan the agony is that we know there is a very high chance that next game will be inexplicably flat and poor. 4-1 at City then lose 3-0 to Watford, that sort of thing...
Consistency, Sturridge back for more than a few hours at a time and a new keeper and we will be top 4 next year. Title may be ambitious!
The worst thing Klopp has done since he joined was to give Simon Mignolet a five year contract.
The next match is Man U at home. The Times reports if LVG loses that match, he's gone.
Another scenario I was talking about with someone yesterday, if we do vote to leave. What does Dave do with Osborne? He will surely have to take the fall which then opens up the second most powerful job in the country. I could see Dave shifting Osborne to the FCO and Hammond into the Treasury, a job swap, but then he might use the opportunity to refresh the whole team.
Why would Osborne take the fall? Surely if anyone does then Dave (who is going anyway) will take the fall?
Besides if Osborne is to be moved then moving him to the FCO at a time we need to negotiate Brexit seems most unlikely. I would expect a Leaver to be moved into the FCO if necessary.
Yeah, good point. I don't think Dave will go in the event of a Leave. I think Osborne will take the fall as he is the chief architect of the negotiation. Dave will want to stay and see it through, "accept the will of the people".
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Dont be silly, Catbert switches voters off and MPs want to get re-elected
Just for you, I've written a thread for Sunday saying why Osborne shouldn't be Tory leader.
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
LOL
nobody voted for Le Crapaud . People voted against Sturgeon courtesy of Sir Lynton.
@SamCoatesTimes · 5m5 minutes ago Lambeth, London Pressure from some Tories to broaden the leadership ballot choice from 2 to 3 candidates. My story: http://thetim.es/201MlXd
You'd have thought that a recent example from another party would be a deterrent to giving the membership more power.
He's got another story that is linked to that. Honestly George Osborne is a genius
George Osborne wants Sajid Javid to join the Brexit campaign to boost his own leadership hopes, Eurosceptic Tory MPs believe.
The business secretary, a key ally of the chancellor, could be given “licence to dissent” during the referendum to help Mr Osborne to win back support after the vote among Tories who wanted Britain to leave the EU.
Entirely unexpected and unsurprising.
But he's not as much of a genius as he thinks he is: it's entirely mood music and smoke and mirrors.
It wouldn't even surprise me if Javid and Osborne had conspired for the former to just *pretend* to be a Leaver just to enhance the latters leadership chances and the former's career.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
It is a great idea I think. It would mean the final stage of the Tory leadership election would have to be conducted under AV.
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
I can see how it would appeal to acolytes of Liam Fox and Owen Paterson. For those Conservatives with an interest in finding a leader that might actually be electable, the idea is going to be harder to sell.
I think the other issue is that Osborne has already 180 nominations. He could loan some of his nominations and choose his own opponent in a two horse race.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Like David Davis had it all sewn up in 2005?
Let's see if those 180 MP votes actually transpire.
Another scenario I was talking about with someone yesterday, if we do vote to leave. What does Dave do with Osborne? He will surely have to take the fall which then opens up the second most powerful job in the country. I could see Dave shifting Osborne to the FCO and Hammond into the Treasury, a job swap, but then he might use the opportunity to refresh the whole team.
Why would Osborne take the fall? Surely if anyone does then Dave (who is going anyway) will take the fall?
Besides if Osborne is to be moved then moving him to the FCO at a time we need to negotiate Brexit seems most unlikely. I would expect a Leaver to be moved into the FCO if necessary.
Yeah, good point. I don't think Dave will go in the event of a Leave. I think Osborne will take the fall as he is the chief architect of the negotiation. Dave will want to stay and see it through, "accept the will of the people".
If Corbyn is still LOTO, then it may be that David Cameron will step down and let George Osborne be Prime Minister for a bit and lead the Conservatives into a general election where the latter's unlikeability might not be thought significant. Do they remain BFF ?
Comments
Spurs bowling means Moen on within the first 45 mins and 12th over.
I'm going out.
I don't particularly like her politics or style from a "European" perspective, so God knows how she gets a fair wind in the States. Particularly since she's a perennial has-been.
It's not 28 individuals (or countries). It's got its own mind, as it were, now. And the ratchet effect means powers almost always move from nation-states to Brussels.
He will not get the Mexicans to build (and pay for) a wall.
He will not prevent Muslims from entering the US.
He will, in other words, end up like Obama - as a man who made many promises, but failed to deliver on them. Not least because the panacea promised by Trump does not exist. Cutting yourself off from the rest of the world will not make you rich.
If Britain were to pull out, I think they'd find it really hard to decide. The political class would generally want to stay in (the Danish People's Party is the big exception, but nowhere near a majority); the older population feels very attached to Britain. On balance I think they'd decide to stay - and Sweden too. Certainly Poland would despite current quarrels - the whole of Eastern Europe sees the EU as strategically important as a counterweight to Russia (though Orban likes to play the two off against each other). What about Ireland? - it'd be really awkward to stay in if we withdrew, but they've done well out of membership.
What did I forecast for 2016 for all good PBrs? SNOW of course!
I also promised TRUMP.
We are on course to get both. SNOW is already here in the north, from the coming Monday it will lay thickly in the south as well.
The bet I bought in October on a TRUMP nomination already looks like a printing machine.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/761ab30c-b941-11e5-bf7e-8a339b6f2164.html#axzz3xD3z8ibC
"There is no reason to worry about UK household debt"
"Debt did not cause the banking crash, it is not driving Britain’s economic recovery, it is not needed for Mr Osborne’s deficit reduction to work, it is dwarfed by rising household assets and its distribution has not changed materially. Why worry? That is a question without a compelling answer."
But it's been good so far, four quite different careers, all of them fun, familiarity with 25 countries, four books and good health. Not grumbling.
Carlotta - FWIW the mainstream media are reporting gun battles downtown. But I'm sure you'[re right that the traffic is a bigger menace. It's a general issue that terrorism is objectively a very minor risk for nearly all of us, so if the media didn't like sensations it ought to be page 17 news, along with "outbreak of cholera in Paraguay", and that would probably make terrorism much less interesting too, so I can see a case for voluntary restraint in coverage. But there's something about people deliberately trying to kill each other that makes good media copy...
#PMQs Sketch Fans - all the sketchwriting rounded up in only one place: https://t.co/2r1qQpgcD3 https://t.co/HJ6eLliqI2
Pressure from some Tories to broaden the leadership ballot choice from 2 to 3 candidates. My story: http://thetim.es/201MlXd
You'd have thought that a recent example from another party would be a deterrent to giving the membership more power.
Particularly as a leader could be elected with much fewer than a third of MPs on-side. [That's technically possible now, but less likely. And if it happened, they would be MPs' second choice, not their third].
This is interesting for those who have the polling habit.
Pre-election polls had suggested the result was too close to call, but the Conservatives went on to win an absolute majority, with 331 seats.
Prof Curtice, who wrote the report for research agency NatCen, suggested polling difficulties arose "primarily because [pollsters] interviewed too many Labour supporters and not enough Conservatives".
NatCen interviewed 4,238 people between July and November last year for its British Social Attitudes Survey.
It said it had made "repeated efforts" over the four months to make contact with the people it had selected to interview - and among those it was able to contact most easily, Labour had a six-point lead.
However, among the harder-to-contact group, who took between three and six calls to track down, the Conservatives were 11 points ahead.
George Osborne wants Sajid Javid to join the Brexit campaign to boost his own leadership hopes, Eurosceptic Tory MPs believe.
The business secretary, a key ally of the chancellor, could be given “licence to dissent” during the referendum to help Mr Osborne to win back support after the vote among Tories who wanted Britain to leave the EU.
On the other hand, plenty of people used to dismiss the idea of the euro as a pipe dream that would never be implemented as well, yet here it is. Moreover, many of economic criticisms of the idea which were laid out in the 1990s (and earlier) have been shown to be spot on - yet it endures and will I suspect continue to do so.
The focus on 'the bureaucracy' is wrong. The issue is political commitment to stepped-up integration across the top level of politics including elected officials, national civil services and the European Commission (I could add judicial authorities too). And that commitment is very strong and will push forward such integration, making our EU membership increasingly painful as time goes on.
It's time to shake hands with our EU partners and for both of us to move on in our different desired directions.
But it's been saved for the nation
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf
Honestly it would be awesome. Think of the many PB threads about AV it would inspire.
@georgeeaton: "We can't go on like this." What Burnham told the shadow cabinet http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/01/all-sides-labour-want-unity-whose-terms
IF the Dow drops another 2/3% today run for the exits. Nasdaq looking frail this morning.
The biggest problem with the EU is not it being overly-active but the exact opposite, it is sclerotic.
Agreeing and implementing new ideas happens very piecemeal and slowly. The biggest problem is not the EU doing new activities but what happens when we want to undo something the EU is already doing. EG the Common Agricultural Policy.
There the sclerosis that prevents changes works against us because it will take effectively unanimous agreement to undo what was previously agreed.
In a three horse race that removes an advantage for George.
Yeh right. Economic failure is going to blow little Georgey away. His next budget will see big tax increases for middle class voters as he desperately tries to balance the books.
The back benches will be incandescent after he blew 26 billion trying to make friends.
Leader? Not a chance.
Lots of PBers will be willing to you offer money.
Should be free money for you, because you say he's no chance.
The proposal is foolish and that it comes from 'senior Tories' is no surprise: the people who have most to gain from such a proposal are non-front running potential candidates.
"Boris’s intentions remain the real threat to Osborne. Referring to claims that he’d said before Christmas that ‘I’m not an Outer’, allies of Bojo told me yesterday to treat them with ‘scepticism’ (which is kinda apt). “Instinctively he wants to stay in a reformed EU, but if we can’t get what we want, as he’s said, he can see a great future outside,” one said. I understand Boris does not want to ‘lead’ the Brexit campaign purely because he believes business leaders will make the best case."
Does Boris actually believe in anything at all?
Well if you;'re going to get testy over a figure of speech then maybe I need to chose my words more carefully. Point taken
I am, however, entitled to the view George Osborne will not become tory leader for the reasons I have outlined. and I am entitled to express that view here.
As a Thatcherite I am furious with Osborne, to be honest, but there it is. In his case, I believe he is about to reap what he has sown.
Spending as a proportion of GDP has come down in just five years under Osborne in a way that would make Thatcher blush.
There is no chance of undoing the CAP or any other major pillars of the EU because there is zero appetite among the main countries for doing so.
It's incredible how people in the UK still can't comprehend what the EU is about. There is only one direction - more integration. It's a manifest destiny thing for the political elites of our European neighbours (and indeed for a lot of the voters as well).
You can resist this, to an extent, but never move the other way. And eventually your resistance will be broken either by judicial activism or other work arounds.
As I understand what Grayling says he said that the EU and the Euro as it is now is bad for us. Well that is not surprising and that is why we have the negotiations for reforms in the first place. If the results make sense then I suspect staying will be little different from being in the EEA.
IIRC at the time of the Autumn Statement, someone posted some stats showing Osborne had cut public spending more than Thatcher, but you keep on ranting on.
Cluster map of proportion of households renting privately, by constituency (2011 Census): London and the Kent coast https://t.co/BODzNENDep
Very different situations and timescales I know, but ...
However I'd like to point out that in May when it looked likely Osborne was going to be turfed out of the Treasury the voters came out en masse to ensure Ozzy remained Chancellor. He helped oversee an increase in Tory share of the vote and increase in MPs after a full parliamentary term, something that doesn't happen too often.
It looks like it was pretty much over before the story hit twitter, where like Topsy it grew.....
Besides if Osborne is to be moved then moving him to the FCO at a time we need to negotiate Brexit seems most unlikely. I would expect a Leaver to be moved into the FCO if necessary.
nobody voted for Le Crapaud . People voted against Sturgeon courtesy of Sir Lynton.
I'm not fully up to date on it, but what happened with the French FTT? I read that it didn't go very well, but that was a while ago.
Osborne won.
On TV I thought they matched Arsenal, exceeded them going forward (although Giroud was excellent, second goal truly superb)
Defence is bobbins, that corner was embarrassing again. That performance would have beaten 15 or so Prem teams though.
As Liverpool fan the agony is that we know there is a very high chance that next game will be inexplicably flat and poor. 4-1 at City then lose 3-0 to Watford, that sort of thing...
Consistency, Sturridge back for more than a few hours at a time and a new keeper and we will be top 4 next year. Title may be ambitious!
It would seem that's not enough to win with the Republican base these days.
yes it was all his personal doing nobody else did anything.
The next match is Man U at home. The Times reports if LVG loses that match, he's gone.
So defeat might well be good for Liverpool
The 1976 Playboy interview? Did SeanT only buy it for the articles?
But he's not as much of a genius as he thinks he is: it's entirely mood music and smoke and mirrors.
It wouldn't even surprise me if Javid and Osborne had conspired for the former to just *pretend* to be a Leaver just to enhance the latters leadership chances and the former's career.
Let's see if those 180 MP votes actually transpire.