He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
I've heard exactly the same from people who've met both. They've also said that Osborne has a very strong moral core, and cares much more deeply about right and wrong.
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
Its the same game everyone is playing. Yesterday we had Nabavi and friends wondering theatrically why people on the leave side were attacking Cameron as supposedly a lot of it wasn't his fault. Now we have CV attacking Boris for not leading Leave even though a presentational role while others look after the detail suits him best. Both sides see value in trying to discredit the main spokesman on their opponent, not exactly a shock.
Incidentally the role Boris is playing in Leave suggest if he got to No10 he would be a similar style of leader to Cameron. That is to say collegiate and leaving ministers to do their job while he does the presentation.
..... Besides, I was wondering why so-called Conservative leavers (not people on the leave side) were attacking Cameron in such a way, when the risks of a Corbynist government are so major. And whilst the probability of that government is low, it is getting more probable the longer he stays in and the more the Conservative party tars itself apart.
The attacking is a reaction to the mendacity and misuse of Govt resources behind REMAIN. He could have done the same as Harold Wilson and sat back, instead Cameron chose to unleash the govt machine and spads to load the debate unfairly, attack LEAVE and go after the personalities. But that then led to the bitter responses and washing of dirty linen such as that SPAD Korski. Live by the sword, Cameron/Osborne and shall ye die by it.
Mr. 1000, it's more than that. Just as asking questions is easier than answering them (and allows someone to drive the narrative) so does raising fears. If you make a positive case, then you have to defend it. If you raise negatives about the alternative, you're on the offensive. And if you raise three fears and the opposition argue successfully against two, you've still won because the third fear is crystallised as a real and present danger.
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
That's why the government is playing the Project Fear card. Us Leavers are far more committed, by and large, than the mass of Remainers. The only hope for the government is to scare people who aren't really bothered into voting.
Morning all,
The problem will be if the Remain voters demonstrate mass apathy, assuming that someone else will turn up and vote on their behalf as it were. Leave then wins by a small margin. Mass panic will set in as the economic implications hit those who failed to bother voting.
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
I've heard exactly the same from people who've met both. They've also said that Osborne has a very strong moral core, and cares much more deeply about right and wrong.
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
That's why the government is playing the Project Fear card. Us Leavers are far more committed, by and large, than the mass of Remainers. The only hope for the government is to scare people who aren't really bothered into voting.
For 100 more days..... There will come a time when the voters will tune it out particularly if when they glance at their screens they watch the migrant problems across Europe and think what they fear more, is migrants.
I'd long assumed Osborne was content not to be one PM. He seems a natural no.2 and wields almost as much power as Cameron given how closely they seem to work together, and he probably recognises his own flaws, real and perceived, that might make the transition hard.
I figure after the GE win and his stock was riding so high he decided to really go for it, but it seems much of the support behind him was ephemeral. That being the case, it ebbing and flowing so much, I don't see how he defeats the more charismatic candidates, his pkedged support may not emerge and he needs a contest to occur at a time of his greatest strength, which has already passed unless we get an economic upturn that means the deficit us eliminated before Cameron stands down, which seems unlikely, without tspaking hard decisions.
Examples of fiascos in that election are numerous, like the time the leader apologised for being a man.
Labour's working class base now often see the party as more interested in social engineering than social mobility. It entertains sugar taxes, but discards taxes on capital. It has seemed more interested in making you a better person than making you better off..
The message from Labour is often ‘your life is miserable, New Zealand is a dreadful place and getting worse, the world is scary, don’t let it in, and by the way you’re fat – vote for us!’
Osborne is a busted flush. He needs a big Remain win (60%+) to have a chance of succeeding Dave. And that is not going to happen. He became interesting for a while after the GE, but he got too focused on wanting to succeed Dave and it has weakened and diminished him. Turns out he needed Ed Balls to keep him on his toes. More than anyone else in the government George has suffered from the lack of an opposition.
The job of a Chancellor, like the job of a finance director, is to take the punch bowl away just as the party is getting going. It is a natural home for the dull but dutiful, the competent but heartless, the sensible but unempathetic, the manager but not the leader. This ois probably why the number of Chancellors who have made a successful transition to POM is vanishingly thin. One or two have made it but then sucked big time at the top job (yes that means you Gordo). We saw with Miliband and now Corbyn that voters are looking for personal qualities in a leader - not technical ones. Osborne should reframe his ambition - to be the best Chancellor and to sort our public finances. That'd be a fantastic legacy. Better by a country mile than the legacy Gordon Brown left for himself
If only Osborne had just focused on the Chancellor job. But he has not. He has treated it as a part time role - similar to Brown.
Countries like the UK, Germany and France will eventually get their houses in order but there's no chance of global progress unless the US, China, Brazil and India are on board.
I'm increasingly angry at the stupidity of the ecoleftists on this, who have so radically politicised the issue of climate change (with a combination of ultra-internationalism, rampant anti-capitalism, neo-socialist and identity politics writ-large) that there's virtually no chance of winning over a cross party consensus across the political Right in many of those countries.
We will all probably pay a price.
Well just remember a) This is STILL an El Nino event and b) the levels of CO2 are still at historically LOW levels.
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
Its the same game everyone is playing. Yesterday we had Nabavi and friends wondering theatrically why people on the leave side were attacking Cameron as supposedly a lot of it wasn't his fault. Now we have CV attacking Boris for not leading Leave even though a presentational role while others look after the detail suits him best. Both sides see value in trying to discredit the main spokesman on their opponent, not exactly a shock.
Incidentally the role Boris is playing in Leave suggest if he got to No10 he would be a similar style of leader to Cameron. That is to say collegiate and leaving ministers to do their job while he does the presentation.
..... Besides, I was wondering why so-called Conservative leavers (not people on the leave side) were attacking Cameron in such a way, when the risks of a Corbynist government are so major. And whilst the probability of that government is low, it is getting more probable the longer he stays in and the more the Conservative party tars itself apart.
The attacking is a reaction to the mendacity and misuse of Govt resources behind REMAIN. He could have done the same as Harold Wilson and sat back, instead Cameron chose to unleash the govt machine and spads to load the debate unfairly, attack LEAVE and go after the personalities. But that then led to the bitter responses and washing of dirty linen such as that SPAD Korski. Live by the sword, Cameron/Osborne and shall ye die by it.
He'd have been accused of being unfair no matter what he did, of course he threw everything into this, so I for one don't blame him for that. I'm confident leave has the arguments and support to win regardless, but means about the unfairness of the process started years ago, and I'm convinced some of it is to provide an excuse should leave fail, even though we can and should overcome remain regardless and it'll be our fault or the public if we don't.
I'd long assumed Osborne was content not to be one PM. He seems a natural no.2 and wields almost as much power as Cameron given how closely they seem to work together, and he probably recognises his own flaws, real and perceived, that might make the transition hard.
I figure after the GE win and his stock was riding so high he decided to really go for it, but it seems much of the support behind him was ephemeral. That being the case, it ebbing and flowing so much, I don't see how he defeats the more charismatic candidates, his pkedged support may not emerge and he needs a contest to occur at a time of his greatest strength, which has already passed unless we get an economic upturn that means the deficit us eliminated before Cameron stands down, which seems unlikely, without tspaking hard decisions.
The Tories Leavers are not going to want Dave or George anywhere near the Brexit negotiations if they are seriously contemplating a Canada-type deal with the EU. They are going to want negotiators willing to face down the City and prepared to give up freedom of movement. Boris is really going to have to face up to some seriously hard work come November.
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
That's why the government is playing the Project Fear card. Us Leavers are far more committed, by and large, than the mass of Remainers. The only hope for the government is to scare people who aren't really bothered into voting.
Morning all,
The problem will be if the Remain voters demonstrate mass apathy, assuming that someone else will turn up and vote on their behalf as it were. Leave then wins by a small margin. Mass panic will set in as the economic implications hit those who failed to bother voting.
Q: Who are going to be the biggest segment of potential REMAIN supporters? A: Labour GE 2015 voters Q: Now why would large numbers of these vote for more immigration?
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
Its the same game everyone is playing. Yesterday we had Nabavi and friends wondering theatrically why people on the leave side were attacking Cameron as supposedly a lot of it wasn't his fault. Now we have CV attacking Boris for not leading Leave even though a presentational role while others look after the detail suits him best. Both sides see value in trying to discredit the main spokesman on their opponent, not exactly a shock.
Incidentally the role Boris is playing in Leave suggest if he got to No10 he would be a similar style of leader to Cameron. That is to say collegiate and leaving ministers to do their job while he does the presentation.
..... Besides, I was wondering why so-called Conservative leavers (not people on the leave side) were attacking Cameron in such a way, when the risks of a Corbynist government are so major. And whilst the probability of that government is low, it is getting more probable the longer he stays in and the more the Conservative party tars itself apart.
The attacking is a reaction to the mendacity and misuse of Govt resources behind REMAIN. He could have done the same as Harold Wilson and sat back, instead Cameron chose to unleash the govt machine and spads to load the debate unfairly, attack LEAVE and go after the personalities. But that then led to the bitter responses and washing of dirty linen such as that SPAD Korski. Live by the sword, Cameron/Osborne and shall ye die by it.
And that is why I call leave Project Paranoia, amongst other things.
It's almost as if Leavers know that their arguments are skidmarked pants, so have to think that everyone's against them.
I cannot help thinking that if the situations were reversed and the same tactics were being used in your favour, people such as yourself would remain remarkably quiet about it ...
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
Every time anyone sees the byline 'SIR Lynton Crosby' they'll be reminded of a political system so rotten and corrupt that knighthoods are given out for successful advertising campaigns so long as the campaign was for the advancement of the person giving out the kighthood
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
That's why the government is playing the Project Fear card. Us Leavers are far more committed, by and large, than the mass of Remainers. The only hope for the government is to scare people who aren't really bothered into voting.
Morning all,
The problem will be if the Remain voters demonstrate mass apathy, assuming that someone else will turn up and vote on their behalf as it were. Leave then wins by a small margin. Mass panic will set in as the economic implications hit those who failed to bother voting.
Q: Who are going to be the biggest segment of potential REMAIN supporters? A: Labour GE 2015 voters Q: Now why would large numbers of these vote for more immigration?
When Leave wins George will be finished, just like Dave. The Tories are lucky that Corbyn Labour is so utterly useless.
I believe that if REMAIN wins Osborne is also finished unless he acts with fairness towards the party's LEAVE people and time is running out on that.
If LEAVERS accept that they have lost and stop banging on about Europe then they deserve to be treated fairly, if they still agitate then they should be sidelined.
Countries like the UK, Germany and France will eventually get their houses in order but there's no chance of global progress unless the US, China, Brazil and India are on board.
I'm increasingly angry at the stupidity of the ecoleftists on this, who have so radically politicised the issue of climate change (with a combination of ultra-internationalism, rampant anti-capitalism, neo-socialist and identity politics writ-large) that there's virtually no chance of winning over a cross party consensus across the political Right in many of those countries.
We will all probably pay a price.
Hmm.
Bollocks. Politics matters, and how issues of fundamental importance to the future of mankind are presented to those who support other parties is of crucial importance in building the consensus necessary to solve them.
I had a couple of these lecturing dickheads preach at me at university in several lectures. One of them felt (and said) that the private motorcar was morally indefensible.
As a Rightist I walked away with every impression that ecoism meant collectivism, socialism and an objection to individual choice.
It put me right off. Thankfully, I still have the technical background to understand the science behind it but these idiots polarise the debate and turn off millions.
Like any right-winger, you're only interested in yourself, when we get down to it.
Casino is making the point that the Greens (in general) are their own worst enemy. By combining science on global warming and the like with a strong dislike of 'progress', they turn people off. Those who would be receptive to their ideas (and indeed, to their science) turn away. And then cognitive dissonance sets in: because I don't like the messenger and they are "anti-me", then everything they are saying must be wrong.
Spot on. Thing is, there's a fundamental conservative case to be made on environmentalism (quite literally, to 'conserve' it) the same way we do for our history, heritage and values.
From a neo-liberal perspective there's also the sustainability of businesses and investments, and the efficient use of limited resources to maximise long-term economic growth.
That hinges on appropriate pricing mechanisms, low tax and inducements for development and investment in new technologies.
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
Its the same game everyone is playing. Yesterday we had Nabavi and friends wondering theatrically why people on the leave side were attacking Cameron as supposedly a lot of it wasn't his fault. Now we have CV attacking Boris for not leading Leave even though a presentational role while others look after the detail suits him best. Both sides see value in trying to discredit the main spokesman on their opponent, not exactly a shock.
Incidentally the role Boris is playing in Leave suggest if he got to No10 he would be a similar style of leader to Cameron. That is to say collegiate and leaving ministers to do their job while he does the presentation.
..... Besides, I was wondering why so-called Conservative leavers (not people on the leave side) were attacking Cameron in such a way, when the risks of a Corbynist government are so major. And whilst the probability of that government is low, it is getting more probable the longer he stays in and the more the Conservative party tars itself apart.
The attacking is a reaction to the mendacity and misuse of Govt resources behind REMAIN. He could have done the same as Harold Wilson and sat back, instead Cameron chose to unleash the govt machine and spads to load the debate unfairly, attack LEAVE and go after the personalities. But that then led to the bitter responses and washing of dirty linen such as that SPAD Korski. Live by the sword, Cameron/Osborne and shall ye die by it.
And that is why I call leave Project Paranoia, amongst other things.
It's almost as if Leavers know that their arguments are skidmarked pants, so have to think that everyone's against them.
I cannot help thinking that if the situations were reversed and the same tactics were being used in your favour, people such as yourself would remain remarkably quiet about it ...
@PippaCrerar: Caller Chuka from Streatham: "Boris, if anybody is talking down our country, it's you.. This isn't about you, it's about our city" #AskBoris
Countries like the UK, Germany and France will eventually get their houses in order but there's no chance of global progress unless the US, China, Brazil and India are on board.
I'm increasingly angry at the stupidity of the ecoleftists on this, who have so radically politicised the issue of climate change (with a combination of ultra-internationalism, rampant anti-capitalism, neo-socialist and identity politics writ-large) that there's virtually no chance of winning over a cross party consensus across the political Right in many of those countries.
We will all probably pay a price.
Well just remember a) This is STILL an El Nino event and b) the levels of CO2 are still at historically LOW levels.
I just love the way it's always the left's fault. Cameron made green issues and global warming a calling card; he accused Labour of not going far enough. The most high-profile environmentalist and global warming doom-monger in this country is our future monarch; the Tory founder of the Ecologist magazine is currently the party's candidate for London mayor. It's categorically not a leftist plot :-D
When Leave wins George will be finished, just like Dave. The Tories are lucky that Corbyn Labour is so utterly useless.
Care to craft a wager? Osborne still to be in a cabinet post at Christmas, perhaps?
He may still be in the cabinet, but his hopes of leadership will be gone forever and his ability to shape events will likewise be gone. He'll be finished.
I'd long assumed Osborne was content not to be one PM. He seems a natural no.2 and wields almost as much power as Cameron given how closely they seem to work together, and he probably recognises his own flaws, real and perceived, that might make the transition hard.
I figure after the GE win and his stock was riding so high he decided to really go for it, but it seems much of the support behind him was ephemeral. That being the case, it ebbing and flowing so much, I don't see how he defeats the more charismatic candidates, his pkedged support may not emerge and he needs a contest to occur at a time of his greatest strength, which has already passed unless we get an economic upturn that means the deficit us eliminated before Cameron stands down, which seems unlikely, without tspaking hard decisions.
As I said yesterday, I would not be surprised if Osborne sees his role as a human shield. Let the blame for the majority of the problems caused by austerity fall on his shoulders, and leave a clear run for the new chancellor and PM team.
I'm not sure he's ever had the support from within his party to become PM, and his time is probably past. The longer you stay in a high-profile position, the more mud sticks (although May's doing well in that regard).
Having said that, I do wonder if Osborne sees himself as Richard Neville. Although he probably hopes it ends better for him than it did Neville.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
When Leave wins George will be finished, just like Dave. The Tories are lucky that Corbyn Labour is so utterly useless.
Care to craft a wager? Osborne still to be in a cabinet post at Christmas, perhaps?
I'll not bet on this, but it strikes me that if Leave win, Osborne would be mad to hang around and spend the next two years stuck in horrendous free-trade area negotiations with rest of EU.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Countries like the UK, Germany and France will eventually get their houses in order but there's no chance of global progress unless the US, China, Brazil and India are on board.
I'm increasingly angry at the stupidity of the ecoleftists on this, who have so radically politicised the issue of climate change (with a combination of ultra-internationalism, rampant anti-capitalism, neo-socialist and identity politics writ-large) that there's virtually no chance of winning over a cross party consensus across the political Right in many of those countries.
We will all probably pay a price.
Hmm. The political right is responsible for itself imo. It isn't forced to take any particular view because left greens say this or that. A right wing environmentalism is eminently possible.
Bollocks. Politics matters, and how issues of fundamental importance to the future of mankind are presented to those who support other parties is of crucial importance in building the consensus necessary to solve them.
I had a couple of these lecturing dickheads preach at me at university in several lectures. One of them felt (and said) that the private motorcar was morally indefensible.
As a Rightist I walked away with every impression that ecoism meant collectivism, socialism and an objection to individual choice.
It put me right off. Thankfully, I still have the technical background to understand the science behind it but these idiots polarise the debate and turn off millions.
Are you seriously saying that right wingers can't be expected to see past their irritation to the merits of the underlying issue?
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
Its the same game everyone is playing. Yesterday we had Nabavi and friends wondering theatrically why people on the leave side were attacking Cameron as supposedly a lot of it wasn't his fault. Now we have CV attacking Boris for not leading Leave even though a presentational role while others look after the detail suits him best. Both sides see value in trying to discredit the main spokesman on their opponent, not exactly a shock.
Incidentally the role Boris is playing in Leave suggest if he got to No10 he would be a similar style of leader to Cameron. That is to say collegiate and leaving ministers to do their job while he does the presentation.
..... Besides, I was wondering why so-called Conservative leavers (not people on the leave side) were attacking Cameron in such a way, when the risks of a Corbynist government are so major. And whilst the probability of that government is low, it is getting more probable the longer he stays in and the more the Conservative party tars itself apart.
The attacking is a reaction to the mendacity and misuse of Govt resources behind REMAIN. He could have done the same as Harold Wilson and sat back, instead Cameron chose to unleash the govt machine and spads to load the debate unfairly, attack LEAVE and go after the personalities. But that then led to the bitter responses and washing of dirty linen such as that SPAD Korski. Live by the sword, Cameron/Osborne and shall ye die by it.
And that is why I call leave Project Paranoia, amongst other things.
It's almost as if Leavers know that their arguments are skidmarked pants, so have to think that everyone's against them.
I cannot help thinking that if the situations were reversed and the same tactics were being used in your favour, people such as yourself would remain remarkably quiet about it ...
We are still looking for someone to make a positive case for Remain, Alistair was asked but hasn't done so, why don't you have a go?
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
Every time anyone sees the byline 'SIR Lynton Crosby' they'll be reminded of a political system so rotten and corrupt that knighthoods are given out for successful advertising campaigns so long as the campaign was for the advancement of the person giving out the kighthood
Roger - by preventing Brown and Red Ed from becoming PM and kicking Ken out of city hall, Sir Lynton has done more than enough for this country - he is a true hero.
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
I've heard exactly the same from people who've met both. They've also said that Osborne has a very strong moral core, and cares much more deeply about right and wrong.
All very interesting but it's their public personae that are important.
When Leave wins George will be finished, just like Dave. The Tories are lucky that Corbyn Labour is so utterly useless.
It's not that you so often back the wrong side it's that you do it with an arrogance that would make JackW blush.
I got the last US presidential election wrong and the Scottish referendum. But I was right about Ed, right that Labour would lose seats last year, right that Boris would beat Ken (twice), right that UKIP is a party of the East of England. So I have a mixed record. Unlike some others I could care to mention!
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
@PippaCrerar: Caller Chuka from Streatham: "Boris, if anybody is talking down our country, it's you.. This isn't about you, it's about our city" #AskBoris
Chuka doesn't even know the basics about what CETA entails. His views are all based on ignorance.
While I take Ganesh's point that while I for instance care about the deficit target most people don't or Osborne would be gone already, I'm not so certain as he that means not taking certain decisions to close it will hurt him less than the criticism of failure. It would be failure on top of failure, failing in ten rather than 5 years, harder to keep blaming the previous government and the world over so long a period (though not wholly ineffective, just diminished). The nature of the sustained failure may not be one that people strictly mind, but by the terms he set for himself and he made vital, it is still failure and some people will care about that even if they don't about the deficit.
I also acknowledge the idea that people might feel they don't need him once the deficit is eliminated, I thought people would feel we could risk, if that is the word, ed m and ed b given the improving economy on a similar basis. Not convinced he has a route to be PM if he avoids the tough measures now though, so he may as well go for it and be sble yo claim success even if does not get rewarded.
Mr. Die, I'd argue that many of the true believers are, though.
On Charles, Defender of Faith means that atheists can bugger off. That was my reading, anyway. A monarch pledging to defend Scientology but not atheism can sod off [Defender of the Faith is an entirely different kettle of fish, as the monarch is head of the Church of England and has a duty to defend it].
Mr. Observer, they would be, if Corbyn hadn't moved the goal posts seventy-three miles towards Marx
I'd long assumed Osborne was content not to be one PM. He seems a natural no.2 and wields almost as much power as Cameron given how closely they seem to work together, and he probably recognises his own flaws, real and perceived, that might make the transition hard.
I figure after the GE win and his stock was riding so high he decided to really go for it, but it seems much of the support behind him was ephemeral. That being the case, it ebbing and flowing so much, I don't see how he defeats the more charismatic candidates, his pkedged support may not emerge and he needs a contest to occur at a time of his greatest strength, which has already passed unless we get an economic upturn that means the deficit us eliminated before Cameron stands down, which seems unlikely, without tspaking hard decisions.
The Tories Leavers are not going to want Dave or George anywhere near the Brexit negotiations if they are seriously contemplating a Canada-type deal with the EU. They are going to want negotiators willing to face down the City and prepared to give up freedom of movement. Boris is really going to have to face up to some seriously hard work come November.
In my experience most of the mutual funds want to leave the EEA to escape EU regulations. The only parts of the City that need facing down are the big banks.
And that is why I call leave Project Paranoia, amongst other things.
It's almost as if Leavers know that their arguments are skidmarked pants, so have to think that everyone's against them.
I cannot help thinking that if the situations were reversed and the same tactics were being used in your favour, people such as yourself would remain remarkably quiet about it ...
Thanks for the compliment (genuinely), but perhaps you should read back your own posts in the same manner ...
I'm probably going to vote leave (remain haven't made any arguments yet that fix the issues I see with us staying in the EU in the medium- and long-term), but I despair at the way leave seems to be stating why they lost before the vote. If their arguments were solid they wouldn't need to make these sorts of attacks.
(terrible analogy alert)
As someone who is genuinely undecided, I see it like buying a house. Over the last couple of years I've moved away from Remain to Leave. But I'm getting a survey done on my new home, and I don't like the results. I'll probably still move in, but I want as many of the cracks fixing before I do. In fact, they probably need to underpin the entire unstable edifice...
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
Quite. I don't know why the debate is so politicised - why do the greens need to be so far left on everything after all. Or so they presented - but it doesn't need to be. I know people do dispute the science, but a lot of the opposition us expressed in emotional and political terms, so that seems the most fundamental aspect for many it would seem.
I'd long assumed Osborne was content not to be one PM. He seems a natural no.2 and wields almost as much power as Cameron given how closely they seem to work together, and he probably recognises his own flaws, real and perceived, that might make the transition hard.
I figure after the GE win and his stock was riding so high he decided to really go for it, but it seems much of the support behind him was ephemeral. That being the case, it ebbing and flowing so much, I don't see how he defeats the more charismatic candidates, his pkedged support may not emerge and he needs a contest to occur at a time of his greatest strength, which has already passed unless we get an economic upturn that means the deficit us eliminated before Cameron stands down, which seems unlikely, without tspaking hard decisions.
The Tories Leavers are not going to want Dave or George anywhere near the Brexit negotiations if they are seriously contemplating a Canada-type deal with the EU. They are going to want negotiators willing to face down the City and prepared to give up freedom of movement. Boris is really going to have to face up to some seriously hard work come November.
In my experience most of the mutual funds want to leave the EEA to escape EU regulations. The only parts of the City that need facing down are the big banks.
Really?
As a partner in a medium sized mutual fund, I'd like you to name one.
We are still looking for someone to make a positive case for Remain, Alistair was asked but hasn't done so, why don't you have a go?
Because as I've said passim, I'm probably going to vote leave.
My reasoning is simple: I see leaving as inevitable in the medium- or long- term unless we join the Euro, which is something I don't want to do. If the EU had made genuine moves towards a two-speed EU, where members outside the EZ were treated fairly, I would vote remain.
But I can't see Cameron's renegotiation has got that (and I didn't expect it to), and the general mood music from the EU is against it. I don't want to head where they're heading.
So if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly, and I'll vote leave. But that doesn't stop me from criticising leave when they make crummy arguments, which is sadly all too frequent.
Countries like the UK, Germany and France will eventually get their houses in order but there's no chance of global progress unless the US, China, Brazil and India are on board.
I'm increasingly angry at the stupidity of the ecoleftists on this, who have so radically politicised the issue of climate change (with a combination of ultra-internationalism, rampant anti-capitalism, neo-socialist and identity politics writ-large) that there's virtually no chance of winning over a cross party consensus across the political Right in many of those countries.
We will all probably pay a price.
A global deal was just signed that was driven by the USA, and China, Brazil and India WERE all on board. Coal power fell something like 15% in share of US power last year. China has moved its peak CO2 date forward from 2040 to 2025 as its decarbonising so well. And the price for the transition is lower than ever, as govt regulations have spurred technological change. Battery costs have fallen by about 70%. Solar power panels price is dropping like a stone. Electric cars will be competitive without subsidies in less than a decade.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Neither is "a leftist".
Charles would probably want Caroline Lucas as Prime Minister.
There was a Newtonian consensus on the properties of light. Which was wrong. And fear of going against the great man and the consensus meant that the incorrect (or incomplete) view held sway for centuries.
Scientists, after all, are people. They have a desire to be liked and respected, and a need to make enough money to live on. They're not made of stone, and running up against the commonly held view, which may well have professional and financial implications, is no small thing.
The use of language reserved for those with the temerity to hold a differing opinion (worst of all 'deniers') is indicative of the sort of welcome such varying views would/do receive.
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
Every time anyone sees the byline 'SIR Lynton Crosby' they'll be reminded of a political system so rotten and corrupt that knighthoods are given out for successful advertising campaigns so long as the campaign was for the advancement of the person giving out the kighthood
That's fine. Loads of people get Honours for things others don't think they should, if that gets people angry enough to force a change to one more based on non partisan merit, or get rid of it, OK, but since it is what oeople already expect, I'm not sure Lyntons was so egregious it will indeed make enough people angry.
Interesting council by election in the offing Heaton ward on Havering LBC . Philip Hyde elected as UKIP ( and also their Parliamentary candidate in Ilford North last year ) who resigned from the party shortly after the GE has now resigned from the council .
He’s not got a particularly likeable persona, seeming cold and arrogant
FWIW, my folks have met both Cameron and Osborne on multiple occasions. Osborne is far nicer and more charming than Cameron in person.
@CarlottaVance what is your obsession with whether Boris Johnson is leading leave or not? Of course he's an asset to the campaign, but Gove and Stuart are co-chairing the organisation. I personally think this is a better choice.
I've heard exactly the same from people who've met both. They've also said that Osborne has a very strong moral core, and cares much more deeply about right and wrong.
That might be all be true, but wasn't exactly the same said about Brown (especially the bit about him coming across a lot better in small private gatherings), and the public hated him.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
Quite. I don't know why the debate is so politicised - why do the greens need to be so far left on everything after all. Or so they presented - but it doesn't need to be. I know people do dispute the science, but a lot of the opposition us expressed in emotional and political terms, so that seems the most fundamental aspect for many it would seem.
Yes, I agree. The scientific method seeks the truth and updates the consensus view as more experiments and measurements are done and more facts emerge. Climate change deniers seem emotionally attached to their views.
We are still looking for someone to make a positive case for Remain, Alistair was asked but hasn't done so, why don't you have a go?
Because as I've said passim, I'm probably going to vote leave.
My reasoning is simple: I see leaving as inevitable in the medium- or long- term unless we join the Euro, which is something I don't want to do. If the EU had made genuine moves towards a two-speed EU, where members outside the EZ were treated fairly, I would vote remain.
But I can't see Cameron's renegotiation has got that (and I didn't expect it to), and the general mood music from the EU is against it. I don't want to head where they're heading.
So if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly, and I'll vote leave. But that doesn't stop me from criticising leave when they make crummy arguments, which is sadly all too frequent.
Countries like the UK, Germany and France will eventually get their houses in order but there's no chance of global progress unless the US, China, Brazil and India are on board.
I'm increasingly angry at the stupidity of the ecoleftists on this, who have so radically politicised the issue of climate change (with a combination of ultra-internationalism, rampant anti-capitalism, neo-socialist and identity politics writ-large) that there's virtually no chance of winning over a cross party consensus across the political Right in many of those countries.
We will all probably pay a price.
A global deal was just signed that was driven by the USA, and China, Brazil and India WERE all on board. Coal power fell something like 15% in share of US power last year. China has moved its peak CO2 date forward from 2040 to 2025 as its decarbonising so well. And the price for the transition is lower than ever, as govt regulations have spurred technological change. Battery costs have fallen by about 70%. Solar power panels price is dropping like a stone. Electric cars will be competitive without subsidies in less than a decade.
Some progress but still painfully slow.
However, you are entirely right to point out that, ultimately, the solution lies in the widespread accessibility and affordability of low-carbon/zero-carbon technologies.
That's what governments should be focussing on supporting and accelerating IMHO.
(And nuclear is a great way to get very low carbon reliable base-load generating capacity in the medium term too)
I'd long assumed Osborne was content not to be one PM. He seems a natural no.2 and wields almost as much power as Cameron given how closely they seem to work together, and he probably recognises his own flaws, real and perceived, that might make the transition hard.
I figure after the GE win and his stock was riding so high he decided to really go for it, but it seems much of the support behind him was ephemeral. That being the case, it ebbing and flowing so much, I don't see how he defeats the more charismatic candidates, his pkedged support may not emerge and he needs a contest to occur at a time of his greatest strength, which has already passed unless we get an economic upturn that means the deficit us eliminated before Cameron stands down, which seems unlikely, without tspaking hard decisions.
The Tories Leavers are not going to want Dave or George anywhere near the Brexit negotiations if they are seriously contemplating a Canada-type deal with the EU. They are going to want negotiators willing to face down the City and prepared to give up freedom of movement. Boris is really going to have to face up to some seriously hard work come November.
In my experience most of the mutual funds want to leave the EEA to escape EU regulations. The only parts of the City that need facing down are the big banks.
Really?
As a partner in a medium sized mutual fund, I'd like you to name one.
This tactic is repeated often by leave. Take an industry, ascribe to it a fervent desire to leave, remain silent on actual detail.
That said I am about to meet one of the brightest people I know who is a fervent Leaver. I genuinely look forward to hearing his thoughts.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Neither is "a leftist".
Charles would probably want Caroline Lucas as Prime Minister.
The idea Prince Charles is "a leftist" is palpably absurd. It's hard to take seriously anyone who seriously believes that he is.
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Who cares whether it's leftist or rightist, who cares whether it's a metropolitan consensus, AGW is a scientific consensus. It's stupid to ignore that. If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
Quite. I don't know why the debate is so politicised - why do the greens need to be so far left on everything after all. Or so they presented - but it doesn't need to be. I know people do dispute the science, but a lot of the opposition us expressed in emotional and political terms, so that seems the most fundamental aspect for many it would seem.
The answer is that in a post Cold War world certain elements of the radical Left saw ecoism as the best chance they had to advance their neo-Marxist socioeconomic vision.
George Osborne has a most unfortunate nose. For a politician of the likes of Boris this may be an endearing quirk. For a politician like Osborne it just looks monstrous: his snout in everyones pocket. Osborne will never get the top job, he could even be replaced after the referendum, as some on PB have contemplated.
There was a Newtonian consensus on the properties of light. Which was wrong. And fear of going against the great man and the consensus meant that the incorrect (or incomplete) view held sway for centuries.
Scientists, after all, are people. They have a desire to be liked and respected, and a need to make enough money to live on. They're not made of stone, and running up against the commonly held view, which may well have professional and financial implications, is no small thing.
The use of language reserved for those with the temerity to hold a differing opinion (worst of all 'deniers') is indicative of the sort of welcome such varying views would/do receive.
I tend to agree with you that the AGW arguments are not as firm as the proponents and 'scientists' claim. This is particularly true when they accuse scientists who are not with their consensus as being somehow immoral, e.g. in the pay of big oil. This is despite many scientists who are with the consensus getting large grants and money from organisations that are also with the consensus. If scientists' views can be bought one way, they can be bought the other way.
Or the way the views of a biologist who is not with the consensus are said to be invalid as he is not a climatologist, yet those of a biologist who is with the consensus are fine because... well, just because.
But I see a good side to this: science is improving. Because we need to know more of what is happening to the world, we are studying it closely and learning more. The requirement to mitigate effects is improving science and technology. And the need for clean energy may, in the long term, make our energy supply more secure (although insecure in the short and medium term).
Mr. Observer, Charles is a 'trendy' royal. His desire to be Defender of Faith rather than the Faith, let alone his numerous utterances, are proof of that.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
Neither is "a leftist".
Charles would probably want Caroline Lucas as Prime Minister.
The idea Prince Charles is "a leftist" is palpably absurd. It's hard to take seriously anyone who seriously believes that he is.
Depends. I'd say he's very small c-conservative when it comes to development, architecture, the environment, food and is a bit of a Luddite when it comes to innovation and new technology.
I can easily see him supporting high taxation, redistribution of wealth and SDP policies. He has also made strong noises in favour of multiculturalism in the past.
However, he wouldn't support scrapping the monarchy, the Union, ultra-feminism hollowing out of the armed forces or full integration of the UK into the EU, for instance.
There was a Newtonian consensus on the properties of light. Which was wrong. And fear of going against the great man and the consensus meant that the incorrect (or incomplete) view held sway for centuries.
Scientists, after all, are people. They have a desire to be liked and respected, and a need to make enough money to live on. They're not made of stone, and running up against the commonly held view, which may well have professional and financial implications, is no small thing.
The use of language reserved for those with the temerity to hold a differing opinion (worst of all 'deniers') is indicative of the sort of welcome such varying views would/do receive.
Newton was right in as far as was known at the time, maybe Einstein will be proven to have been only partially right. That's science, it moves with the evidence, the facts. Individual scientists can be wrong and pigheaded because they are only human, but science is our best bet at understanding the world. A denier is somebody who denies something, isn't he? But OK, if I'm forced to by PB political correctness, I will self sensor from now on. Is 'sceptic' ok for you?
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
George Osborne has a most unfortunate nose. For a politician of the likes of Boris this may be an endearing quirk. For a politician like Osborne it just looks monstrous: his snout in everyones pocket.
Man, I've got no hope of making it in politics then, unless I'm far more charismatic than I think I am.
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
Every time anyone sees the byline 'SIR Lynton Crosby' they'll be reminded of a political system so rotten and corrupt that knighthoods are given out for successful advertising campaigns so long as the campaign was for the advancement of the person giving out the kighthood
That's fine. Loads of people get Honours for things others don't think they should, if that gets people angry enough to force a change to one more based on non partisan merit, or get rid of it, OK, but since it is what oeople already expect, I'm not sure Lyntons was so egregious it will indeed make enough people angry.
Well if it doesn't make people angry it should. Wasn't the cash for honours scandal enough of a warning? No one suggested Blair pocketed any money for giving out honours but that honours were given for patronage
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
But Cheltenham starts. Yay
And my second child is due today. Gulp.
Good luck with job hunting (if that's what you're going to do). And hope all goes well in the most important immediate event.
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
I don't have a dog in the Conservative leadership race and nor am I ever likely to meet George Osborne. I have no doubt Osborne is a personable, charming and perfectly pleasant man in private but unfortunately that's simply not how he comes across on television or in public.
Yes, I'm not a Conservative supporter so there's probably an innate hostility to start with but I think Osborne seems to lack any sense of self-deprecation or awareness that most people are not like him. He seems to have no private persona to speak of - he's other wearing a suit or a yellow tabard/hard hat and every other sentence seems to have the words "hard working families".
Now, I don't doubt he works hard but it's hard for many to identify their hard working existence with his. I know many wealthy and successful people work very long hours but the corollary is many people who are not successful and wealthy also have to work very long hours doing, let's face it, often menial labour and not out of choice but necessity.
To use the old adage - they work to live, they don't want to live to work.
The other problem a new leader following the long tenure of a successful Prime Minister has is to how to carve out a distinctive identity. John Major was spectacularly successful in convincing many people there had actually been a change of Government because his style and persona were so unlike Margaret Thatcher's.
In what way is Osborne distinct or different from Cameron ? He is Continuity Cameron and that won't work. Periodically, change is required either of style or of substance. Osborne seems to provide neither and ends up pleasing no one.
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
Every time anyone sees the byline 'SIR Lynton Crosby' they'll be reminded of a political system so rotten and corrupt that knighthoods are given out for successful advertising campaigns so long as the campaign was for the advancement of the person giving out the kighthood
That's fine. Loads of people get Honours for things others don't think they should, if that gets people angry enough to force a change to one more based on non partisan merit, or get rid of it, OK, but since it is what oeople already expect, I'm not sure Lyntons was so egregious it will indeed make enough people angry.
Well if it doesn't make people angry it should.
True of many things, alas. I think we're still a few more scandals away from this being one of them though.
"Supporters of Brexit are more likely to vote in the forthcoming referendum which could give the Leave campaign a decisive edge in the final result, a new Telegraph poll suggests. Analysis of the survey by Sir Lynton Crosby shows that voters who want Britain to leave the European Union are more motivated than those who say they are in favour of staying in. "
Every time anyone sees the byline 'SIR Lynton Crosby' they'll be reminded of a political system so rotten and corrupt that knighthoods are given out for successful advertising campaigns so long as the campaign was for the advancement of the person giving out the kighthood
That's fine. Loads of people get Honours for things others don't think they should, if that gets people angry enough to force a change to one more based on non partisan merit, or get rid of it, OK, but since it is what oeople already expect, I'm not sure Lyntons was so egregious it will indeed make enough people angry.
Well if it doesn't make people angry it should. Wasn't the cash for honours scandal enough of a warning? No one suggested Blair pocketed any money for giving out honours but that honours were given for patronage
Knighthoods have always been given to people who have been helpful to people that can award knighthoods.
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
Thanks everyone. I'm not in immediate danger of financial meltdown thanks to my, erm, package. But a new job would be nice. I'm not sorry to have gone, it's not what it was as a place to work for numerous reasons.
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
We are still looking for someone to make a positive case for Remain, Alistair was asked but hasn't done so, why don't you have a go?
Because as I've said passim, I'm probably going to vote leave.
My reasoning is simple: I see leaving as inevitable in the medium- or long- term unless we join the Euro, which is something I don't want to do. If the EU had made genuine moves towards a two-speed EU, where members outside the EZ were treated fairly, I would vote remain.
But I can't see Cameron's renegotiation has got that (and I didn't expect it to), and the general mood music from the EU is against it. I don't want to head where they're heading.
So if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly, and I'll vote leave. But that doesn't stop me from criticising leave when they make crummy arguments, which is sadly all too frequent.
The deal specified no ever closer union and there was an explicit and mutual ez/non-ez non-discriminatory clause.
The other problem a new leader following the long tenure of a successful Prime Minister has is to how to carve out a distinctive identity. John Major was spectacularly successful in convincing many people there had actually been a change of Government because his style and persona were so unlike Margaret Thatcher's.
In what way is Osborne distinct or different from Cameron ? He is Continuity Cameron and that won't work. Periodically, change is required either of style or of substance. Osborne seems to provide neither and ends up pleasing no one.
I agree that Continuity Cameron is not the answer for the Conservatives. May would be a good option from that point of view.
We are still looking for someone to make a positive case for Remain, Alistair was asked but hasn't done so, why don't you have a go?
Because as I've said passim, I'm probably going to vote leave.
My reasoning is simple: I see leaving as inevitable in the medium- or long- term unless we join the Euro, which is something I don't want to do. If the EU had made genuine moves towards a two-speed EU, where members outside the EZ were treated fairly, I would vote remain.
But I can't see Cameron's renegotiation has got that (and I didn't expect it to), and the general mood music from the EU is against it. I don't want to head where they're heading.
So if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly, and I'll vote leave. But that doesn't stop me from criticising leave when they make crummy arguments, which is sadly all too frequent.
The deal specified no ever closer union and there was an explicit and mutual ez/non-ez non-discriminatory clause.
What else would you have had them include?
Stronger guarantees. Leaving aside the wording of these clauses in the deal (in which I agree and disagree with some of what Mr Tyndall (I think) said), the EU has a track record of ignoring or working around such deals (and even referenda) if they get in the way of greater integration.
Recent events wrt Germany's behaviour have reinforced this view.
Basically (and this might be my problem, not theirs), I don't trust them in this matter, even if like some of that the EU does.
We are still looking for someone to make a positive case for Remain, Alistair was asked but hasn't done so, why don't you have a go?
Because as I've said passim, I'm probably going to vote leave.
My reasoning is simple: I see leaving as inevitable in the medium- or long- term unless we join the Euro, which is something I don't want to do. If the EU had made genuine moves towards a two-speed EU, where members outside the EZ were treated fairly, I would vote remain.
But I can't see Cameron's renegotiation has got that (and I didn't expect it to), and the general mood music from the EU is against it. I don't want to head where they're heading.
So if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly, and I'll vote leave. But that doesn't stop me from criticising leave when they make crummy arguments, which is sadly all too frequent.
The deal specified no ever closer union and there was an explicit and mutual ez/non-ez non-discriminatory clause.
What else would you have had them include?
Stronger guarantees. Leaving aside the wording of these clauses in the deal (in which I agree and disagree with some of what Mr Tyndall (I think) said), the EU has a track record of ignoring or working around such deals (and even referenda) if they get in the way of greater integration.
Juncker even admitted this during the negotiating, when he said there is the flexibility within the EU to have countries to move forward to ever closer union at different speeds...
There is no doubt in my mind, that a vote for remain is not a vote for the status quo, it is a vote to continue along to path to ever closer union.
Comments
The problem will be if the Remain voters demonstrate mass apathy, assuming that someone else will turn up and vote on their behalf as it were. Leave then wins by a small margin. Mass panic will set in as the economic implications hit those who failed to bother voting.
I figure after the GE win and his stock was riding so high he decided to really go for it, but it seems much of the support behind him was ephemeral. That being the case, it ebbing and flowing so much, I don't see how he defeats the more charismatic candidates, his pkedged support may not emerge and he needs a contest to occur at a time of his greatest strength, which has already passed unless we get an economic upturn that means the deficit us eliminated before Cameron stands down, which seems unlikely, without tspaking hard decisions.
A: Labour GE 2015 voters
Q: Now why would large numbers of these vote for more immigration?
It's almost as if Leavers know that their arguments are skidmarked pants, so have to think that everyone's against them.
I cannot help thinking that if the situations were reversed and the same tactics were being used in your favour, people such as yourself would remain remarkably quiet about it ...
From a neo-liberal perspective there's also the sustainability of businesses and investments, and the efficient use of limited resources to maximise long-term economic growth.
That hinges on appropriate pricing mechanisms, low tax and inducements for development and investment in new technologies.
Hope your recovery is getting a move on.
I'm not sure he's ever had the support from within his party to become PM, and his time is probably past. The longer you stay in a high-profile position, the more mud sticks (although May's doing well in that regard).
Having said that, I do wonder if Osborne sees himself as Richard Neville. Although he probably hopes it ends better for him than it did Neville.
Cameron's part of the metropolitan consensus in certain areas. Global warming and overseas aid are the most obvious examples.
People have until Monday, 18 April to register to vote at the 5 May local, assembly and Scottish parliamentary elections.
Can you give as on objective measure of "finished" that we might craft a wager around?
Cam = pub-able, Osbo = reptilian.
Cheltenham Day 1
1.30 Altior
2.10 Douvan
2.50 Theatre Guide E/W
3.30 My Tent Or Yours
4.10 Vroum Vroum Mag
4.50 Southfield Royale E/W
5.30 Thomas Brown
If Prince Charles supports the scientific consensus then he's right on that. However he also supports homeopathy which has no basis in science and he's absolutely wrong on that.
I also acknowledge the idea that people might feel they don't need him once the deficit is eliminated, I thought people would feel we could risk, if that is the word, ed m and ed b given the improving economy on a similar basis. Not convinced he has a route to be PM if he avoids the tough measures now though, so he may as well go for it and be sble yo claim success even if does not get rewarded.
On Charles, Defender of Faith means that atheists can bugger off. That was my reading, anyway. A monarch pledging to defend Scientology but not atheism can sod off [Defender of the Faith is an entirely different kettle of fish, as the monarch is head of the Church of England and has a duty to defend it].
Mr. Observer, they would be, if Corbyn hadn't moved the goal posts seventy-three miles towards Marx
I'm probably going to vote leave (remain haven't made any arguments yet that fix the issues I see with us staying in the EU in the medium- and long-term), but I despair at the way leave seems to be stating why they lost before the vote. If their arguments were solid they wouldn't need to make these sorts of attacks.
(terrible analogy alert)
As someone who is genuinely undecided, I see it like buying a house. Over the last couple of years I've moved away from Remain to Leave. But I'm getting a survey done on my new home, and I don't like the results. I'll probably still move in, but I want as many of the cracks fixing before I do. In fact, they probably need to underpin the entire unstable edifice...
(end terrible analogy)
We do, though, agree entirely on homeopathy, which is not merely not scientifically proven but actively at odds with science and reason.
As a partner in a medium sized mutual fund, I'd like you to name one.
Vicki Kirby reported to police by Labour wannabee PCC in Surrey.
My reasoning is simple: I see leaving as inevitable in the medium- or long- term unless we join the Euro, which is something I don't want to do. If the EU had made genuine moves towards a two-speed EU, where members outside the EZ were treated fairly, I would vote remain.
But I can't see Cameron's renegotiation has got that (and I didn't expect it to), and the general mood music from the EU is against it. I don't want to head where they're heading.
So if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly, and I'll vote leave. But that doesn't stop me from criticising leave when they make crummy arguments, which is sadly all too frequent.
There was a Newtonian consensus on the properties of light. Which was wrong. And fear of going against the great man and the consensus meant that the incorrect (or incomplete) view held sway for centuries.
Scientists, after all, are people. They have a desire to be liked and respected, and a need to make enough money to live on. They're not made of stone, and running up against the commonly held view, which may well have professional and financial implications, is no small thing.
The use of language reserved for those with the temerity to hold a differing opinion (worst of all 'deniers') is indicative of the sort of welcome such varying views would/do receive.
However, you are entirely right to point out that, ultimately, the solution lies in the widespread accessibility and affordability of low-carbon/zero-carbon technologies.
That's what governments should be focussing on supporting and accelerating IMHO.
(And nuclear is a great way to get very low carbon reliable base-load generating capacity in the medium term too)
That said I am about to meet one of the brightest people I know who is a fervent Leaver. I genuinely look forward to hearing his thoughts.
"Vote for this, or we'll all die."
Or the way the views of a biologist who is not with the consensus are said to be invalid as he is not a climatologist, yet those of a biologist who is with the consensus are fine because... well, just because.
But I see a good side to this: science is improving. Because we need to know more of what is happening to the world, we are studying it closely and learning more. The requirement to mitigate effects is improving science and technology. And the need for clean energy may, in the long term, make our energy supply more secure (although insecure in the short and medium term).
I can easily see him supporting high taxation, redistribution of wealth and SDP policies. He has also made strong noises in favour of multiculturalism in the past.
However, he wouldn't support scrapping the monarchy, the Union, ultra-feminism hollowing out of the armed forces or full integration of the UK into the EU, for instance.
A denier is somebody who denies something, isn't he? But OK, if I'm forced to by PB political correctness, I will self sensor from now on. Is 'sceptic' ok for you?
Interesting article. I'm still in the Remain camp but I've definitely noticed a softening of support for remain amongst people I thought were more clearly in that group. I don't think the findings that Leave backers are more committed is all that surprising. I said to my wife that the lower the turnout, the better Leave's chances and I stand by that.
The other interesting thing is the Independent front page. Powerful and thought provoking and quite sad, really, given that they are going to go.
In other news, I've left The Sun after 12 years and am unemployed. Boo.
But Cheltenham starts. Yay
And my second child is due today. Gulp.
I can recommend being a stay-at-home father.
Best of luck with your second child, and ending your unemployment.
Mr. Song, 'denier' has connotations with Holocaust deniers. I've also criticised those (such as Osborne) who use the term 'deficit denier'.
If you're reading George, take note.
I don't have a dog in the Conservative leadership race and nor am I ever likely to meet George Osborne. I have no doubt Osborne is a personable, charming and perfectly pleasant man in private but unfortunately that's simply not how he comes across on television or in public.
Yes, I'm not a Conservative supporter so there's probably an innate hostility to start with but I think Osborne seems to lack any sense of self-deprecation or awareness that most people are not like him. He seems to have no private persona to speak of - he's other wearing a suit or a yellow tabard/hard hat and every other sentence seems to have the words "hard working families".
Now, I don't doubt he works hard but it's hard for many to identify their hard working existence with his. I know many wealthy and successful people work very long hours but the corollary is many people who are not successful and wealthy also have to work very long hours doing, let's face it, often menial labour and not out of choice but necessity.
To use the old adage - they work to live, they don't want to live to work.
The other problem a new leader following the long tenure of a successful Prime Minister has is to how to carve out a distinctive identity. John Major was spectacularly successful in convincing many people there had actually been a change of Government because his style and persona were so unlike Margaret Thatcher's.
In what way is Osborne distinct or different from Cameron ? He is Continuity Cameron and that won't work. Periodically, change is required either of style or of substance. Osborne seems to provide neither and ends up pleasing no one.
What else would you have had them include?
Recent events wrt Germany's behaviour have reinforced this view.
Basically (and this might be my problem, not theirs), I don't trust them in this matter, even if like some of that the EU does.
There is no doubt in my mind, that a vote for remain is not a vote for the status quo, it is a vote to continue along to path to ever closer union.