Mr. Jonathan, is it a Tory implosion, or an Osborne one? If the latter, then his removal solves the problem.
Or, to rephrase, is this a Peloponnesian War, or a Jugurthine War?
Osborne = Tory. He's your chancellor and the brains that got you out of opposition. You'll be properly screwed with him outside the tent pissing in.
There were several key people and the actual GE2010 campaign that Osborne headed up was a mini omnishambles. One built on little real research.
Gaining 90 seats, what a shambles, eh?
Almost all from their coalition partners. Should ensure that the Tories will never be in power again without an outright majority...
I think that was a reference to 2010. The Tories certainly didn't gain 90 seats in 2015 - net gain of 24.
EDIT - in fact, surely it was over a hundred in 2010 - from 198 to 307?
There you go. But apparently that was a shambles.
The idea that the 2010 campaign was a failure by the Tories is one of the most poisonous out there. Winning 150 seats in one go, as some people seem to think should have happened, just isn't feasible in our system.
It is feasible - Blair did it in 1997 and the SNP did even more, equivalently, last year - but it's very rare.
Attlee in 1945 and Baldwin in 1924 and 1931 are the only others I can think of since 1918.
Actually, come to think of it Blair didn't quite manage 150. 419 less 276 is 143.
Still rather a lot. If Cameron had won that many in 2010 he would have had a majority of around 30.
Wondering what the implications of a Tory leadership election kicking of before the referendum might be.
I know it isn't going to happen, but if a malcontent could get the names it would add a fascinating angle to the vote.
It's a fun what if.
Glad you're enjoying yourself.
Makes a change.
Tory psyche is very different to Labour one.
Tory has a top layer of loyalty, but is bubbling cauldron underneath. With Labour it is the other way around. Always gobbing off at the surface, with a solid core underneath.
Explains why despite bigger divisions, Corbyn is safe.
It's hard to see how any of the major UK political parties could be considered in great shape, right now.
Wondering what the implications of a Tory leadership election kicking of before the referendum might be.
I know it isn't going to happen, but if a malcontent could get the names it would add a fascinating angle to the vote.
It's a fun what if.
Glad you're enjoying yourself.
Labour might be Marxist, or it might be anti-Semitic (in the usual but inaccurate meaning of that word) but it won't be both. Marx was a Jew himself. I think you mean to refer to Trotsky. For some of us there is an important difference between the two.
Boo Hoo JJ has his petted lip out. Lets hear more about them murdering the Kurds rather than your fawning over Erdogan. You cannot wring your hands about refugees and Europe whilst supporting them.
I am not 'fawning' over Erdogan. I don't like him. And yes, I have posted about the attacks on the Kurds. In fact, I said just this week that the reprisal attacks after the latest bombing that killed 37 people are pointless as they generally attack the wrong people.
So let's here more from you about the terrorist attacks, eh?
My point is that the situation is far more complex than the one-dimensional picture people on here like to paint. We had a much simpler situation in NI, and that took decades to put a lid on.
As it happens, I think that might be a model for the Turkey-Kurd situation.
Simple for me , we should have nothing whatsoever to do with Turkey whilst they are persecuting the Kurds. Same should apply to the others we arse lick , like Saudi's. UK policy is based on who we can make a buck off , no morals or principles involved.
How many immigrants have Saudi, Qatar, Israel taken in?
The Middle East is not our problem and if we had stayed out then Libya, Syria and Iraq would at peace. Instead Cameron and Hammond have been more interested in supporting their terrorist chums at the behest of their paymasters in Tel Aviv and Riyadh.
Lord Ashcroft Verified account @LordAshcroft In history we had empires so emperors ruled. Then we had kingdoms so kings ruled. Now we are just a country...
Wondering what the implications of a Tory leadership election kicking of before the referendum might be.
I know it isn't going to happen, but if a malcontent could get the names it would add a fascinating angle to the vote.
It's a fun what if.
Glad you're enjoying yourself.
Labour might be Marxist, or it might be anti-Semitic (in the usual but inaccurate meaning of that word) but it won't be both. Marx was a Jew himself. I think you mean to refer to Trotsky. For some of us there is an important difference between the two.
Lord Ashcroft Verified account @LordAshcroft In history we had empires so emperors ruled. Then we had kingdoms so kings ruled. Now we are just a country...
Am I taking things too far or is there an echo of Geoffrey Howe in the air?
From my POV, you Tories have lost the plot all of a sudden. What is behind this sudden change of heart.
I don't get it.
They've had enough of Osborne. Using the Budget in a blatant effort to bolster Remain with bungs, long, long before a GE, and being a devious, meddling Brownian bell end has tipped many over the edge.
Yep, spot on. Wondering why I bothered joining now.
DC and GO have lost half their party inside a month, and it's entirely of their own making.
Lord Ashcroft Verified account @LordAshcroft In history we had empires so emperors ruled. Then we had kingdoms so kings ruled. Now we are just a country...
Excellent!
No it isn't, its a pathetic old joke by a pathetic old man.. He has issues with the Tory party, so its not exactly unexpected..
All this incoming is happening because there is no effective opposition.
interesting idea. Would upset almost all of the right people
@janemerrick23: Michael Fallon out defending Osborne and Cameron this morning. Will the PM send him to DWP and promote Anna Soubry as 1st female Def Sec?
Wondering what the implications of a Tory leadership election kicking of before the referendum might be.
I know it isn't going to happen, but if a malcontent could get the names it would add a fascinating angle to the vote.
It's a fun what if.
Glad you're enjoying yourself.
Makes a change.
Tory psyche is very different to Labour one.
Tory has a top layer of loyalty, but is bubbling cauldron underneath. With Labour it is the other way around. Always gobbing off at the surface, with a solid core underneath.
Explains why despite bigger divisions, Corbyn is safe.
It's hard to see how any of the major UK political parties could be considered in great shape, right now.
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Mr. Jonathan, is it a Tory implosion, or an Osborne one? If the latter, then his removal solves the problem.
Or, to rephrase, is this a Peloponnesian War, or a Jugurthine War?
Osborne = Tory. He's your chancellor and the brains that got you out of opposition. You'll be properly screwed with him outside the tent pissing in.
There were several key people and the actual GE2010 campaign that Osborne headed up was a mini omnishambles. One built on little real research.
Gaining 90 seats, what a shambles, eh?
Almost all from their coalition partners. Should ensure that the Tories will never be in power again without an outright majority...
I think that was a reference to 2010. The Tories certainly didn't gain 90 seats in 2015 - net gain of 24.
EDIT - in fact, surely it was over a hundred in 2010 - from 198 to 307?
There you go. But apparently that was a shambles.
The idea that the 2010 campaign was a failure by the Tories is one of the most poisonous out there. Winning 150 seats in one go, as some people seem to think should have happened, just isn't feasible in our system.
It is feasible - Blair did it in 1997 and the SNP did even more, equivalently, last year - but it's very rare.
Attlee in 1945 and Baldwin in 1924 and 1931 are the only others I can think of since 1918.
Mr. Jonathan, is it a Tory implosion, or an Osborne one? If the latter, then his removal solves the problem.
Or, to rephrase, is this a Peloponnesian War, or a Jugurthine War?
Osborne = Tory. He's your chancellor and the brains that got you out of opposition. You'll be properly screwed with him outside the tent pissing in.
There were several key people and the actual GE2010 campaign that Osborne headed up was a mini omnishambles. One built on little real research.
Gaining 90 seats, what a shambles, eh?
Almost all from their coalition partners. Should ensure that the Tories will never be in power again without an outright majority...
I think that was a reference to 2010. The Tories certainly didn't gain 90 seats in 2015 - net gain of 24.
EDIT - in fact, surely it was over a hundred in 2010 - from 198 to 307?
There you go. But apparently that was a shambles.
The idea that the 2010 campaign was a failure by the Tories is one of the most poisonous out there. Winning 150 seats in one go, as some people seem to think should have happened, just isn't feasible in our system.
2010 was the race to the bottom by two incompetent election campaigns which Labour won with Brown's trip to Rochdale.
BTW Labour gained 145 seats in one go in 1997.
There were similarities between 1997 and 2010 - clapped out, sleazy government with its economic credibility in tatters. But Blair 'sealed the deal' in 1997 whereas Cameron didn't in 2010.
Labour in 2010 wasn't in remotely a bad a state as the Tories in 1997.
Well, put it this way. In 1945 and 1931 very unusual circumstances applied and they cannot be considered reliable precedents. 1997 Labour didn't make 150. Therefore since the advent of universal suffrage in 1928 no party has gained 150 seats in a single normal election. Before that it could happen quite often. 1924 and 1906 spring to mind. But as the electorate gets bigger, larger swings are needed to win individual seats and they become less volatile as a result.
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
I hate not voting, but it really is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone worth endorsing. Most pressing for me is the London mayoral election - I'm desperately researching the minor candidates/ assorted loons to see if there is one I could bring myself to vote for.
interesting idea. Would upset almost all of the right people
@janemerrick23: Michael Fallon out defending Osborne and Cameron this morning. Will the PM send him to DWP and promote Anna Soubry as 1st female Def Sec?
I get it. Surely then bookies need to get their odds right rather than ban punters? Not that I bet on the horses much.
It's just a consequence of offering a simple each way bet at a fraction of the win odds.
The each way concept is simple to understand and - averaged across races - profitable for the bookmakers. The problem (at least for the bookies) is when punters specifically target the selections/races with each way arbs and bet with very large stakes.
Most bookies these days will either automatically lower limits to all punters on those individual EW arbs - or intentionally offer awful odds on the win bet (making the ew part not an arb)
A decade ago the bookies weren't quite so sophisticated.
The bottom line is - if you withdraw more than you deposit from a bookie, their risk department will go through your bets one by one and if they suspect your future bets won't regress toward the mean, you'll get limited to peanuts or told to take your trade elsewhere.
That's their business - it's what the law allows them to do.
I expect to have limitations slapped on my accounts when Leicester win the League.
My 3000/1 quid each way is not my only bet on the Foxes. I have other potential payoffs in the thousands in related markets.
In the past I have made a modest loss on football betting, and a modest profit thanks to this site on political betting. Hopefully those will offset my season betting.
I would tip Okazaki to score against Palace today fwiw.
Your account is unlikely to be restricted however much you cop when Leicester are crowned champions. The main ways to get restricted or banned are to appear shrewder or cleverer than your bookmaker: shrewder by backing mainly arbs or filthy each-ways (unless you are an MP, it seems) or cleverer by consistently winning or just beating SP.
This season you will be just another deluded Foxes fan who got lucky. Bookies will frown, then take out adverts in August encouraging every other "lesser" team fan to back their side.
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
I hate not voting, but it really is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone worth endorsing. Most pressing for me is the London mayoral election - I'm desperately researching the minor candidates/ assorted loons to see if there is one I could bring myself to vote for.
I'm spoiling my ballot paper for that one, I think.
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Opposition to Osborne (and even Cameron) is starting to enter the Conservative Party political mainstream. The alternatives to them aren't just Philip Hollobone and Liam Fox, nor do those alternatives, if selected, mean the Conservatives automatically return to opposition in GE2020.
Boo Hoo JJ has his petted lip out. Lets hear more about them murdering the Kurds rather than your fawning over Erdogan. You cannot wring your hands about refugees and Europe whilst supporting them.
I am not 'fawning' over Erdogan. I don't like him. And yes, I have posted about the attacks on the Kurds. In fact, I said just this week that the reprisal attacks after the latest bombing that killed 37 people are pointless as they generally attack the wrong people.
So let's here more from you about the terrorist attacks, eh?
My point is that the situation is far more complex than the one-dimensional picture people on here like to paint. We had a much simpler situation in NI, and that took decades to put a lid on.
As it happens, I think that might be a model for the Turkey-Kurd situation.
Simple for me , we should have nothing whatsoever to do with Turkey whilst they are persecuting the Kurds. Same should apply to the others we arse lick , like Saudi's. UK policy is based on who we can make a buck off , no morals or principles involved.
Should we have anything to do with the Kurds as they bomb Ankara?
We need to use soft power to try to encourage these countries to change for the better, and that involves 'having something to do with them'. Failure to do so has obvious downsides.
Especially when they're struggling with 2-3 million migrants, whilst some of us don't want a few piddling thousand.
We ended up having to deal with the IRA, should we have continued as we were. We don't use soft power for anything other than to make money. We dabble in many countries business and kow tow and help some of the nastiest as they have money. They are architects of their own problems, the disasters are in their sphere and they are helping cause them rather than trying to solve them. Rather than picking sides , based on how we can make money out of it , we should be leaving it to the region to sort itself out. We should be concentrating with Europe on putting a barrier on the high seas to prevent any boat getting into open water. Return them to land and sink the boats. Better and simpler than paying Turkey.
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
We keep voting for them. Keep asking for pablum and its what you will receive.
Ain't that the truth! Trouble is, we can only vote for candidates selected by the parties, and the parties only seem to select a certain type of candidate. I'm sick of only having the choice of some parachuted in ex public school kid, or a son/daughter or other relation of an ex Labour politician!
Wondering what the implications of a Tory leadership election kicking of before the referendum might be.
I know it isn't going to happen, but if a malcontent could get the names it would add a fascinating angle to the vote.
It's a fun what if.
Glad you're enjoying yourself.
Makes a change.
Tory psyche is very different to Labour one.
Tory has a top layer of loyalty, but is bubbling cauldron underneath. With Labour it is the other way around. Always gobbing off at the surface, with a solid core underneath.
Explains why despite bigger divisions, Corbyn is safe.
It's hard to see how any of the major UK political parties could be considered in great shape, right now.
With perhaps the exception of the SNP.
Indeed, if I were polled today I would find it very hard to say who I would vote for.
Tories - chaotic civil war Labour - led by a terrorist-hugging fool Lib Dems - banal irrelevance UKIP - er, no Green - this is getting desperate SNP, PC etc - not standing here
I would never not vote so I think it would have to be Lib Dem, though I find the current version of the LDs pitiful.
Boo Hoo JJ has his petted lip out. Lets hear more about them murdering the Kurds rather than your fawning over Erdogan. You cannot wring your hands about refugees and Europe whilst supporting them.
I am not 'fawning' over Erdogan. I don't like him. And yes, I have posted about the attacks on the Kurds. In fact, I said just this week that the reprisal attacks after the latest bombing that killed 37 people are pointless as they generally attack the wrong people.
So let's here more from you about the terrorist attacks, eh?
My point is that the situation is far more complex than the one-dimensional picture people on here like to paint. We had a much simpler situation in NI, and that took decades to put a lid on.
As it happens, I think that might be a model for the Turkey-Kurd situation.
Simple for me , we should have nothing whatsoever to do with Turkey whilst they are persecuting the Kurds. Same should apply to the others we arse lick , like Saudi's. UK policy is based on who we can make a buck off , no morals or principles involved.
How many immigrants have Saudi, Qatar, Israel taken in?
The Middle East is not our problem
Nearly 400 years on, it's as if John Donne never wrote.
Boo Hoo JJ has his petted lip out. Lets hear more about them murdering the Kurds rather than your fawning over Erdogan. You cannot wring your hands about refugees and Europe whilst supporting them.
I am not 'fawning' over Erdogan. I don't like him. And yes, I have posted about the attacks on the Kurds. In fact, I said just this week that the reprisal attacks after the latest bombing that killed 37 people are pointless as they generally attack the wrong people.
So let's here more from you about the terrorist attacks, eh?
My point is that the situation is far more complex than the one-dimensional picture people on here like to paint. We had a much simpler situation in NI, and that took decades to put a lid on.
As it happens, I think that might be a model for the Turkey-Kurd situation.
Simple for me , we should have nothing whatsoever to do with Turkey whilst they are persecuting the Kurds. Same should apply to the others we arse lick , like Saudi's. UK policy is based on who we can make a buck off , no morals or principles involved.
How many immigrants have Saudi, Qatar, Israel taken in?
The Middle East is not our problem and if we had stayed out then Libya, Syria and Iraq would at peace. Instead Cameron and Hammond have been more interested in supporting their terrorist chums at the behest of their paymasters in Tel Aviv and Riyadh.
The resignation of IDS appears to be a coordinated attempt to damage David Cameron and George Osborne by Brexit and is little to do with PIPSs. IDS agreed the PIP issue with No 10 and GO and was present at the cabinet meeting that endorsed the budget. It is just too coincidental that Tim Montgomery has suddenly appeared in the TV studios backing IDS and inferring that post the referendum there will be a change of leadership in the party. Everyone knows Tim Montgomery has an agenda to oust David Cameron, one which is shared by many in the Brexit campaign. On the broad thrust of IDS resignation letter it is hard to disagree with his observation that there are too many protected areas and in particular pensioner’s benefits. I believe that GO has been in the position too long and that post the referendum he will be succeeded, probably, by Michael Gove. I do not think IDS will get a free ride by a higher profile in the Brexit campaign as there is a visceral hatred of him for the bedroom tax, ema, and general benefit changes, particularly by the left. I do believe that Europe is splitting the party in two but both sides have to understand that the greater good of the Country must come first. The cabinet by the autumn will be very different and I do believe policy will shift towards addressing pensioner’s benefits, and in particular the triple lock which frankly is unsustainable. I say that as a pensioner and as a recent joiner to the Conservative Party I will not be voting for either George Osborne or Boris in succession to David Cameron and if remain wins I believe Teresa May is in poll position now
Lord Ashcroft Verified account @LordAshcroft In history we had empires so emperors ruled. Then we had kingdoms so kings ruled. Now we are just a country...
Excellent!
No it isn't, its a pathetic old joke by a pathetic old man.. He has issues with the Tory party, so its not exactly unexpected..
All this incoming is happening because there is no effective opposition.
He doesn't seem to be the only one with issues with the Tory party. He seems to have sensed the zeitgeist a while before most others
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Opposition to Osborne (and even Cameron) is starting to enter the Conservative Party political mainstream. The alternatives to them aren't just Philip Hollobone and Liam Fox, nor do those alternatives, if selected, mean the Conservatives automatically return to opposition in GE2020.
Particularly if up against a Corbynite.
Exactly. The Conservatives think they'd rather pick someone they're comfortable with and risk losing than pick someone the electorate is comfortable with. The electorate didn't particularly like the Conservatives in 2015. What makes you think that the deterioration in their opinion of that party will not exceed the deterioration in their opinion of Labour?
Boo Hoo JJ has his petted lip out. Lets hear more about them murdering the Kurds rather than your fawning over Erdogan. You cannot wring your hands about refugees and Europe whilst supporting them.
I am not 'fawning' over Erdogan. I don't like him. And yes, I have posted about the attacks on the Kurds. In fact, I said just this week that the reprisal attacks after the latest bombing that killed 37 people are pointless as they generally attack the wrong people.
So let's here more from you about the terrorist attacks, eh?
My point is that the situation is far more complex than the one-dimensional picture people on here like to paint. We had a much simpler situation in NI, and that took decades to put a lid on.
As it happens, I think that might be a model for the Turkey-Kurd situation.
Simple for me , we should have nothing whatsoever to do with Turkey whilst they are persecuting the Kurds. Same should apply to the others we arse lick , like Saudi's. UK policy is based on who we can make a buck off , no morals or principles involved.
How many immigrants have Saudi, Qatar, Israel taken in?
The Middle East is not our problem and if we had stayed out then Libya, Syria and Iraq would at peace. Instead Cameron and Hammond have been more interested in supporting their terrorist chums at the behest of their paymasters in Tel Aviv and Riyadh.
There's a couple of hundred Syrain taxi drivers turned up in Dubai recently. More usually a job for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
Norway's healthcare ministry on Friday proposed allowing people to legally change their gender without the need for any surgery, hormone treatment or sterilisation, a move hailed by Amnesty International.
interesting idea. Would upset almost all of the right people
@janemerrick23: Michael Fallon out defending Osborne and Cameron this morning. Will the PM send him to DWP and promote Anna Soubry as 1st female Def Sec?
It has been suggested that Cameron "owes" Fallon who did not want to make the "dead cat" attack on Ed Miliband in GE2015.
Lord Ashcroft Verified account @LordAshcroft In history we had empires so emperors ruled. Then we had kingdoms so kings ruled. Now we are just a country...
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
I hate not voting, but it really is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone worth endorsing. Most pressing for me is the London mayoral election - I'm desperately researching the minor candidates/ assorted loons to see if there is one I could bring myself to vote for.
I need to find a minor candidate to give my first preference to. But when it comes down to the final round between Labour and Tory, "uninspiring nonentity" trumps "wants to legalise racial discrimination" in my view.
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Opposition to Osborne (and even Cameron) is starting to enter the Conservative Party political mainstream. The alternatives to them aren't just Philip Hollobone and Liam Fox, nor do those alternatives, if selected, mean the Conservatives automatically return to opposition in GE2020.
Particularly if up against a Corbynite.
Exactly. The Conservatives think they'd rather pick someone they're comfortable with and risk losing than pick someone the electorate is comfortable with. The electorate didn't particularly like the Conservatives in 2015. What makes you think that the deterioration in their opinion of that party will not exceed the deterioration in their opinion of Labour?
You think the electorate would be comfortable with Osborne?
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
I hate not voting, but it really is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone worth endorsing. Most pressing for me is the London mayoral election - I'm desperately researching the minor candidates/ assorted loons to see if there is one I could bring myself to vote for.
I'm spoiling my ballot paper for that one, I think.
Is there still not a "Just build the bloody runway, and another one next to it while we've got the tools out" candidate yet?
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Opposition to Osborne (and even Cameron) is starting to enter the Conservative Party political mainstream. The alternatives to them aren't just Philip Hollobone and Liam Fox, nor do those alternatives, if selected, mean the Conservatives automatically return to opposition in GE2020.
Particularly if up against a Corbynite.
Exactly. The Conservatives think they'd rather pick someone they're comfortable with and risk losing than pick someone the electorate is comfortable with. The electorate didn't particularly like the Conservatives in 2015. What makes you think that the deterioration in their opinion of that party will not exceed the deterioration in their opinion of Labour?
You think the electorate would be comfortable with Osborne?
Personally, I think the Conservatives should be begging David Cameron on hands and knees to stay.
Theresa May is the best of a very bad bunch otherwise. Or Boris Johnson, if they're feeling daring, though that could go horribly wrong. Every other choice would range from poor to utterly disastrous.
I expect they'll pick Michael Gove. They love him. The fact that the electorate hates him is neither here nor there.
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
I hate not voting, but it really is becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone worth endorsing. Most pressing for me is the London mayoral election - I'm desperately researching the minor candidates/ assorted loons to see if there is one I could bring myself to vote for.
I need to find a minor candidate to give my first preference to. But when it comes down to the final round between Labour and Tory, "uninspiring nonentity" trumps "wants to legalise racial discrimination" in my view.
On a forced choice that's probably the way I'd go, but 1) I strongly support Heathrow expansion and 2) In normal times, I'm a Labour voter - and I have never voted Conservative in my life.
The resignation of IDS appears to be a coordinated attempt to damage David Cameron and George Osborne by Brexit and is little to do with PIPSs. IDS agreed the PIP issue with No 10 and GO and was present at the cabinet meeting that endorsed the budget. It is just too coincidental that Tim Montgomery has suddenly appeared in the TV studios backing IDS and inferring that post the referendum there will be a change of leadership in the party. Everyone knows Tim Montgomery has an agenda to oust David Cameron, one which is shared by many in the Brexit campaign. On the broad thrust of IDS resignation letter it is hard to disagree with his observation that there are too many protected areas and in particular pensioner’s benefits. I believe that GO has been in the position too long and that post the referendum he will be succeeded, probably, by Michael Gove. I do not think IDS will get a free ride by a higher profile in the Brexit campaign as there is a visceral hatred of him for the bedroom tax, ema, and general benefit changes, particularly by the left. I do believe that Europe is splitting the party in two but both sides have to understand that the greater good of the Country must come first. The cabinet by the autumn will be very different and I do believe policy will shift towards addressing pensioner’s benefits, and in particular the triple lock which frankly is unsustainable. I say that as a pensioner and as a recent joiner to the Conservative Party I will not be voting for either George Osborne or Boris in succession to David Cameron and if remain wins I believe Teresa May is in poll position now
Coordinated with whom? No-one else resigned besides IDS. Tim Montgomerie is interviewed because he will turn up for the opening of an envelope: he is a rentaquote Tory commentator; in short, he will answer the phone when senior politicians will not. Montgomerie's mug on the news is evidence against a conspiracy, not for one.
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Opposition to Osborne (and even Cameron) is starting to enter the Conservative Party political mainstream. The alternatives to them aren't just Philip Hollobone and Liam Fox, nor do those alternatives, if selected, mean the Conservatives automatically return to opposition in GE2020.
Particularly if up against a Corbynite.
Cameron made two HUGE mistakes which might not only derail his legacy but even his party's future. The first was calling the referendum which any fool could see would end in tears and the second was announcing his resignation this parliament.
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
snip.
snip.
Exactly. The Conservatives think they'd rather pick someone they're comfortable with and risk losing than pick someone the electorate is comfortable with. The electorate didn't particularly like the Conservatives in 2015. What makes you think that the deterioration in their opinion of that party will not exceed the deterioration in their opinion of Labour?
You think the electorate would be comfortable with Osborne?
Personally, I think the Conservatives should be begging David Cameron on hands and knees to stay.
Theresa May is the best of a very bad bunch otherwise. Or Boris Johnson, if they're feeling daring, though that could go horribly wrong. Every other choice would range from poor to utterly disastrous.
I expect they'll pick Michael Gove. They love him. The fact that the electorate hates him is neither here nor there.
I thought the same way as you about David Cameron up until last month, but I think he's now lost his party.
Theresa May was my prior pick (as I think you know) but she's shot her bolt.
Boris Johnson has done nothing to show he's serious PM material so far.
And I agree Michael Gove looks in pole position - and I like him too. Where I differ from you slightly (I'm not ignorant of it) is that (a) I don't rule Gove surprising, I think if he found some way to communicate his vision to the swing electorate he could connect and even inspire and (b) he beats Corbyn in the English key marginals; remember, he's still a Cameroon at heart, if a neocon and EUsceptic one.
However, I don't agree with you every other choice would be poor or disastrous. There's a string of telegenic, intelligent, reasonable and tenacious Conservatives who could make great leaders, albeit they're not in the cabinet or are very junior government employees.
THE post-Budget strife is a reminder that it might have been better for George Osborne and Britain’s EU renegotiation if he had become Foreign Secretary after the last election.
Osborne flirted with this post-election move two years ago. He saw it as an opportunity to take charge of the EU renegotiation and to put to use his love of grand strategy. After all, he has long been friends with the world’s most famous diplomat, Henry Kissinger.
The resignation of IDS appears to be a coordinated attempt to damage David Cameron and George Osborne by Brexit and is little to do with PIPSs. IDS agreed the PIP issue with No 10 and GO and was present at the cabinet meeting that endorsed the budget. It is just too coincidental that Tim Montgomery has suddenly appeared in the TV studios backing IDS and inferring that post the referendum there will be a change of leadership in the party. Everyone knows Tim Montgomery has an agenda to oust David Cameron, one which is shared by many in the Brexit campaign. On the broad thrust of IDS resignation letter it is hard to disagree with his observation that there are too many protected areas and in particular pensioner’s benefits. I believe that GO has been in the position too long and that post the referendum he will be succeeded, probably, by Michael Gove. I do not think IDS will get a free ride by a higher profile in the Brexit campaign as there is a visceral hatred of him for the bedroom tax, ema, and general benefit changes, particularly by the left. I do believe that Europe is splitting the party in two but both sides have to understand that the greater good of the Country must come first. The cabinet by the autumn will be very different and I do believe policy will shift towards addressing pensioner’s benefits, and in particular the triple lock which frankly is unsustainable. I say that as a pensioner and as a recent joiner to the Conservative Party I will not be voting for either George Osborne or Boris in succession to David Cameron and if remain wins I believe Teresa May is in poll position now
Coordinated with whom? No-one else resigned besides IDS. Tim Montgomerie is interviewed because he will turn up for the opening of an envelope: he is a rentaquote Tory commentator; in short, he will answer the phone when senior politicians will not. Montgomerie's mug on the news is evidence against a conspiracy, not for one.
There are many on the Conservative right and pro Brexit want to see George Osborne taken down and it has all the hall marks of a conspiracy, not least the time scale. If IDS was so upset he should have resigned at cabinet when it was agreed. I have little doubt that Osborne's reference to the OBR pro Europe comments at his budget presentation resulted in fury by his opponents and was the last straw
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
We get the politicians we deserve.
You might deserve to be represented by this current crop of 4quits. I certainly don't.
The country as a whole rewards "safe" politicians who stick to their line to take, speak in soundbites and avoid "gaffes". It's a very rare politician who can transcend that. Boris might be one. So might Trump.
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Opposition to Osborne (and even Cameron) is starting to enter the Conservative Party political mainstream. The alternatives to them aren't just Philip Hollobone and Liam Fox, nor do those alternatives, if selected, mean the Conservatives automatically return to opposition in GE2020.
Particularly if up against a Corbynite.
Cameron made two HUGE mistakes which might not only derail his legacy but even his party's future. The first was calling the referendum which any fool could see would end in tears and the second was announcing his resignation this parliament.
I do not agree about the referendum but I do agree his announcement about his intention not to stand at a third election was an error
Out from 8pm last night. Wasn't expecting to wake up to this.
Yes, the Tories are doing their best to lose in 2020. Its quite impressive.
The Conservative Party is going through a period of churn as it realises continuity of the existing regime into the 2020s isn't what it really wants.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
The electoral track record of those opposing David Cameron and George Osborne is hardly encouraging. But I suppose the purity of opposition is much more comfortable than compromising with the electorate. Ask any Corbynite.
Opposition to Osborne (and even Cameron) is starting to enter the Conservative Party political mainstream. The alternatives to them aren't just Philip Hollobone and Liam Fox, nor do those alternatives, if selected, mean the Conservatives automatically return to opposition in GE2020.
Particularly if up against a Corbynite.
Exactly. The Conservatives think they'd rather pick someone they're comfortable with and risk losing than pick someone the electorate is comfortable with. The electorate didn't particularly like the Conservatives in 2015. What makes you think that the deterioration in their opinion of that party will not exceed the deterioration in their opinion of Labour?
You think the electorate would be comfortable with Osborne?
They'd be most comfortable with Cameron staying on. Failing that I think May would be very electable. Possibly Boris.
If you want to be in government after the next election you do need to prioritise voter-appeal. Michael Gove might win an election against Corbyn himself but against most plausible replacements for Corbyn he wouldn't. By that I don't mean fantasy Labour leaders like Jarvis but another left-winger like Nandy.
I cannot but think that this is a cannonball which has damaged the sides of the Good Ship Remain, although above the water-line, provided the sea doesn't get too choppy.
I cannot but think that this is a cannonball which has damaged the sides of the Good Ship Remain, although above the water-line, provided the sea doesn't get too choppy.
I do not think either side comes out of this with any credit
If you are not intrested in politics, and no nothing about it, and you are watching John Mcdonnell for the first time . Then you could be impressed, he looks the part and speaks very well in interviews.
Great tweet I read today- 2020 election- the unelectable 1983 Labour Party versus the unelectable 1997 Tory Party. Throw in the 1945 Liberal party and you get the set- that's my bit.
The thing is now with the Tories is that now they are genuinely messed up. And politics, like football management, it just gets uglier and more horrible. It did with Labour in the Brown years. It did with Major.
Cameron was the Tory's best hope of keeping this wholly unmanageable, cutthroat, back stabbing, ideologically divided party on the straight and narrow. And now, I think he's fatally wounded, Osborne is the dead parrot, and the others May and Johnson, well they just don't bear thinking about.
Mr. Jonathan, is it a Tory implosion, or an Osborne one? If the latter, then his removal solves the problem.
Or, to rephrase, is this a Peloponnesian War, or a Jugurthine War?
Osborne = Tory. He's your chancellor and the brains that got you out of opposition. You'll be properly screwed with him outside the tent pissing in.
There were several key people and the actual GE2010 campaign that Osborne headed up was a mini omnishambles. One built on little real research.
Gaining 90 seats, what a shambles, eh?
Almost all from their coalition partners. Should ensure that the Tories will never be in power again without an outright majority...
I think that was a reference to 2010. The Tories certainly didn't gain 90 seats in 2015 - net gain of 24.
EDIT - in fact, surely it was over a hundred in 2010 - from 198 to 307?
There you go. But apparently that was a shambles.
The idea that the 2010 campaign was a failure by the Tories is one of the most poisonous out there. Winning 150 seats in one go, as some people seem to think should have happened, just isn't feasible in our system.
2010 was the race to the bottom by two incompetent election campaigns which Labour won with Brown's trip to Rochdale.
BTW Labour gained 145 seats in one go in 1997.
There were similarities between 1997 and 2010 - clapped out, sleazy government with its economic credibility in tatters. But Blair 'sealed the deal' in 1997 whereas Cameron didn't in 2010.
Labour in 2010 wasn't in remotely a bad a state as the Tories in 1997.
Well you would say that wouldn't you.
The 1997 Conservatives never produced a disaster to equal Brown's trip to Rochdale.
The weeks since Cameron decided he could blag his way out of not getting much from his EU negotiations have really shown up just how parlous a state our politics is in. The Tories should be out of sight by now, given how unappetising Corbyn's Labour are to the average Joe, but instead, they've blown both feet off with a shot gun, and look like they're going to blow their own head off while looking down the barrel, trying to figure out why their feet are missing. Labour seem unable to grasp that the country need a credible opposition. The Lib Dems are...who? UKIP seem paralysed with fear now that we're actually having an EU referendum. None of the political parties, apart from the SNP, and Sturgeon in particular, seem to actually be any good at this politics stuff. Which is quite worrying!
Gove is directly linked to the deeply unpopular free school/Academies changes.
Are these the same free schools and academies the voters rejected less than two months prior to returning a majority Conservative government pledging to introduce more of them?
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
We keep voting for them. Keep asking for pablum and its what you will receive.
Ain't that the truth! Trouble is, we can only vote for candidates selected by the parties, and the parties only seem to select a certain type of candidate. I'm sick of only having the choice of some parachuted in ex public school kid, or a son/daughter or other relation of an ex Labour politician!
I might have to throw my hat in the ring!
You'd be terrible. You are obviously bright, have strong opinions and good ideas. The press would slaughter you. In an age of 24 hour tv news and gotcha, journalism, you'd stand no chance.
Great tweet I read today- 2020 election- the unelectable 1983 Labour Party versus the unelectable 1997 Tory Party. Throw in the 1945 Liberal party and you get the set- that's my bit.
The thing is now with the Tories is that now they are genuinely messed up. And politics, like football management, it just gets uglier and more horrible. It did with Labour in the Brown years. It did with Major.
Cameron was the Tory's best hope of keeping this wholly unmanageable, cutthroat, back stabbing, ideologically divided party on the straight and narrow. And now, I think he's fatally wounded, Osborne is the dead parrot, and the others May and Johnson, well they just don't bear thinking about.
So the Chinese leadership is right about representative democracy...
Norway's healthcare ministry on Friday proposed allowing people to legally change their gender without the need for any surgery, hormone treatment or sterilisation, a move hailed by Amnesty International.
That's excellent news.
Personally, I'm more in favour of removing gender altogether - but having an official third gender and/or easy gender changing is a definite step forward.
A wrong box ticked on the birth certificate can result in a lifetime of assumptions that can make someone's life miserable.
Its only ever going to be relevant in a fraction of a percentage of births - but for those it impacts, sensible, sensitive legislation like this makes a big difference.
Agree with that. He's put his hand in his department's budget to find cuts, and Osborne has used them in the wrong way.
This has been niggling for years - I suspect that Osborne using the Budget for Remain was just the final straw. IDS has never struck me as a very political man.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
On top of all that, Osborne's people had started briefing that a u turn would be the fault of IDS....
One thinks of Geoffrey Howe. Could IDS's resignation statement damage the PM (and his - ha, ha - "renegotiated return of powers")?
Gove is directly linked to the deeply unpopular free school/Academies changes.
Are these the same free schools and academies the voters rejected less than two months prior to returning a majority Conservative government pledging to introduce more of them?
If you are not intrested in politics, and no nothing about it, and you are watching John Mcdonnell for the first time . Then you could be impressed, he looks the part and speaks very well in interviews.
Gove is directly linked to the deeply unpopular free school/Academies changes.
Are these the same free schools and academies the voters rejected less than two months prior to returning a majority Conservative government pledging to introduce more of them?
@DavidHerdson - So what do you think is a better explanation, then, for IDS's resignation, than the two you dismiss? One that better fits the facts. Or should we all be as "puzzled" as Cameron says he is? (What, no whips? No MI5?)
In his letter, IDS mentions David Freud. That's a big clue. If there is a real division over welfare policy, what is it? "The Fraud Squad" might know. A lot of money has been spent on "government relations" by those who are pushing "social finance".
Welcome to replacing the welfare state with Wonga and payday loans.
And of course the resignation is partly to do with Europe.
He also seems to have taken the spotlight off of George Osborne.
I agree it would be "audacious" to offer the DWP job to Boris. And he'd turn it down.
The only way one could imagine the Remain campaign winning the referendum is for a Labour person to take the helm.
Ideally this would be Jeremy Corbyn. Sure, he doesn't play well with the Tory voters, and with most commenters who post to this website, but who cares? Remain can only win by pushing the line that the Tories are a shower of infighting arseholes, more intent on fighting each other, with half of them wrapped in the Union Jack and pining for Enoch Powell and the other half, the half with more brains, getting on with the job of smashing the welfare state to help asset strippers and moneylenders and other spivs and crooks. Then they go to reunions at the boarding schools that damaged their personalities so much and all get drunk together.
And that therefore if you hate the Tories, get off your bum and make sure you vote to Remain.
Which is far too hard a task, would rock the boat too much, and won't happen.
John McDonnell is surprisingly talented, charismatic, intelligent, fun, self deprecating, an easy communicator, interviews well, and someone who could potentially reach across the party ie. appears to be much more comprising than his austere, humourless and dim witted leader.
New Labour should have found some way of accommodating it's lefty fringes, and making use of the McDonnells of the world.
If you are not intrested in politics, and no nothing about it, and you are watching John Mcdonnell for the first time . Then you could be impressed, he looks the part and speaks very well in interviews.
Mr. Jonathan, is it a Tory implosion, or an Osborne one? If the latter, then his removal solves the problem.
Or, to rephrase, is this a Peloponnesian War, or a Jugurthine War?
Osborne = Tory. He's your chancellor and the brains that got you out of opposition. You'll be properly screwed with him outside the tent pissing in.
There were several key people and the actual GE2010 campaign that Osborne headed up was a mini omnishambles. One built on little real research.
Gaining 90 seats, what a shambles, eh?
Almost all from their coalition partners. Should ensure that the Tories will never be in power again without an outright majority...
I think that was a reference to 2010. The Tories certainly didn't gain 90 seats in 2015 - net gain of 24.
EDIT - in fact, surely it was over a hundred in 2010 - from 198 to 307?
There you go. But apparently that was a shambles.
The idea that the 2010 campaign was a failure by the Tories is one of the most poisonous out there. Winning 150 seats in one go, as some people seem to think should have happened, just isn't feasible in our system.
2010 was the race to the bottom by two incompetent election campaigns which Labour won with Brown's trip to Rochdale.
BTW Labour gained 145 seats in one go in 1997.
There were similarities between 1997 and 2010 - clapped out, sleazy government with its economic credibility in tatters. But Blair 'sealed the deal' in 1997 whereas Cameron didn't in 2010.
Labour in 2010 wasn't in remotely a bad a state as the Tories in 1997.
Well you would say that wouldn't you.
The 1997 Conservatives never produced a disaster to equal Brown's trip to Rochdale.
Gove is directly linked to the deeply unpopular free school/Academies changes.
Are these the same free schools and academies the voters rejected less than two months prior to returning a majority Conservative government pledging to introduce more of them?
Voters don't know what free schools and academies are. In so far as they think they do, they think it involves selling off schools to the private sector - and bringing businesses in to run them instead - which is hokum.
They have similar views on the NHS and hospitals.
However, despite what they say, what they really punish governments for is the closure of their local schools and hospitals, or the presence and operation of scandal in very bad ones, particularly affecting them.
So if the "model" works well, and gives acceptable results and options for them locally, then they don't put voting for ideology over pragmatism.
Personally, I think the Conservatives should be begging David Cameron on hands and knees to stay.
Theresa May is the best of a very bad bunch otherwise. Or Boris Johnson, if they're feeling daring, though that could go horribly wrong. Every other choice would range from poor to utterly disastrous.
I expect they'll pick Michael Gove. They love him. The fact that the electorate hates him is neither here nor there.
The Clarendon schools hate him too. It won't be Gove.
I always check my reaction to piss taking as a yardstick.
When Cameron was compared to Chamberlain previously, I thought it was a bit stupid - when General Boles did one with Tampax in his hand - I laughed out loud and it still makes me chuckle.
It sums up the paucity of the deal. And Osborne hailing this as a triumph made me wince.
Agree with that. He's put his hand in his department's budget to find cuts, and Osborne has used them in the wrong way.
This has been niggling for years - I suspect that Osborne using the Budget for Remain was just the final straw. IDS has never struck me as a very political man.
I note DavidL's comments about IDS and the benefit changes on the previous thread but I think he has it fundamentally wrong. The impression I always got was that IDS had a vision of a complete transformation in the way welfare is dealt with that wasn't necessarily just about cuts. From his point of view it was about making benefits work properly. At the same time the Treasury has seen it as an opportunity continuously to impose cuts and save money.
That doesn't mean I don't think he has picked his time for political reasons but I do think that the underlying logic in terms of benefits is coherent and that he has long viewed Osborne and the Treasury as the enemy.
On top of all that, Osborne's people had started briefing that a u turn would be the fault of IDS....
One thinks of Geoffrey Howe. Could IDS's resignation statement damage the PM (and his - ha, ha - "renegotiated return of powers")?
Mr. Jonathan, is it a Tory implosion, or an Osborne one? If the latter, then his removal solves the problem.
Or, to rephrase, is this a Peloponnesian War, or a Jugurthine War?
Osborne = Tory. He's your chancellor and the brains that got you out of opposition. You'll be properly screwed with him outside the tent pissing in.
There were several key people and the actual GE2010 campaign that Osborne headed up was a mini omnishambles. One built on little real research.
Gaining 90 seats, what a shambles, eh?
Almost all from their coalition partners. Should ensure that the Tories will never be in power again without an outright majority...
I think that was a reference to 2010. The Tories certainly didn't gain 90 seats in 2015 - net gain of 24.
EDIT - in fact, surely it was over a hundred in 2010 - from 198 to 307?
There you go. But apparently that was a shambles.
The idea that the 2010 campaign was a failure by the Tories is one of the most poisonous out there. Winning 150 seats in one go, as some people seem to think should have happened, just isn't feasible in our system.
It is feasible - Blair did it in 1997 and the SNP did even more, equivalently, last year - but it's very rare.
Attlee in 1945 and Baldwin in 1924 and 1931 are the only others I can think of since 1918.
So, apart from lots of times it is impossible.
Lol. Yes, but for most of those, 'special circumstances' apply.
1918 (Don't know if ydoethur was including that but he could have done): Coupon election / Khaki-post-WWI election 1924: Realignment between Lib and Lab on the left-of-centre 1931: National coaltion 1945: Post-WWII election and 10 years since the previous one
There's only really 1906, 1997 (which was just short of 150) and to an extent 1924, plus the localised Scotland 2015, which are non-special-circumstances since 1900
Comments
Conservatives-fecked.
Labour-fecked.
Lib Dems-really fecked.
UKIP-fecked.
How did we end up with such piss poor politicians?
Still rather a lot. If Cameron had won that many in 2010 he would have had a majority of around 30.
With perhaps the exception of the SNP.
The Middle East is not our problem and if we had stayed out then Libya, Syria and Iraq would at peace. Instead Cameron and Hammond have been more interested in supporting their terrorist chums at the behest of their paymasters in Tel Aviv and Riyadh.
@LordAshcroft
In history we had empires so emperors ruled. Then we had kingdoms so kings ruled. Now we are just a country...
Meanwhile a state that used to allow polygamy has endorsed a man who's been married three times, not including the rumours of several - ahem - others.
The party of Mick Philpot, Benefits Dee, the IRA, Hezbollah.
If they had any sense they would knife Corbyn now under the cover of the Conservative shenanigans.
It's their chance.
However, it is yet to decide what should replace it.
That has many potential outcomes and I do not expect a permanent split.
When both Cameron/Osborne go, that will largely lance the boil.
All this incoming is happening because there is no effective opposition.
@janemerrick23: Michael Fallon out defending Osborne and Cameron this morning. Will the PM send him to DWP and promote Anna Soubry as 1st female Def Sec?
The reds look for a reason to be obedient and loyal. The blues look for a reason to revolt and indulge in regicide.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35850625
Update - Reuters: Local media reports two people have been killed and seven others wounded in a suicide bombing in central #Istanbul
This season you will be just another deluded Foxes fan who got lucky. Bookies will frown, then take out adverts in August encouraging every other "lesser" team fan to back their side.
Particularly if up against a Corbynite.
Trouble is, we can only vote for candidates selected by the parties, and the parties only seem to select a certain type of candidate. I'm sick of only having the choice of some parachuted in ex public school kid, or a son/daughter or other relation of an ex Labour politician!
I might have to throw my hat in the ring!
Tories - chaotic civil war
Labour - led by a terrorist-hugging fool
Lib Dems - banal irrelevance
UKIP - er, no
Green - this is getting desperate
SNP, PC etc - not standing here
I would never not vote so I think it would have to be Lib Dem, though I find the current version of the LDs pitiful.
http://www.thelocal.no/20160318/norway-to-allow-gender-change-without-medical-intervention
An Epic Clusterfuck.
Theresa May is the best of a very bad bunch otherwise. Or Boris Johnson, if they're feeling daring, though that could go horribly wrong. Every other choice would range from poor to utterly disastrous.
I expect they'll pick Michael Gove. They love him. The fact that the electorate hates him is neither here nor there.
Nothing from Leave.
Theresa May was my prior pick (as I think you know) but she's shot her bolt.
Boris Johnson has done nothing to show he's serious PM material so far.
And I agree Michael Gove looks in pole position - and I like him too. Where I differ from you slightly (I'm not ignorant of it) is that (a) I don't rule Gove surprising, I think if he found some way to communicate his vision to the swing electorate he could connect and even inspire and (b) he beats Corbyn in the English key marginals; remember, he's still a Cameroon at heart, if a neocon and EUsceptic one.
However, I don't agree with you every other choice would be poor or disastrous. There's a string of telegenic, intelligent, reasonable and tenacious Conservatives who could make great leaders, albeit they're not in the cabinet or are very junior government employees.
And the Conservatives do do surprises.
I may write a blogpost on this.
If you want to be in government after the next election you do need to prioritise voter-appeal. Michael Gove might win an election against Corbyn himself but against most plausible replacements for Corbyn he wouldn't. By that I don't mean fantasy Labour leaders like Jarvis but another left-winger like Nandy.
If you are not intrested in politics, and no nothing about it, and you are watching John Mcdonnell for the first time .
Then you could be impressed, he looks the part and speaks very well in interviews.
The thing is now with the Tories is that now they are genuinely messed up. And politics, like football management, it just gets uglier and more horrible. It did with Labour in the Brown years. It did with Major.
Cameron was the Tory's best hope of keeping this wholly unmanageable, cutthroat, back stabbing, ideologically divided party on the straight and narrow. And now, I think he's fatally wounded, Osborne is the dead parrot, and the others May and Johnson, well they just don't bear thinking about.
The 1997 Conservatives never produced a disaster to equal Brown's trip to Rochdale.
But if you want a different comparison:
1979 Conservative vote increases 8.3%
2010 Conservative vote increases 3.7%
The Tories should be out of sight by now, given how unappetising Corbyn's Labour are to the average Joe, but instead, they've blown both feet off with a shot gun, and look like they're going to blow their own head off while looking down the barrel, trying to figure out why their feet are missing.
Labour seem unable to grasp that the country need a credible opposition.
The Lib Dems are...who?
UKIP seem paralysed with fear now that we're actually having an EU referendum.
None of the political parties, apart from the SNP, and Sturgeon in particular, seem to actually be any good at this politics stuff. Which is quite worrying!
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10/voters-reject-free-schools/
Personally, I'm more in favour of removing gender altogether - but having an official third gender and/or easy gender changing is a definite step forward.
A wrong box ticked on the birth certificate can result in a lifetime of assumptions that can make someone's life miserable.
Its only ever going to be relevant in a fraction of a percentage of births - but for those it impacts, sensible, sensitive legislation like this makes a big difference.
Have fun campers.
In his letter, IDS mentions David Freud. That's a big clue. If there is a real division over welfare policy, what is it? "The Fraud Squad" might know. A lot of money has been spent on "government relations" by those who are pushing "social finance".
Welcome to replacing the welfare state with Wonga and payday loans.
And of course the resignation is partly to do with Europe.
He also seems to have taken the spotlight off of George Osborne.
I agree it would be "audacious" to offer the DWP job to Boris. And he'd turn it down.
The only way one could imagine the Remain campaign winning the referendum is for a Labour person to take the helm.
Ideally this would be Jeremy Corbyn. Sure, he doesn't play well with the Tory voters, and with most commenters who post to this website, but who cares? Remain can only win by pushing the line that the Tories are a shower of infighting arseholes, more intent on fighting each other, with half of them wrapped in the Union Jack and pining for Enoch Powell and the other half, the half with more brains, getting on with the job of smashing the welfare state to help asset strippers and moneylenders and other spivs and crooks. Then they go to reunions at the boarding schools that damaged their personalities so much and all get drunk together.
And that therefore if you hate the Tories, get off your bum and make sure you vote to Remain.
Which is far too hard a task, would rock the boat too much, and won't happen.
New Labour should have found some way of accommodating it's lefty fringes, and making use of the McDonnells of the world.
But I'm talking about the state of the party not the campaign. The 92-97 parliament was worse for the Tories than 05-10 was for Labour
They have similar views on the NHS and hospitals.
However, despite what they say, what they really punish governments for is the closure of their local schools and hospitals, or the presence and operation of scandal in very bad ones, particularly affecting them.
So if the "model" works well, and gives acceptable results and options for them locally, then they don't put voting for ideology over pragmatism.
When Cameron was compared to Chamberlain previously, I thought it was a bit stupid - when General Boles did one with Tampax in his hand - I laughed out loud and it still makes me chuckle.
It sums up the paucity of the deal. And Osborne hailing this as a triumph made me wince.
1918 (Don't know if ydoethur was including that but he could have done): Coupon election / Khaki-post-WWI election
1924: Realignment between Lib and Lab on the left-of-centre
1931: National coaltion
1945: Post-WWII election and 10 years since the previous one
There's only really 1906, 1997 (which was just short of 150) and to an extent 1924, plus the localised Scotland 2015, which are non-special-circumstances since 1900