Wow, that was absolutely brutal from IDS. And clearly heartfelt and genuine.
The basic charge was one that a few of us have been making for a while: Osborne is focused on feeding and looking after the Tory client state. Those who do not vote Tory are not worth bothering about. Savage.
IDS is a brute of a man who has assaulted the poor and sick for years. That he sounds sincere demonstrates he has no idea at all how the people he assaulted live and the impact he has had in brutalising them.
Anyway, I picked out this same point. Osborne imposing arbitrary caps and limits then always picking on the same people to pay for his economic mismanagement. IDS said his government picks on people "who will never vote for us". Yes it's true and all governments do that to an extent. But to have it laud out so openly is brutal for Osborne who is already seen as a political rather than economic Chancellor
Haven't watched "the Great Interview" as I couldn't find "the Great Popcorn bag" with which to watch (de rigeur these days it seems).
Matt Hancock is the Government figure who most affects my working world so I've heard him speak a few times. At Government Property 2016 he was very flat and uninspiring and looked like a man desperately wishing to be somewhere else. Having told local authorities they shouldn't "play the Property market", he did throw a Surrey Conservative Councillor a bone by suggesting Councils could use capital receipts from disposals to offset falling revenue budgets so that got a few smiles.
In the Coalition years, I had some dealings with Hancock through the Westminster Property Forum and while there wasn't a lot of original thinking the rules regarding local authorities and property management were substantially relaxed and while One Public Estate is seen as a Government initiative, it merely compliments work that had already been started within the local authority network to co-locate services and rationalise portfolios.
Yes, he's presentable and likeable but no more than Javid or Leadsom or others. I believe he's the MP for Newmarket but I'm not sure how strong his racing interest is (another area of concern for this observer. Whatever you say about Alex Salmond, he knows his racing and that's a good start for me).
Wow, that was absolutely brutal from IDS. And clearly heartfelt and genuine.
The basic charge was one that a few of us have been making for a while: Osborne is focused on feeding and looking after the Tory client state. Those who do not vote Tory are not worth bothering about. Savage.
IDS is a brute of a man who has assaulted the poor and sick for years. That he sounds sincere demonstrates he has no idea at all how the people he assaulted live and the impact he has had in brutalising them.
Anyway, I picked out this same point. Osborne imposing arbitrary caps and limits then always picking on the same people to pay for his economic mismanagement. IDS said his government picks on people "who will never vote for us". Yes it's true and all governments do that to an extent. But to have it laud out so openly is brutal for Osborne who is already seen as a political rather than economic Chancellor
I am not defending IDS. I believe he is sincere, but I also believe his analysis is wrong and that means his policies are too. However, that interview was horrible for Osborne. And it is true - Osborne is focused solely on looking after the voters he needs to get the Tories over the line and him into the PM's job. As IDS says - that's not only bad for the Tories, it is bad for the country.
Anybody claiming Cameron lacks intelligence is plain silly, he's clearly highly intelligent. When his son died he handled enormous grief with great dignity, in public at least, and I admired him for that. Where he falls down is lack of judgement and a feel for ordinary people, he appointed Coulson to overcome that deficiency and it backfired spectacularly. Cameron might think that everybody goes skiing and has friends round for supper but they just don't, for the vast majority life is a drudge and Cameron and Osborne simply don't understand that. His PR stunts at football matches are pathetic.
Cameron inspires loyalty in certain people, look at the fawning sycophancy from some on here. But the inherent flaw is that sycophants are weak, they need to be led and guided, if you surround yourself with friends and sycophants you think you're strong but you are weak.
As for Hancock, the bloke epitomises everything the public loathe in politicians, he'd be a massive nail in the tory coffin.
I don't see fawning sycophants on here, just people who (in the large) agree with what Cameron is doing. Is that so unreasonable?
You must be blind , the "I'm all right Jack" well off goggle eyed right wingers on here are drooling sycophants for Cameron. Tories are like the tin man , no heart , greedy self seeking and would push their granny under a bus to get more money.
Yawn. Keep playing the broken record..
I see you have nothing of value to add as ever, back under your rock.
Says someone who has spent years thrashing away at his keyboard spewing out tired and repeated drivel. Don't you think it's time to take a break? We've comprehensively heard ALL what you have to say - namely, 'Tories are Scum' and 'English Out'. We get it.
Wow, that was absolutely brutal from IDS. And clearly heartfelt and genuine.
The basic charge was one that a few of us have been making for a while: Osborne is focused on feeding and looking after the Tory client state. Those who do not vote Tory are not worth bothering about. Savage.
IDS is a brute of a man who has assaulted the poor and sick for years. That he sounds sincere demonstrates he has no idea at all how the people he assaulted live and the impact he has had in brutalising them.
Anyway, I picked out this same point. Osborne imposing arbitrary caps and limits then always picking on the same people to pay for his economic mismanagement. IDS said his government picks on people "who will never vote for us". Yes it's true and all governments do that to an extent. But to have it laud out so openly is brutal for Osborne who is already seen as a political rather than economic Chancellor I
Osborne as the heir to Thatcher then. I think of her famous question "one of us?"
"To be loyal means 100% acceptance of Government thinking: any dissent, or even admittance of doubt, is treachery and treason. After nine years as party leader and five as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher still asks the question, 'Are you one of us?', by which she means, 'Are you completely free of any doubt as to the utter rightness of everything we are doing?' It will come as no surprise that I am not 'one of us'.
IDS is a brilliantly cunning operator. He wants Brexit. He knows that Cameron and Osborne desperately need Labour voters on their side to win the referendum. The worse they look in the eyes of Labour voters, the better the chances of Brexit winning.
I actually doubt that was the prime motivation for his actions or even what he is doing now. But it does help.
IDS on verge of tears there talking about his frustration and desire to help. I'm convinced.
I don't know why he gets such a hard time.
Yes, he's not the smartest Tory in the party, and he was a huge failure as leader, but, give him a break: he's not an unpleasant or nasty man.
He became leader because the alternative was sooo much worse. I would compare it for Spurs fans that used to complain about Alan Sugar buying the club. Forgetting that the alternative at the time was Maxwell.
IDS on verge of tears there talking about his frustration and desire to help. I'm convinced.
I don't know why he gets such a hard time.
Yes, he's not the smartest Tory in the party, and he was a huge failure as leader, but, give him a break: he's not an unpleasant or nasty man.
Isn't that the greatest shame about IDS: A decent man, who genuinely wanted to help. But sadly not especially competent.
As I said before I think his failing is an inability to be able to play the political game. That does not mean he isn't competent, simply that he finds it hard to survive when he is swimming with the sharks.
His interview this morning was rather faltering but entirely consistent with what he has written, said and done over the last decade. I think the Left will come to regret setting him up as the bogey man when they see what the government is like untempered by his beliefs.
Anybody claiming Cameron lacks intelligence is plain silly, he's clearly highly intelligent. When his son died he handled enormous grief with great dignity, in public at least, and I admired him for that. Where he falls down is lack of judgement and a feel for ordinary people, he appointed Coulson to overcome that deficiency and it backfired spectacularly. Cameron might think that everybody goes skiing and has friends round for supper but they just don't, for the vast majority life is a drudge and Cameron and Osborne simply don't understand that. His PR stunts at football matches are pathetic.
Cameron inspires loyalty in certain people, look at the fawning sycophancy from some on here. But the inherent flaw is that sycophants are weak, they need to be led and guided, if you surround yourself with friends and sycophants you think you're strong but you are weak.
As for Hancock, the bloke epitomises everything the public loathe in politicians, he'd be a massive nail in the tory coffin.
I don't see fawning sycophants on here, just people who (in the large) agree with what Cameron is doing. Is that so unreasonable?
You must be blind , the "I'm all right Jack" well off goggle eyed right wingers on here are drooling sycophants for Cameron. Tories are like the tin man , no heart , greedy self seeking and would push their granny under a bus to get more money.
Aw, a hungover and angry Malky's here today.
A bit aggrieved about Nicola's planned tax rises dearie?
Haven't watched "the Great Interview" as I couldn't find "the Great Popcorn bag" with which to watch (de rigeur these days it seems).
Matt Hancock is the Government figure who most affects my working world so I've heard him speak a few times. At Government Property 2016 he was very flat and uninspiring and looked like a man desperately wishing to be somewhere else. Having told local authorities they shouldn't "play the Property market", he did throw a Surrey Conservative Councillor a bone by suggesting Councils could use capital receipts from disposals to offset falling revenue budgets so that got a few smiles.
In the Coalition years, I had some dealings with Hancock through the Westminster Property Forum and while there wasn't a lot of original thinking the rules regarding local authorities and property management were substantially relaxed and while One Public Estate is seen as a Government initiative, it merely compliments work that had already been started within the local authority network to co-locate services and rationalise portfolios.
Yes, he's presentable and likeable but no more than Javid or Leadsom or others. I believe he's the MP for Newmarket but I'm not sure how strong his racing interest is (another area of concern for this observer. Whatever you say about Alex Salmond, he knows his racing and that's a good start for me).
Hancock's comprehensive demolition by Marr leafs me to believe he really isn't very bright.
Haven't watched "the Great Interview" as I couldn't find "the Great Popcorn bag" with which to watch (de rigeur these days it seems).
Matt Hancock is the Government figure who most affects my working world so I've heard him speak a few times. At Government Property 2016 he was very flat and uninspiring and looked like a man desperately wishing to be somewhere else. Having told local authorities they shouldn't "play the Property market", he did throw a Surrey Conservative Councillor a bone by suggesting Councils could use capital receipts from disposals to offset falling revenue budgets so that got a few smiles.
In the Coalition years, I had some dealings with Hancock through the Westminster Property Forum and while there wasn't a lot of original thinking the rules regarding local authorities and property management were substantially relaxed and while One Public Estate is seen as a Government initiative, it merely compliments work that had already been started within the local authority network to co-locate services and rationalise portfolios.
Yes, he's presentable and likeable but no more than Javid or Leadsom or others. I believe he's the MP for Newmarket but I'm not sure how strong his racing interest is (another area of concern for this observer. Whatever you say about Alex Salmond, he knows his racing and that's a good start for me).
Hancock won some sort of charity race iirc. In fact, he mentions it on his site (unlike his book, which is mysteriously overlooked). He is the first MP in modern times to win a horse race, having raced to victory at the Newmarket July Course in August 2012 http://www.matthewhancock.co.uk/about-matthew
I've often said that Cameron's background as an account exec is poor training for a PM. As a profession they've been described as 'waiters who think they're chefs'. Their job is to deliver and SELL more talented people's ideas. And the good ones can be exceptionally good
Once in a blue moon you can say 'cometh the hour cometh the man'. if ever the stage has been set for Cameron to exhibit his particular talent this referendum is it.
I think many here will be surprised
I've always looked upon agency Account Execs, as those who spend half their time polishing turds, rather than selling talent, so have to ask what your issue is with them?
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
Anybody claiming Cameron lacks intelligence is plain silly, he's clearly highly intelligent. When his son died he handled enormous grief with great dignity, in public at least, and I admired him for that. Where he falls down is lack of judgement and a feel for ordinary people, he appointed Coulson to overcome that deficiency and it backfired spectacularly. Cameron might think that everybody goes skiing and has friends round for supper but they just don't, for the vast majority life is a drudge and Cameron and Osborne simply don't understand that. His PR stunts at football matches are pathetic.
Cameron inspires loyalty in certain people, look at the fawning sycophancy from some on here. But the inherent flaw is that sycophants are weak, they need to be led and guided, if you surround yourself with friends and sycophants you think you're strong but you are weak.
As for Hancock, the bloke epitomises everything the public loathe in politicians, he'd be a massive nail in the tory coffin.
I don't see fawning sycophants on here, just people who (in the large) agree with what Cameron is doing. Is that so unreasonable?
You must be blind , the "I'm all right Jack" well off goggle eyed right wingers on here are drooling sycophants for Cameron. Tories are like the tin man , no heart , greedy self seeking and would push their granny under a bus to get more money.
Aw, a hungover and angry Malky's here today.
A bit aggrieved about Nicola's planned tax rises dearie?
Isn't Hancock one of those tipped early on after 2010 who hasn't really gone anywhere? At least not without George's preferment. He's never impressed me in interviews.
IDS on verge of tears there talking about his frustration and desire to help. I'm convinced.
I don't know why he gets such a hard time.
Yes, he's not the smartest Tory in the party, and he was a huge failure as leader, but, give him a break: he's not an unpleasant or nasty man.
Isn't that the greatest shame about IDS: A decent man, who genuinely wanted to help. But sadly not especially competent.
That's exactly how I see him. The pace of reform on welfare has been painfully slow since 2010. Part of that is because it is both technically and politically difficult. Our welfare system is riddled with inconsistencies which create cracks through which some fall and by which some receive excessively generous support.
Universal Credit is designed to address both of these but much of that complexity existed for a reason and it is extremely difficult to create a simpler system that can deal with all the incredibly messy complexities of peoples' lives. It certainly proved way, way, beyond IDS.
The failure to resolve the underlying problems combined with the chiselling of overall spending has meant lots of political problems as each group is held up as the latest set of martyrs. A more politically competent minister would have avoided much of that.
No, but he has laid out in no uncertain terms why he resigned. Not everyone is a treacherous, back stabbing killer, like Howe.
Howe stabbed her in the front. What's more, he was very effective in doing so.
But the comparison is not a million miles off. Both correctly identified the personnel problem with the government and ruthlessly attacked it. The Tory government of 1990 was becoming dysfunctional and deeply unpopular precisely because of Thatcher, therefore she needed to go. If you are going to make the grand gesture of resigning, you have to use the opportunity to try to put right what could not be put right in office.
The IDS interview was evidently notable (I missed it) but still more extraordinary is the complete breakdown of any kind of discipline at junior ministerial rank on both sides of the current feud. David Cameron needs to have a fairly extensive reshuffle of the offending junior ministers.
The president can suppress DoJ action on an NSA complaint against HRC just as he can with regard to an FBI suggestion of an indictment of her and her personal staff. Both the FBI and NSA are Executive Branch institutions and if he orders them to shut up, they will have no choice but to do so.
BUT, as the author states, there will then be a firestorm of leaks to the media from both these groups that will be beyond belief. Even the media will eventually understand the import of what they are told, especially with Trump ever ready to tweet about it.
Anybody claiming Cameron lacks intelligence is plain silly, he's clearly highly intelligent. When his son died he handled enormous grief with great dignity, in public at least, and I admired him for that. Where he falls down is lack of judgement and a feel for ordinary people, he appointed Coulson to overcome that deficiency and it backfired spectacularly. Cameron might think that everybody goes skiing and has friends round for supper but they just don't, for the vast majority life is a drudge and Cameron and Osborne simply don't understand that. His PR stunts at football matches are pathetic.
Cameron inspires loyalty in certain people, look at the fawning sycophancy from some on here. But the inherent flaw is that sycophants are weak, they need to be led and guided, if you surround yourself with friends and sycophants you think you're strong but you are weak.
As for Hancock, the bloke epitomises everything the public loathe in politicians, he'd be a massive nail in the tory coffin.
I don't see fawning sycophants on here, just people who (in the large) agree with what Cameron is doing. Is that so unreasonable?
You must be blind , the "I'm all right Jack" well off goggle eyed right wingers on here are drooling sycophants for Cameron. Tories are like the tin man , no heart , greedy self seeking and would push their granny under a bus to get more money.
Yawn. Keep playing the broken record..
I see you have nothing of value to add as ever, back under your rock.
Says someone who has spent years thrashing away at his keyboard spewing out tired and repeated drivel. Don't you think it's time to take a break? We've comprehensively heard ALL what you have to say - namely, 'Tories are Scum' and 'English Out'. We get it.
Calm down dear , no need for the lying. I have never said "Tories are scum", heartless self interested perhaps and where you get the "English out" really shows what a nasty , twisted little cretinous halfwit you are. I may support Independence for Scotland but have never ever said anything against an English person for being English. At least try to be accurate when you are trying to be a tough jessie boy.
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
To put things into perspective, for the same potential reward of £160, I'd far rather back Michael Gove for a tenner at 16/1 being the next Prime Minster than wager two quid at 80/1 on Matt Hancock becoming the next Tory leader. Somewhat like comparing apples with pears I appreciate, but worth comparing nonetheless from a value point of view.
Two questions before backing Gove: was he successful in overcoming his fear of flying? And is his unpopularity personal or due only to his reign at Education?
He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful (not always the same things) and fairly successful. I can't see any real reason to dislike him from his presentation or mannerisms, so I guess it's a combination of the hes-a-tory effect and what he did at education.
Didn't know about his fear of flying.
Michael Gove took some sort of course to overcome his fear of flying but if it was not successful, I doubt he'd even stand, since the PM must spend a good deal of time in the air between summits and junkets. I'm not sure how punters can know this before putting their money down: perhaps check where Gove spent his holidays in the past couple of years?
A PM does not have to fly. Chamberlain never flew until he went to see Hitler at Berchtesgaden in 1938. Baldwin, Asquith and Lloyd George never did - I see no reason why a PM could not rely on Eurostar and travel by sea if that was his preference.
On topic, you can't answer who until you decide when. If David Cameron leaves this year, the new leader will be a very familiar name. If he leaves in 2019, it might very well be someone as yet little known.
I'm inclining at present to sooner rather than later - perhaps the second half of next year. Too soon for Matt Hancock or those of his cohort.
To put things into perspective, for the same potential reward of £160, I'd far rather back Michael Gove for a tenner at 16/1 being the next Prime Minster than wager two quid at 80/1 on Matt Hancock becoming the next Tory leader. Somewhat like comparing apples with pears I appreciate, but worth comparing nonetheless from a value point of view.
Two questions before backing Gove: was he successful in overcoming his fear of flying? And is his unpopularity personal or due only to his reign at Education?
He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful (not always the same things) and fairly successful. I can't see any real reason to dislike him from his presentation or mannerisms, so I guess it's a combination of the hes-a-tory effect and what he did at education.
Didn't know about his fear of flying.
Michael Gove took some sort of course to overcome his fear of flying but if it was not successful, I doubt he'd even stand, since the PM must spend a good deal of time in the air between summits and junkets. I'm not sure how punters can know this before putting their money down: perhaps check where Gove spent his holidays in the past couple of years?
A PM does not have to fly. Chamberlain never flew until he went to see Hitler at Berchtesgaden in 1938. Baldwin, Asquith and Lloyd George never did - I see no reason why a PM could not rely on Eurostar and travel by sea if that was his preference.
Flying was nowhere near as prevelent as it is now.
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
The IDS interview was evidently notable (I missed it) but still more extraordinary is the complete breakdown of any kind of discipline at junior ministerial rank on both sides of the current feud. David Cameron needs to have a fairly extensive reshuffle of the offending junior ministers.
I guess it depends on whether Ros Altmann was authorized by the PM to make her attack. I'm not sure he can start sacking juniors on the other side if she acted with permission. That is, he'd have to sack her too.
A good leader ( with good whips ) should have the measure of their party, and know what they are going to be able to get past them, and what is going to be tough, and what is going to be impossible. They should also know what is in their power, and what isnt.
Saying you are going to bring immigration down to 10s of thousands then over 200,000 arrive every year under freedom of movement from within the EU is at best being disingenuous, if not outright lying, it claims you can do something you have no way of delivering.
Saying we will legislate to do X when you (should) know that 50 of your back benchers oppose it, and hoping you can brow-beat MPs at the last minute is at best foolhardy, if not downright dishonest.
Cameron appeared completely surprised that more than half his parliamentary party want to LEAVE, he plainly expected it to be the usual couple of dozen troublemakers, is that poor leadership, or does he need to sack his whips, and is employing incompetent whips actually just poor leadership. If a CEO went to the board and said the company wasn't making profits because the whipssalesforce sucked, the board would likely say getting the right whipssalesforce was part of his job.
Where we might differ is that I quite like MPs to think for themselves and oppose a whip where they really disagree with it. I don't want political parties filled wit people who will automatically obey the whip, or who the leadership can automatically *expect* to vote as they want. Then again, I don't want parties filled with people who vote for reasons of personal ambition either.
Whips are a large part of the problem in politics today. Yet they are necessary.
On another point: if politics gets as predictable as you outline, then we end up with bad governance. This has happened every single time.
I'm also unsure your last paragraph is correct. Firstly (and a minor point), is it over half at the moment? Secondly, he would have been well aware of the problems that Europe has caused his party. Yet his hand has been forced.
On topic, you can't answer who until you decide when. If David Cameron leaves this year, the new leader will be a very familiar name. If he leaves in 2019, it might very well be someone as yet little known.
I'm inclining at present to sooner rather than later - perhaps the second half of next year. Too soon for Matt Hancock or those of his cohort.
Surely Matt Hancock's bigger problem is that he's utterly hopeless ?
Christopher Hope Tory 1922 chairman Graham Brady appeals for calm asking ministers “to reflect on the damage that can be done” from negative briefings"
On topic, you can't answer who until you decide when. If David Cameron leaves this year, the new leader will be a very familiar name. If he leaves in 2019, it might very well be someone as yet little known.
I'm inclining at present to sooner rather than later - perhaps the second half of next year. Too soon for Matt Hancock or those of his cohort.
Surely Matt Hancock's bigger problem is that he's utterly hopeless ?
IDS on verge of tears there talking about his frustration and desire to help. I'm convinced.
Six years of incompetence laid out in a sentence. If that was his desire then he must be a candidate for least effective minister.
IDS has led to the highest employment level ever. He is the best Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in a long time. So long and thanks for the service.
What other Secretary of State in his place and under similar circumstances has ever been better for either Work or Pensions?
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
Too much time on your hands Plato
Writing 12k posts about turnips takes no time at all, does it?
"Intellectuals don't want to take Reagan (Trump) seriously, but he does well with working-class voters."
Per available polling Trump doesn't seem to be doing any better than Romney even with white, working-class voters. He's just doing worse with everybody else.
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
Too much time on your hands Plato
Writing 12k posts about turnips takes no time at all, does it?
To put things into perspective, for the same potential reward of £160, I'd far rather back Michael Gove for a tenner at 16/1 being the next Prime Minster than wager two quid at 80/1 on Matt Hancock becoming the next Tory leader. Somewhat like comparing apples with pears I appreciate, but worth comparing nonetheless from a value point of view.
Two questions before backing Gove: was he successful in overcoming his fear of flying? And is his unpopularity personal or due only to his reign at Education?
He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful (not always the same things) and fairly successful. I can't see any real reason to dislike him from his presentation or mannerisms, so I guess it's a combination of the hes-a-tory effect and what he did at education.
Didn't know about his fear of flying.
Michael Gove took some sort of course to overcome his fear of flying but if it was not successful, I doubt he'd even stand, since the PM must spend a good deal of time in the air between summits and junkets. I'm not sure how punters can know this before putting their money down: perhaps check where Gove spent his holidays in the past couple of years?
A PM does not have to fly. Chamberlain never flew until he went to see Hitler at Berchtesgaden in 1938. Baldwin, Asquith and Lloyd George never did - I see no reason why a PM could not rely on Eurostar and travel by sea if that was his preference.
Politics operates at a different speed these days. Chamberlain flying was actually something of a dramatic gesture and extraordinary in its own right: aeroplanes were simply not normal means of transport at the time. He wanted to be seen as a saviour descending from the skies (though Hitler would have well understood what Chamberlain was at - he used the same imagery in the 1932 presidential election, as, IIRC, did Roosevelt in America).
PMs did not routinely go on foreign missions in the 1930s, not least because of the limitations of transport. But to the extent that they did, politics allowed for that. These days, land transport would be fine for the EU - as you say, the Eurostar provides easy access to Brussels (and Paris) - but beyond that? It's a week to the US. It's a lot longer to the Far East. PMs simply cannot afford that amount of dead time.
Also, a lot of travel around the UK and (perhaps even more so) abroad is by helicopter for security reasons. A fear of flying would probably impact on that even more than on travel by plane.
Musing on the long view of Tory leadership elections, in the main we go for perceived competence over ideological purity.
IDS over Clarke might be the exception there. Few are more competent than Clarke - but I've always wondered whether he ought to be a Liberal*
*Which I might be too but for the awful successor party, the Lib Dems, and their rabid Europhilia.
For this reason, as Peter points out, Gove is 10000 times preferable to Hancock.
We all castigated May for not firing the starting gun by joining 'Leave' - she just might have done the right thing being a 'neutral as you can get' Remainer.....
On topic, you can't answer who until you decide when. If David Cameron leaves this year, the new leader will be a very familiar name. If he leaves in 2019, it might very well be someone as yet little known.
I'm inclining at present to sooner rather than later - perhaps the second half of next year. Too soon for Matt Hancock or those of his cohort.
Surely Matt Hancock's bigger problem is that he's utterly hopeless ?
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
Too much time on your hands Plato
Writing 12k posts about turnips takes no time at all, does it?
On topic, you can't answer who until you decide when. If David Cameron leaves this year, the new leader will be a very familiar name. If he leaves in 2019, it might very well be someone as yet little known.
I'm inclining at present to sooner rather than later - perhaps the second half of next year. Too soon for Matt Hancock or those of his cohort.
Surely Matt Hancock's bigger problem is that he's utterly hopeless ?
That was no impediment for Iain Duncan Smith.
Yeh, because unemployment is just rampant isn't it...
The IDS interview was evidently notable (I missed it) but still more extraordinary is the complete breakdown of any kind of discipline at junior ministerial rank on both sides of the current feud. David Cameron needs to have a fairly extensive reshuffle of the offending junior ministers.
Or maybe he should reshuffle himself out; the logical conclusion of a lack of discipline might be that the leader has lost all capabilities because of poor strategy.
"Demonstrators blocked a highway in Arizona as Donald Trump prepared to stage a rally near Phoenix."
That should work well then. Let me think this one through ... I don't like other people voting for a candidate I dislike so I'll inconvenience them until they don't.
Sorry, but if a bunch of virtue signallers inconvenienced me because I might vote for Jezza, I'd immediately for the loon.
Yes, I rather agree - I opposed the "no platform" demos against BNP speakers partly for that reason (though mainly because I don't believe in partial legality for politicians - if a party is legal they should be free to express their views).
Anecdote from a different sphere - when I worked for Ciba-Geigy/Novartis, the world's largest pharma company by some measures, they decided to have elections for staff representatives, which the innocuous staff association (hitherto preoccupied with administrative and social matters) were expected to win in the managerial section. Previously, the left-wing chemical workers' trade union had only made inroads on the factory floor.
I organised a trade union list which swept the board across the whole company in the Swiss HQ. Furious, the staff association leadership tried to expel me. A series of senior managers told them that if they went ahead with trying to punish me for exercising my freedom of opinion, they too would all join the union. There was something very absurd, very Swiss and very touching about these diginified middle-aged entrepreneurs preparing to fill out their membership applications to the equivalent of UNITE.
(The staff association backed down. The company, far more subtly, appointed all the elected representatives to time-consuming consultative committees, giving them some genuine influence and leaving them with less time and less motivation to challenge the management.)
btw I have zero knowledge of the tory leadership market but I'd be verey tempted to vote for Priti Patel. She really does come from an ordinary background, understands small businesses and is pro hanging, I'd be very happy with her, as I suspect would millions of natural conservatives.
Poor Steve Hilton. He spent years trying to make the Conservative Party appeal to a more progressive broad minded CIVILIZED voter
Are suggesting Priti Patel is uncivilised?
I can't speak for Roger but I am very happy to suggest that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is totally uncivilised and that both you and Ms Patel know it is.
How very magnanimous for you to speak on behalf of myself and Mrs Patel, thank you.
Despite (quite possibly because of) your handwringing, I'm very happy for us to execute child killers. If you'd like to visit a working mens club with me we'll do a survey if you like.
Given that we incorrectly convict people are you happy with saying you support killing innocent people?
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
Too much time on your hands Plato
Writing 12k posts about turnips takes no time at all, does it?
I should write a book.
The Swede Smell of Success
Going Back to my Roots Vegetables
There you go - two for the price of one. And I'll only need 5% of the royalties.
The IDS interview was evidently notable (I missed it) but still more extraordinary is the complete breakdown of any kind of discipline at junior ministerial rank on both sides of the current feud. David Cameron needs to have a fairly extensive reshuffle of the offending junior ministers.
Or maybe he should reshuffle himself out; the logical conclusion of a lack of discipline might be that the leader has lost all capabilities because of poor strategy.
btw I have zero knowledge of the tory leadership market but I'd be verey tempted to vote for Priti Patel. She really does come from an ordinary background, understands small businesses and is pro hanging, I'd be very happy with her, as I suspect would millions of natural conservatives.
Poor Steve Hilton. He spent years trying to make the Conservative Party appeal to a more progressive broad minded CIVILIZED voter
Are suggesting Priti Patel is uncivilised?
I can't speak for Roger but I am very happy to suggest that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is totally uncivilised and that both you and Ms Patel know it is.
How very magnanimous for you to speak on behalf of myself and Mrs Patel, thank you.
Despite (quite possibly because of) your handwringing, I'm very happy for us to execute child killers. If you'd like to visit a working mens club with me we'll do a survey if you like.
Given that we incorrectly convict people are you happy with saying you support killing innocent people?
Indeed. Maybe a visit to the working man's club to ask "Would you be prepared to see one of your kids executed for a crime he/she did not commit if it deterred others from committing such crimes?" might be a good way forward.
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
Centrists, rather unsurprisingly, continue to conflate sitting in the centre with winning, overlooking the elephant in the room of Fatcha, well off to the centre-right, massive landslide victory that Cameron can only dream of. At best you could say that given two equally crap leaders, the most centrist will probably win by default, but talent trumps Centrism every time.
I still personally struggle with the idea that Cameron is a massively successful leader for scraping a paper thin majority against someone as flawed as Ed Miliband, had he been facing Gordon Brown again (or probably either Mr or Mrs Balls) he would never have got a majority, and against someone with actual talent like Blair he would have been toast. "Not as crap as Ed" would be a more accurate description, but probably not going to be that popular with the tory brown-nose brigade.
Was Thatcher in 1979 a centrist or a right-winger? Such terms can be quite difficult to apply in retrospect, especially as it has to be seen in relation to the politics at the time, and not politics now. My impression is she became more right-wing as her time as PM went on, but that might be wrong.
Whether Cameron was a success or not at GE 2010 or 2015 depends on the statistics you choose. In 2010 Cameron gained 97 seats and a 3.7% swing. In 1979 Thatcher gained 62 seats but with a larger 8.1 % swing (Cameron was aided by a much greater fall in Labour's vote). Cameron wins in seats, Thatcher in swing.
Last year Cameron got 24 extra seats and a miserly 0.8% swing. In her first GE as PM in 1983, Thatcher gained 38 seats despite a swing of 1.5% against her. Thatcher wins in seats, Cameron in swing.
Pick your statistics to prove your point.
As for centrists vs left- or right- wing:
Cameron: centre-rigth. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts). Not PM Major: centre-right PM
You can argue the definitions of right against centre-right, but I think the above's reasonable. The same thing holds true for Labour as well.
I think that this is the watershed in the referendum. The obvious schism in the conservative party has rocketed to the top of the news agenda and may well motivate the remain campaign by all the pro parties as they now see how ruthless the brexit can be.
I think you make a very good point. As I watched David Laws on Marr I was reminded that as recently as early 2015 there were three large and functioning parties.
Then the election happened and after various convulsions there seemed to be only one which has now split into two. But where are the voters?
They're still there if a little dispursed and all three parties they supported are overwhelmingly for Remain
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
Centrists, rather unsurprisingly, continue to conflate sitting in the centre with winning, overlooking the elephant in the room of Fatcha, well off to the centre-right, massive landslide victory that Cameron can only dream of. At best you could say that given two equally crap leaders, the most centrist will probably win by default, but talent trumps Centrism every time.
I still personally struggle with the idea that Cameron is a massively successful leader for scraping a paper thin majority against someone as flawed as Ed Miliband, had he been facing Gordon Brown again (or probably either Mr or Mrs Balls) he would never have got a majority, and against someone with actual talent like Blair he would have been toast. "Not as crap as Ed" would be a more accurate description, but probably not going to be that popular with the tory brown-nose brigade.
Was Thatcher in 1979 a centrist or a right-winger? Such terms can be quite difficult to apply in retrospect, especially as it has to be seen in relation to the politics at the time, and not politics now. My impression is she became more right-wing as her time as PM went on, but that might be wrong.
Whether Cameron was a success or not at GE 2010 or 2015 depends on the statistics you choose. In 2010 Cameron gained 97 seats and a 3.7% swing. In 1979 Thatcher gained 62 seats but with a larger 8.1 % swing (Cameron was aided by a much greater fall in Labour's vote). Cameron wins in seats, Thatcher in swing.
Last year Cameron got 24 extra seats and a miserly 0.8% swing. In her first GE as leader in 1983, Thatcher gained 38 seats despite a swing of 1.5% against her. Thatcher wins in seats, Cameron in swing.
Pick your statistics to prove your point.
As for centrists vs left- or right- wing:
Cameron: centre-rigth. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts). Not PM Major: centre-right PM
You can argue the definitions of right against centre-right, but I think the above's reasonable. The same thing holds true for Labour as well.
Yes, its not that straightforward, Cameron has said he's going, the referendum will be a natural route regardless of the outcome. This to me is another example of his poor judgement, he has allowed a situation, largely out of his control, to define his whole career. Of course there's a very good chance he'll pull it off, but I bet he wishes he could wind the clock back and start again.
"... he has allowed a situation, largely out of his control, to define his whole career."
Again, the same can be said for Brown, Blair, Major and Thatcher. If, at least, you don't like them.
The story of Cameron's career has yet to be written. Time will tell if the EU referendum overshadows his victories.
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
That cuts both ways. Is there a black mark over Blair for the fact the party became unelectable after him or does it provide his example as the one where the party was electable and could win which should be followed once the party regains its sanity?
It will depend on how favourably you view him. His mistake was in not removing Briwn as chancellor between 2001 and 2005. even that might not have been enough to stop the forces of evil.
Blair was pure evil himself! A war criminal deserving to be up before Hague court.
Faisal Islam Just received three supportive statements from DWP ministers for Iain Duncan Smith re Altmann: Shailesh Vara first https://t.co/nqhdclBHAv
Congratulations on your 100,000th tweet, by the way. Impressive!
Too much time on your hands Plato
Writing 12k posts about turnips takes no time at all, does it?
I should write a book.
The Swede Smell of Success
Going Back to my Roots Vegetables
There you go - two for the price of one. And I'll only need 5% of the royalties.
I think that this is the watershed in the referendum. The obvious schism in the conservative party has rocketed to the top of the news agenda and may well motivate the remain campaign by all the pro parties as they now see how ruthless the brexit can be.
They're still there if a little dispursed and all three parties they supported are overwhelmingly for Remain
Lab and LD are for REMAIN. Conservative top two are for REMAIN but their party is 2/3 for LEAVE.
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
Centrists, rather unsurprisingly, continue to conflate sitting in the centre with winning, overlooking the elephant in the room of Fatcha, well off to the centre-right, massive landslide victory that Cameron can only dream of. At best you could say that given two equally crap leaders, the most centrist will probably win by default, but talent trumps Centrism every time.
I still personally struggle with the idea that Cameron is a massively successful leader for scraping a paper thin majority against someone as flawed as Ed Miliband, had he been facing Gordon Brown again (or probably either Mr or Mrs Balls) he would never have got a majority, and against someone with actual talent like Blair he would have been toast. "Not as crap as Ed" would be a more accurate description, but probably not going to be that popular with the tory brown-nose brigade.
Was Thatcher in 1979 a centrist or a right-winger? Such terms can be quite difficult to apply in retrospect, especially as it has to be seen in relation to the politics at the time, and not politics now. My impression is she became more right-wing as her time as PM went on, but that might be wrong.
Whether Cameron was a success or not at GE 2010 or 2015 depends on the statistics you choose. In 2010 Cameron gained 97 seats and a 3.7% swing. In 1979 Thatcher gained 62 seats but with a larger 8.1 % swing (Cameron was aided by a much greater fall in Labour's vote). Cameron wins in seats, Thatcher in swing.
Last year Cameron got 24 extra seats and a miserly 0.8% swing. In her first GE as leader in 1983, Thatcher gained 38 seats despite a swing of 1.5% against her. Thatcher wins in seats, Cameron in swing.
Pick your statistics to prove your point.
As for centrists vs left- or right- wing:
Cameron: centre-rigth. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts). Not PM Major: centre-right PM
You can argue the definitions of right against centre-right, but I think the above's reasonable. The same thing holds true for Labour as well.
The centre ground is where you win.
Heath ?
Before my time, and I don't know enough about the political positions of the parties at the time.
To put things into perspective, for the same potential reward of £160, I'd far rather back Michael Gove for a tenner at 16/1 being the next Prime Minster than wager two quid at 80/1 on Matt Hancock becoming the next Tory leader. Somewhat like comparing apples with pears I appreciate, but worth comparing nonetheless from a value point of view.
Two questions before backing Gove: was he successful in overcoming his fear of flying? And is his unpopularity personal or due only to his reign at Education?
He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful (not always the same things) and fairly successful. I can't see any real reason to dislike him from his presentation or mannerisms, so I guess it's a combination of the hes-a-tory effect and what he did at education.
Didn't know about his fear of flying.
Michael Gove took some sort of course to overcome his fear of flying but if it was not successful, I doubt he'd even stand, since the PM must spend a good deal of time in the air between summits and junkets. I'm not sure how punters can know this before putting their money down: perhaps check where Gove spent his holidays in the past couple of years?
A PM does not have to fly. Chamberlain never flew until he went to see Hitler at Berchtesgaden in 1938. Baldwin, Asquith and Lloyd George never did - I see no reason why a PM could not rely on Eurostar and travel by sea if that was his preference.
Flying was nowhere near as prevelent as it is now.
Clearly we have the Natural Law Party and their yogic flying to thank for that and also notable for PB Conservatives flying of the handle left, right, further right and centre.
Yes, its not that straightforward, Cameron has said he's going, the referendum will be a natural route regardless of the outcome. This to me is another example of his poor judgement, he has allowed a situation, largely out of his control, to define his whole career. Of course there's a very good chance he'll pull it off, but I bet he wishes he could wind the clock back and start again.
"... he has allowed a situation, largely out of his control, to define his whole career."
Again, the same can be said for Brown, Blair, Major and Thatcher. If, at least, you don't like them.
The story of Cameron's career has yet to be written. Time will tell if the EU referendum overshadows his victories.
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
That cuts both ways. Is there a black mark over Blair for the fact the party became unelectable after him or does it provide his example as the one where the party was electable and could win which should be followed once the party regains its sanity?
It will depend on how favourably you view him. His mistake was in not removing Briwn as chancellor between 2001 and 2005. even that might not have been enough to stop the forces of evil.
Blair was pure evil himself! A war criminal deserving to be up before Hague court.
Let's wait to see if Chilcot can throw any light on this. I'm not particularly hopeful.
What's happening now in HMG and the Party reminds me of an uncomfortable time in my early professional life. I took a loyal colleague for granted and thought what a few of us thought was so obviously right, we didn't need to explain or include.
I was bitten on the arse and it took me completely by surprise. It made me very conscious of not assuming support, nor thinking a loyal colleague wasn't giving something of themselves away each time I asked a favour. Eventually it goes too far, and you discover they're leaving - and you were the last to know.
The IDS interview was evidently notable (I missed it) but still more extraordinary is the complete breakdown of any kind of discipline at junior ministerial rank on both sides of the current feud. David Cameron needs to have a fairly extensive reshuffle of the offending junior ministers.
Or maybe he should reshuffle himself out; the logical conclusion of a lack of discipline might be that the leader has lost all capabilities because of poor strategy.
I know its old hat but I particularly like this comment in today's Times:
One minister compared Osborne’s achievement to the hapless 1970s sitcom character Frank Spencer. He said: “It was a brilliant budget. You have to admire the sheer genius of George. Very few people would be able to damage the Tory brand, upset the public, cause the resignation of a senior member of the cabinet and miss your self-imposed targets all in a single week.”
Yup Christopher Hope Tory 1922 chairman Graham Brady appeals for calm asking ministers “to reflect on the damage that can be done” from negative briefings"
Graham Brady was excellent on R5 Pienaar show this morning. The voice of real reason. He must be put in the cabinet after the referendum. Either as Party Chairman or as head of a department.
The IDS interview was evidently notable (I missed it) but still more extraordinary is the complete breakdown of any kind of discipline at junior ministerial rank on both sides of the current feud. David Cameron needs to have a fairly extensive reshuffle of the offending junior ministers.
Or maybe he should reshuffle himself out; the logical conclusion of a lack of discipline might be that the leader has lost all capabilities because of poor strategy.
Do you think Dave's lost the dressing room?
I do - LEAVErs think the deal is a crock, REMAINers know he is a lame duck.
He might as well, therefore, move on for the good of the party. Hammond would be my choice for a unifying interim leader.
Oh, and he can take Osborne with him.
Apologies to Alanbrooke - you've been bang on about him over the years. It has taken my foolish eyes far longer to see it than your astute ones.
I think that this is the watershed in the referendum. The obvious schism in the conservative party has rocketed to the top of the news agenda and may well motivate the remain campaign by all the pro parties as they now see how ruthless the brexit can be.
They're still there if a little dispursed and all three parties they supported are overwhelmingly for Remain
Lab and LD are for REMAIN. Conservative top two are for REMAIN but their party is 2/3 for LEAVE.
What's the evidence for that last assertion? I might have missed/forgotten something.
The IDS interview was evidently notable (I missed it) but still more extraordinary is the complete breakdown of any kind of discipline at junior ministerial rank on both sides of the current feud. David Cameron needs to have a fairly extensive reshuffle of the offending junior ministers.
Or maybe he should reshuffle himself out; the logical conclusion of a lack of discipline might be that the leader has lost all capabilities because of poor strategy.
Cameron has chosen to go into reverse on the wrong subject. He should have done it when he saw his deal was a dud.
Tim Shipman BREAKING: Now Justin Tomlinson, junior DWP minister, backs IDS over Altmann https://t.co/M0yu9GVjNz
Just a question if the grenades start doing collateral damage beyond the department I guess. Directly that is, obviously the fact of them is damaging.
Giving Altmann is former New Labour, I'm guessing she is mainly being motivated by EU issue. They are trying to character assasinate IDS to distract from Osborne's anti-Robin Hood budget blunder.
She sounds like a political prostitute - very willing to take anything that comes.
I think that this is the watershed in the referendum. The obvious schism in the conservative party has rocketed to the top of the news agenda and may well motivate the remain campaign by all the pro parties as they now see how ruthless the brexit can be.
They're still there if a little dispursed and all three parties they supported are overwhelmingly for Remain
Lab and LD are for REMAIN. Conservative top two are for REMAIN but their party is 2/3 for LEAVE.
Quite a few polls are now putting Labour Leave at 35% or so.
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
Centrists, rather unsurprisingly, continue to conflate sitting in the centre with winning, overlooking the elephant in the
Was Thatcher in 1979 a centrist or a right-winger? Such terms can be quite difficult to apply in retrospect, especially as it has to be seen in relation to the politics at the time, and not politics now. My impression is she became more right-wing as her time as PM went on, but that might be wrong.
Whether Cameron was a success or not at GE 2010 or 2015 depends on the statistics you choose. In 2010 Cameron gained 97 seats and a 3.7% swing. In 1979 Thatcher gained 62 seats but with a larger 8.1 % swing (Cameron was aided by a much greater fall in Labour's vote). Cameron wins in seats, Thatcher in swing.
Last year Cameron got 24 extra seats and a miserly 0.8% swing. In her first GE as leader in 1983, Thatcher gained 38 seats despite a swing of 1.5% against her. Thatcher wins in seats, Cameron in swing.
Pick your statistics to prove your point.
As for centrists vs left- or right- wing:
Cameron: centre-rigth. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts). Not PM Major: centre-right PM
You can argue the definitions of right against centre-right, but I think the above's reasonable. The same thing holds true for Labour as well.
The centre ground is where you win.
Heath ?
Before my time, and I don't know enough about the political positions of the parties at the time.
At the time of his death there were some very interesting documentaries on Heath. I think this is one of the most interesting:
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
Centrists, rather unsurprisingly, continue to conflate sitting in the centre with winning, overlooking the elephant in the room of Fatcha, well off to the centre-right, massive landslide victory that Cameron can only dream of. At best you could say that given two equally crap leaders, the most centrist will probably win by default, but talent trumps Centrism every time.
I still personally struggle with the idea that Cameron is a massively successful leader for scraping a paper thin majority against someone as flawed as Ed Miliband, had he been facing Gordon Brown again (or probably either Mr or Mrs Balls) he would never have got a majority, and against someone with actual talent like Blair he would have been toast. "Not as crap as Ed" would be a more accurate description, but probably not going to be that popular with the tory brown-nose brigade.
As for centrists vs left- or right- wing: Cameron: centre-rigth. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts). Not PM Major: centre-right PM
You can argue the definitions of right against centre-right, but I think the above's reasonable. The same thing holds true for Labour as well.
The centre ground is where you win.
Cameron: Was Centre right now Centre. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: played at being right (never said he wanted to LEAVE EU). finished up centre left Not PM Major: centre-right for 92 election PM but was centre left at the 97 election and lost.
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
Centrists, rather unsurprisingly, continue to conflate sitting in the centre with winning, overlooking the elephant in the room of Fatcha, well off to the centre-right, massive landslide victory that Cameron can only dream of. At best you could say that given two equally crap leaders, the most centrist will probably win by default, but talent trumps Centrism every time.
I still personally struggle with the idea that Cameron is a massively successful leader for scraping a paper thin majority against someone as flawed as Ed Miliband, had he been facing Gordon Brown again (or probably either Mr or Mrs Balls) he would never have got a majority, and against someone with actual talent like Blair he would have been toast. "Not as crap as Ed" would be a more accurate description, but probably not going to be that popular with the tory brown-nose brigade.
Actually, Thatcher was centrist in 1979. At the end of its first term, the Tory government had:
- Set the top rate of income tax at 60% (where it would stay through the next parliament too). - Kept BA, BL, water, gas, electricity, BT, the railways and sundry lesser industrial / service operations within the public sector. - A strong pro-EEC policy. - Not made any significant reform to the NHS or education.
It is remembered for being 'right wing' for three things: council house sales, trade union reform and its economic policies.
Of these, the first two were strongly supported by much of the country, meaning that they were in effect mainstream policies. It's only the economic policies which really mark her government out but even there, while the effects were something that previous governments wouldn't have tolerated, the proof was in the consequences: by the mid-1980s, unemployment was falling, manufacturing employment was rising, inflation was low and growth was steady.
Furthermore, 'centrist' has to be seen in relative terms. At the 1983 election, she was up against the left-wing Foot; in 1987, she was up against unilateralist Kinnock. Not until the next parliament was she clearly less centrist than her opponent and by that point, the polls and the elections were running strongly against her.
I think that this is the watershed in the referendum. The obvious schism in the conservative party has rocketed to the top of the news agenda and may well motivate the remain campaign by all the pro parties as they now see how ruthless the brexit can be.
They're still there if a little dispursed and all three parties they supported are overwhelmingly for Remain
Lab and LD are for REMAIN. Conservative top two are for REMAIN but their party is 2/3 for LEAVE.
Quite a few polls are now putting Labour Leave at 35% or so.
Thanks. In my guesstimate spread sheet I have had Labour voters at the 35% LEAVE, but also assumes that the turnout will be lower for them than Labour Remainers.
I think that this is the watershed in the referendum. The obvious schism in the conservative party has rocketed to the top of the news agenda and may well motivate the remain campaign by all the pro parties as they now see how ruthless the brexit can be.
They're still there if a little dispursed and all three parties they supported are overwhelmingly for Remain
Lab and LD are for REMAIN. Conservative top two are for REMAIN but their party is 2/3 for LEAVE.
What's the evidence for that last assertion? I might have missed/forgotten something.
Personally, I think he will be a failure if the party shifts away from the centre ground towards the right. The core of his leadership has been an attempt to make the part electable, and there will be a black mark over him if the party shifts away from that. Note: that is not saying his successor has to follow Cameronism, whatever that is.
Centrists, rather unsurprisingly, continue to conflate sitting in the centre with winning, overlooking the elephant in the room of Fatcha, well off to the centre-right, massive landslide victory that Cameron can only dream of. At best you could say that given two equally crap leaders, the most centrist will probably win by default, but talent trumps Centrism every time.
I still personally struggle with the idea that Cameron is a massively successful leader for scraping a paper thin majority against someone as flawed as Ed Miliband, had he been facing Gordon Brown again (or probably either Mr or Mrs Balls) he would never have got a majority, and against someone with actual talent like Blair he would have been toast. "Not as crap as Ed" would be a more accurate description, but probably not going to be that popular with the tory brown-nose brigade.
As for centrists vs left- or right- wing: Cameron: centre-rigth. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts). Not PM Major: centre-right PM
You can argue the definitions of right against centre-right, but I think the above's reasonable. The same thing holds true for Labour as well.
The centre ground is where you win.
Cameron: Was Centre right now Centre. PM Howard: right-centre-right: not PM. IDS: right. Not PM Hague: played at being right (never said he wanted to LEAVE EU). finished up centre left Not PM Major: centre-right for 92 election PM but was centre left at the 97 election and lost.
This depends on perspective and definition. I'd argue that Cameron is only seen as centrist as opposed to centre-right now because Labour has shifted so far left.
Comments
Anyway, I picked out this same point. Osborne imposing arbitrary caps and limits then always picking on the same people to pay for his economic mismanagement. IDS said his government picks on people "who will never vote for us". Yes it's true and all governments do that to an extent. But to have it laud out so openly is brutal for Osborne who is already seen as a political rather than economic Chancellor
Haven't watched "the Great Interview" as I couldn't find "the Great Popcorn bag" with which to watch (de rigeur these days it seems).
Matt Hancock is the Government figure who most affects my working world so I've heard him speak a few times. At Government Property 2016 he was very flat and uninspiring and looked like a man desperately wishing to be somewhere else. Having told local authorities they shouldn't "play the Property market", he did throw a Surrey Conservative Councillor a bone by suggesting Councils could use capital receipts from disposals to offset falling revenue budgets so that got a few smiles.
In the Coalition years, I had some dealings with Hancock through the Westminster Property Forum and while there wasn't a lot of original thinking the rules regarding local authorities and property management were substantially relaxed and while One Public Estate is seen as a Government initiative, it merely compliments work that had already been started within the local authority network to co-locate services and rationalise portfolios.
Yes, he's presentable and likeable but no more than Javid or Leadsom or others. I believe he's the MP for Newmarket but I'm not sure how strong his racing interest is (another area of concern for this observer. Whatever you say about Alex Salmond, he knows his racing and that's a good start for me).
"To be loyal means 100% acceptance of Government thinking: any dissent, or even admittance of doubt, is treachery and treason. After nine years as party leader and five as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher still asks the question, 'Are you one of us?', by which she means, 'Are you completely free of any doubt as to the utter rightness of everything we are doing?' It will come as no surprise that I am not 'one of us'.
Francis Pym 1986"
IDS is a brilliantly cunning operator. He wants Brexit. He knows that Cameron and Osborne desperately need Labour voters on their side to win the referendum. The worse they look in the eyes of Labour voters, the better the chances of Brexit winning.
I actually doubt that was the prime motivation for his actions or even what he is doing now. But it does help.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/australia-post-race-analysis.html
I think the highlights on Channel 4 are from 1.30pm. If you're unsure, I'd advocate watching it.
I would compare it for Spurs fans that used to complain about Alan Sugar buying the club.
Forgetting that the alternative at the time was Maxwell.
I must have written about 5 different threads last night, that had to be ditched/changed because of events.
His interview this morning was rather faltering but entirely consistent with what he has written, said and done over the last decade. I think the Left will come to regret setting him up as the bogey man when they see what the government is like untempered by his beliefs.
A bit aggrieved about Nicola's planned tax rises dearie?
He is the first MP in modern times to win a horse race, having raced to victory at the Newmarket July Course in August 2012
http://www.matthewhancock.co.uk/about-matthew
Universal Credit is designed to address both of these but much of that complexity existed for a reason and it is extremely difficult to create a simpler system that can deal with all the incredibly messy complexities of peoples' lives. It certainly proved way, way, beyond IDS.
The failure to resolve the underlying problems combined with the chiselling of overall spending has meant lots of political problems as each group is held up as the latest set of martyrs. A more politically competent minister would have avoided much of that.
Is defeat probable for GOP if Reagan (Trump) wins the nomination?
"Intellectuals don't want to take Reagan (Trump) seriously, but he does well with working-class voters."
"Reagan (Trump) is the opponent of choice for Carter (Clinton)," says LA Times Poll director, a point on which most analysts agree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3500543/How-Ice-Maiden-froze-rivals-flounced-PM-Ex-Lib-Dem-minister-DAVID-LAWS-reveals-Coalition-memoirs-rocked-Westminster.html
But the comparison is not a million miles off. Both correctly identified the personnel problem with the government and ruthlessly attacked it. The Tory government of 1990 was becoming dysfunctional and deeply unpopular precisely because of Thatcher, therefore she needed to go. If you are going to make the grand gesture of resigning, you have to use the opportunity to try to put right what could not be put right in office.
The president can suppress DoJ action on an NSA complaint against HRC just as he can with regard to an FBI suggestion of an indictment of her and her personal staff. Both the FBI and NSA are Executive Branch institutions and if he orders them to shut up, they will have no choice but to do so.
BUT, as the author states, there will then be a firestorm of leaks to the media from both these groups that will be beyond belief. Even the media will eventually understand the import of what they are told, especially with Trump ever ready to tweet about it.
At least try to be accurate when you are trying to be a tough jessie boy.
Taken me since January 2009
I'm inclining at present to sooner rather than later - perhaps the second half of next year. Too soon for Matt Hancock or those of his cohort.
Whips are a large part of the problem in politics today. Yet they are necessary.
On another point: if politics gets as predictable as you outline, then we end up with bad governance. This has happened every single time.
I'm also unsure your last paragraph is correct. Firstly (and a minor point), is it over half at the moment? Secondly, he would have been well aware of the problems that Europe has caused his party. Yet his hand has been forced.
Christopher Hope
Tory 1922 chairman Graham Brady appeals for calm asking ministers “to reflect on the damage that can be done” from negative briefings"
What other Secretary of State in his place and under similar circumstances has ever been better for either Work or Pensions?
V good @ShippersUnbound Times Redbox email this morning. Best line is on Ros Altmann... https://t.co/nm6c3JKZiA
Cut. Paste. Drink. Repeat.
PMs did not routinely go on foreign missions in the 1930s, not least because of the limitations of transport. But to the extent that they did, politics allowed for that. These days, land transport would be fine for the EU - as you say, the Eurostar provides easy access to Brussels (and Paris) - but beyond that? It's a week to the US. It's a lot longer to the Far East. PMs simply cannot afford that amount of dead time.
Also, a lot of travel around the UK and (perhaps even more so) abroad is by helicopter for security reasons. A fear of flying would probably impact on that even more than on travel by plane.
IDS over Clarke might be the exception there. Few are more competent than Clarke - but I've always wondered whether he ought to be a Liberal*
*Which I might be too but for the awful successor party, the Lib Dems, and their rabid Europhilia.
For this reason, as Peter points out, Gove is 10000 times preferable to Hancock.
We all castigated May for not firing the starting gun by joining 'Leave' - she just might have done the right thing being a 'neutral as you can get' Remainer.....
Anecdote from a different sphere - when I worked for Ciba-Geigy/Novartis, the world's largest pharma company by some measures, they decided to have elections for staff representatives, which the innocuous staff association (hitherto preoccupied with administrative and social matters) were expected to win in the managerial section. Previously, the left-wing chemical workers' trade union had only made inroads on the factory floor.
I organised a trade union list which swept the board across the whole company in the Swiss HQ. Furious, the staff association leadership tried to expel me. A series of senior managers told them that if they went ahead with trying to punish me for exercising my freedom of opinion, they too would all join the union. There was something very absurd, very Swiss and very touching about these diginified middle-aged entrepreneurs preparing to fill out their membership applications to the equivalent of UNITE.
(The staff association backed down. The company, far more subtly, appointed all the elected representatives to time-consuming consultative committees, giving them some genuine influence and leaving them with less time and less motivation to challenge the management.)
Going Back to my Roots Vegetables
There you go - two for the price of one. And I'll only need 5% of the royalties.
Whether Cameron was a success or not at GE 2010 or 2015 depends on the statistics you choose. In 2010 Cameron gained 97 seats and a 3.7% swing. In 1979 Thatcher gained 62 seats but with a larger 8.1 % swing (Cameron was aided by a much greater fall in Labour's vote). Cameron wins in seats, Thatcher in swing.
Last year Cameron got 24 extra seats and a miserly 0.8% swing. In her first GE as PM in 1983, Thatcher gained 38 seats despite a swing of 1.5% against her. Thatcher wins in seats, Cameron in swing.
Pick your statistics to prove your point.
As for centrists vs left- or right- wing:
Cameron: centre-rigth. PM
Howard: right-centre-right: not PM.
IDS: right. Not PM
Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts). Not PM
Major: centre-right PM
You can argue the definitions of right against centre-right, but I think the above's reasonable. The same thing holds true for Labour as well.
The centre ground is where you win.
Then the election happened and after various convulsions there seemed to be only one which has now split into two. But where are the voters?
They're still there if a little dispursed and all three parties they supported are overwhelmingly for Remain
Conservative top two are for REMAIN but their party is 2/3 for LEAVE.
http://twitter.com/SkyMurnaghan/status/711502779265589248
I was bitten on the arse and it took me completely by surprise. It made me very conscious of not assuming support, nor thinking a loyal colleague wasn't giving something of themselves away each time I asked a favour. Eventually it goes too far, and you discover they're leaving - and you were the last to know.
One minister compared Osborne’s achievement to the hapless 1970s sitcom character Frank Spencer. He said: “It was a brilliant budget. You have to admire the sheer genius of George. Very few people would be able to damage the Tory brand, upset the public, cause the resignation of a senior member of the cabinet and miss your self-imposed targets all in a single week.”
He might as well, therefore, move on for the good of the party. Hammond would be my choice for a unifying interim leader.
Oh, and he can take Osborne with him.
Apologies to Alanbrooke - you've been bang on about him over the years. It has taken my foolish eyes far longer to see it than your astute ones.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011g7g2
No longer on iplayer, but easily found on youtube.
Howard: right-centre-right: not PM.
IDS: right. Not PM
Hague: played at being right (never said he wanted to LEAVE EU). finished up centre left Not PM
Major: centre-right for 92 election PM but was centre left at the 97 election and lost.
Je Suis Turnip
Corbyn 4 Tspiras?
- Set the top rate of income tax at 60% (where it would stay through the next parliament too).
- Kept BA, BL, water, gas, electricity, BT, the railways and sundry lesser industrial / service operations within the public sector.
- A strong pro-EEC policy.
- Not made any significant reform to the NHS or education.
It is remembered for being 'right wing' for three things: council house sales, trade union reform and its economic policies.
Of these, the first two were strongly supported by much of the country, meaning that they were in effect mainstream policies. It's only the economic policies which really mark her government out but even there, while the effects were something that previous governments wouldn't have tolerated, the proof was in the consequences: by the mid-1980s, unemployment was falling, manufacturing employment was rising, inflation was low and growth was steady.
Furthermore, 'centrist' has to be seen in relative terms. At the 1983 election, she was up against the left-wing Foot; in 1987, she was up against unilateralist Kinnock. Not until the next parliament was she clearly less centrist than her opponent and by that point, the polls and the elections were running strongly against her.
In my guesstimate spread sheet I have had Labour voters at the 35% LEAVE, but also assumes that the turnout will be lower for them than Labour Remainers.
The most nauseating sight on TV this morning was "Mr Flip-Flop" calling for GO's resignation. This man has no shame.
It's time for the everybody in the Conservative Party i.e. Ministers/MPs' to SHUT UP.