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.
Conservative Home polls (members).
In which case I'm amazed it's as low as 2/3. Also: voodoo poll?
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?
If you're gonnae *hilariously* repeat the same thing over and over again, at least get it right, dearie. As things stand Nicola won't be replicating Osbo's tax cut for the most wealthy, therefore tax for the most wealthy will stay the same.
Bernard Jenkin coming out to lay into David Cameron and George Osborne. Well fancy that.
Cameron should have stopped the briefing on Friday night. He and Osborne have instead chosen to open up new fronts and brought out more retaliation. Only Graham Brady has any sense. Osborne just makes himself more unfit to be Leader, Cameron piles up votes for a challenge post referendum.
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.
Chilcot does not have to say anything. Blair is a war criminal and, worse, is a Tory.
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:
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.
Conservative Home polls (members).
In which case I'm amazed it's as low as 2/3. Also: voodoo poll?
There are also polls of Conservative local chairmen where LEAVE is well into the lead.
It is clear that George Osborne's offer of modest enough budget proposals For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Britian From Being A burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public didn't satisfy IDS.
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.
An industrial quantity of whitewash is my wild stab in the dark.
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.
...
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.
Agreed on all points.
Perfect demonstration that Govts are judged on their final acts, rather than their earlier ones.
I have a lot of time for the early Blairite years.
Before Brown turned on the taps and TB decided that the people should be snooped on and taking over foreign policy was the way forward.
Finally - I find it interesting that only Surbiton and Roger seem to be cheerleaders for Cameron now.
Bernard Jenkin coming out to lay into David Cameron and George Osborne. Well fancy that.
Cameron should have stopped the briefing on Friday night. He and Osborne have instead chosen to open up new fronts and brought out more retaliation. Only Graham Brady has any sense. Osborne just makes himself more unfit to be Leader, Cameron piles up votes for a challenge post referendum.
While the Conservative leadership have certainly handled this badly, the idea that the paleo-Conservatives would ever show David Cameron any loyalty is strictly for the birds. At the first sign of rebellion, Bernard Jenkin is piling in every time.
Bernard Jenkin coming out to lay into David Cameron and George Osborne. Well fancy that.
Cameron should have stopped the briefing on Friday night. He and Osborne have instead chosen to open up new fronts and brought out more retaliation. Only Graham Brady has any sense. Osborne just makes himself more unfit to be Leader, Cameron piles up votes for a challenge post referendum.
I would love to be a fly on the side of Graham Brady's 'No confidence letter' drawer....
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.
Conservative Home polls (members).
In which case I'm amazed it's as low as 2/3. Also: voodoo poll?
There are also polls of Conservative local chairmen where LEAVE is well into the lead.
Neither of which are conclusive, nor back up what you claimed.
The Tim Shipman article in STimes sets out that Cameron tried to persuade IDS to stay, made him wait two hours before announcing his decision and now claims he's puzzled.
It doesn't ring true. The rubbishing of IDS is totally unnecessary and damaging. Cameron's blue on blue attitude is getting way out of hand. I'm so disappointed in him.
Bernard Jenkin coming out to lay into David Cameron and George Osborne. Well fancy that.
Cameron should have stopped the briefing on Friday night. He and Osborne have instead chosen to open up new fronts and brought out more retaliation. Only Graham Brady has any sense. Osborne just makes himself more unfit to be Leader, Cameron piles up votes for a challenge post referendum.
- 50 letters to 1922 by end of March - Swiftly appoint a unity leader (Hammond/May/A.N. Sensible Other big beast) - Present a new budget/water down existing so much that it is effectively a steady as she goes no change affair - Await outcome of referendum, stop Govt. campaigning for Remain - likely result = Leave - Govern on sensible centre-right grounds, reducing deficit but stopping these egregious pensioner giveaways
Wait for 2020 verdict of the people.
A 4 year dose of reality politics rather than 4 years on a campaign/PR footing might be just what the country would like....
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.
That seems sound - I presumed one reason for the early referendum (besides the prime reason to do it before yet another year of migrant chaos in the news) was so that calls for the PM to go since he was on the way out anyway would be less this early into his team. As it happens I was wrong, as the Tory party has large groups even angrier than I thought and more who see their chance to get rid of the whole Cameroon clique, but since it does not look likely to be sooner rather than later, an experienced cabinet minister, or Boris as a prominent figure, seem the only options who could appear to public and party both.
Bernard Jenkin coming out to lay into David Cameron and George Osborne. Well fancy that.
Cameron should have stopped the briefing on Friday night. He and Osborne have instead chosen to open up new fronts and brought out more retaliation.
Not wise to respond in kind, perhaps, but in terms of the fight being in the open, IDS did launch the first salvo. (Again, whether he was right to do so is another debate entirely)
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.
Mic
A PM dce.
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
I recall someone posting a NLP broadcast awhile back - it went into all their transcendental meditation stuff, but there was also a bit, IIRC, about restoring britain's sovereignty which was not a million miles from the sorts of thing I like to hear today! Maybe they were the party for me.
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.
Chilcot does not have to say anything. Blair is a war criminal and, worse, is a Tory.
I must have missed the due judicial process, his conviction and Blair's defection to the Conservatives from the confines of Wormwood Scrubs.
It's amazing what we've all missed whilst walking the dog this morning ....
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Interesting to see Amber Rudd will be dieing in a ditch for Osborne.
Last night she announced that she was switching her light bulbs off at 8.30 for an hour last night, as if this piece of virtue signalling would make a difference to the demand for power as millions watched the final match of The Six Nations. Amber Rudd doesn't appear to be the brightest light in the showroom.
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?
If you're gonnae *hilariously* repeat the same thing over and over again, at least get it right, dearie. As things stand Nicola won't be replicating Osbo's tax cut for the most wealthy, therefore tax for the most wealthy will stay the same.
Which makes it more of a tax rise than the PIP change is a cut.
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?
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.
I understand all of that. Nevertheless Asquith, Lloyd George and Baldwin were very effective Prime Ministers. It raises the question as to whether all this present day travel is REALLY necessary. There is a distinct possibility that having a flying phobia would serve to humanise a politician in the eyes of voters!
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Civil war! If thyis doesn't motivate Labour to get their act/leader together then they never deserve another chance.
Not sure how they would be convinced to change their own direction by the Tories cutting each other to pieces - surely that would only encourage them to to think they have a chance with the strategy they are currently pursuing? It's the same complacent reasoning that led the Tories to think they can win no matter what, so they are free to engage in a bitter civil war (as a non-Tory I don't care if it is Cameron's fault or others' fault) and still pretend they will be fine.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Whoever suggested such a thing?
It's hard to square most of the comments on thread from the Kool-Aid Conservatives with any other interpretation.
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.
Realistically, that is rubbish. I put out my assessment a couple of months ago and I stand by that. I took people as they voted in GE2015
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Whoever suggested such a thing?
It's hard to square most of the comments on thread from the Kool-Aid Conservatives with any other interpretation.
I think I need a Venn diagram of PB Tories and Kool-Aid Conservatives.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
On the narrow Leadership point. Many are fit to be Leader by themselves as they will be fit to be a Leader of the Lib Dems or Labour. But they will have about 2/3 of the Conservative party against their view and not be trusted. It is going to be about trust. As to other posts then yes they can serve in various areas of Government. Same as the wets did under Thatcher.
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.
The centre ground is where you win.
You clearly do not understand 'swing' do you? In 2010 Cameron achieved a swing of 5.0% whilst Thatcher in 1979 managed 5.3% followed by a further 4.1% swing in 1983.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Whoever suggested such a thing?
It is implied many times, even if perhaps unintentionally - being a Remainer has been referred to by some as betraying the Tory party (even though they are split on the issue), how can one lead the party if they are betraying its members? Ergo, presumably no minister should be a Remainer. It's no different to wondering how Leavers are supposed to be complete idiots who are risking our security and economy and yet are apparently trusted to be cabinet ministers by the same people implying the former.
Push come to shove while I don't think either side is right about how easy they can come together after the referendum, neither will be as brutal in purging the other as their remarks now directly or indirectly, as represented by their supporters, would indicate. Remainers will be in a Boris (or other Leaver) cabinet, and Leavers will be in a Cameron cabinet afterwards.
It's just another example of peoples' rhetoric getting increasingly ridiculous, and then people acting offended at the implications of their ridiculous rhetoric.
Not wise to respond in kind, perhaps, but in terms of the fight being in the open, IDS did launch the first salvo. (Again, whether he was right to do so is another debate entirely)
Given that IDS was resigning on a point of principal and the first salvo was the reason for his resignation, I think that salvo is probably acceptable...
Retaliating on the grounds that resignations should be done in person when the person wasn't in the country to resign to is a mite pointless...
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
On the narrow Leadership point. Many are fit to be Leader by themselves as they will be fit to be a Leader of the Lib Dems or Labour. But they will have about 2/3 of the Conservative party against their view and not be trusted. It is going to be about trust. As to other posts then yes they can serve in various areas of Government. Same as the wets did under Thatcher.
2/3 of current Conservative support leaves them on about 20-25%. I suppose the compromises of government are onerous and the right wing of the Conservative party yearns for the halcyon days of IDS's leadership.
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.
Realistically, that is rubbish. I put out my assessment a couple of months ago and I stand by that. I took people as they voted in GE2015
IDS is the living proof that Tories are a totally separate breed of sentient beings.
Could any other group anywhere ever have voted to make him their leader?
Be fair Roger, he was a better leader than Corbyn is. IDS comes across as faintly dim and rather useless, while Corbyn is just terrifying.
I know you are no fan of Corbyn, before you say it. But the implication that no other group could make such a cretinous mistake is one that was firmly disproved seven months ago.
For all his limited appeal at least Corbyn is a human being. For those ideologically on the 'left' he makes sense. Just an old fashioned lefty whose time has probably passsed.
IDS is an altogether different kettle of fish. We can all agree he's hopeless but beyond that to non Tories he's also as unpleasant and disloyal a human being as even Shakespeare could have dreamt up
Your definition of a human being is someone on the political Left.
Like plenty of left-wingers, you think there's something morally and ethically defective with anyone who isn't.
You're talking about the right. No one does moral superiority like a right winger.
That's a "Liberal Democrat" you are thinking of, the home of sanctimony.
For all his claims to be a reformer, IDS has been a danger to the Tory Party. He tried to assassinate Major, is trying to do the same to Cameron, was a failure as Party Leader and did not demonstrate any real achievements at DWP. The Brexit Tory MPs are being very noisy because they believe that they are losing the battle on the referendum.
As you said on Conhome, really you are the sort of Tory loyalist that would make Mr Nabavi blush.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The government is not neutral. Its policy is to Remain. Those who disagree have, exceptionally, licence to dissent. But they are opposing government policy.
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.
Realistically, that is rubbish. I put out my assessment a couple of months ago and I stand by that. I took people as they voted in GE2015
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The government is not neutral. Its policy is to Remain. Those who disagree have, exceptionally, licence to dissent. But they are opposing government policy.
I know that.
But I object to it, because the party of Government is explicitly neutral.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Whoever suggested such a thing?
It's hard to square most of the comments on thread from the Kool-Aid Conservatives with any other interpretation.
I would have expected those who write thread headers to at least pretend to want rational debate BTL.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
On the narrow Leadership point. Many are fit to be Leader by themselves as they will be fit to be a Leader of the Lib Dems or Labour. But they will have about 2/3 of the Conservative party against their view and not be trusted. It is going to be about trust. As to other posts then yes they can serve in various areas of Government. Same as the wets did under Thatcher.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Whoever suggested such a thing?
It's hard to square most of the comments on thread from the Kool-Aid Conservatives with any other interpretation.
I would have expected those who write thread headers to at least pretend to want rational debate BTL.
God no, where's the fun in that?
Is one of the perks/pleasures of writing thread headers.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
I can stop laughing at the last 48 hours' events enough to confirm I believe if you scratch the last 11 words. Hope that helps.
Not wise to respond in kind, perhaps, but in terms of the fight being in the open, IDS did launch the first salvo. (Again, whether he was right to do so is another debate entirely)
Given that IDS was resigning on a point of principal and the first salvo was the reason for his resignation, I think that salvo is probably acceptable...
Retaliating on the grounds that resignations should be done in person when the person wasn't in the country to resign to is a mite pointless...
Depends on one's perspective (for one, to play devil's advocate, he waited until friday to resign, he couldn't wait a bit longer?) IDS will say he was pushed too far and felt he had to resign. Cameron will say in his resignation IDS was unreasonable and undermined far more than just the thing that prompted him to resign, that his first salvo was too aggressive. Both would claim justification for launching wider salvos to undermine the other (which both sides have clearly done) as a result, I don't see much benefit trying to unpick which is most reasonable - fact is, attacks were launched, attacks which are being talked of as potentially bringing down the PM (realistically or not). His responses or those of allies might make that speculation worse, give it more credence, but given it was already there, it's hardly unreasonable in a political bumfight that the sides are throwing mud around.
Some of that mud will be pointless or stupid, but no one is going to come to an agreement on how harsh IDS should have been in his resignation or how harsh Cameron in his response and each of them to remain blameless for additional fallout - there is no rule to such things, and the cheerleaders on various sides want different things, some want things to be taken further than perhaps either IDS or Cameron want to take things.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
If would be ludicrous for the Government not to have a view.
Interesting to see Amber Rudd will be dieing in a ditch for Osborne.
Last night she announced that she was switching her light bulbs off at 8.30 for an hour last night, as if this piece of virtue signalling would make a difference to the demand for power as millions watched the final match of The Six Nations. Amber Rudd doesn't appear to be the brightest light in the showroom.
It was a worldwide event. Not one set by sporting contests in any particular country.
The idea of ditching Osborne as next leader for Matt Hancock is laughable. If the Tories do not want the Chancellor they are certainly not going to want an Osbornite stooge and Remainer like Hancock. People are also overreacting to IDS who was perhaps the worst Tory leader for a century so the idea that he should determine who is the next Tory leader is farcical. IDS may be right on disability funding but Osborne is more than capable of changing course there.
The key for Osborne is EU ref, if it is Leave both he and Cameron are finished and Boris probably becomes leader with Gove as Chancellor. If it is Remain then Cameron will hold off any challenger and Osborne rains heir apparent though the closer it is the stronger his opponents will be. Remember too that in power the Tories always pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead them and on that basis the only logical alternative to Osborne is Hammond
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.
The centre ground is where you win.
You clearly do not understand 'swing' do you? In 2010 Cameron achieved a swing of 5.0% whilst Thatcher in 1979 managed 5.3% followed by a further 4.1% swing in 1983.
Sorry, my mistake: my figures were for increase in vote share. I think...
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
I know the feeling.
On Mrs JackW's spending my position is neutral but my wallet has a position that cash should REMAIN where it is ....
Edit - As a policy it a total and unmitigated failure.
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?
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.
I understand all of that. Nevertheless Asquith, Lloyd George and Baldwin were very effective Prime Ministers. It raises the question as to whether all this present day travel is REALLY necessary. There is a distinct possibility that having a flying phobia would serve to humanise a politician in the eyes of voters!
I'd question whether Asquith or Baldwin were particularly effective PMs. Asquith led a government but the driving force in it was Lloyd George. Baldwin was good at winning elections but less good at running governments - he was perhaps an earlier and Tory version of Wilson.
But really it's out of a PMs hands: there are just too many international demands and summits that they can't get out of.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.
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.
Realistically, that is rubbish. I put out my assessment a couple of months ago and I stand by that. I took people as they voted in GE2015
That means IN = 55% OUT 45%. The Tories could be 17 / 20
I think it may be a question of Tory members being 2/3 for Leave as opposed to Tory voters?
If that is the case, Cameron's final act is truly putting the country first !
He presumably thinks so, though as a Leaver I don't think he is right about that. But it also seems very apparent that while the paucity of the deal made things much worse, there was nothing he could to prevent a significant level of Tory party trouble erupting, as we know many were committed to Leave regardless of the deal.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
I recall a lot of mockery toward Labour for supposedly not having a policy on another big issue, Trident. For the government not to have policies would be pretty silly I feel.
If we're talking about absurd - imagine this absurdity.
June 22nd - Govt is for REMAIN June 24th - Govt (quite possibly the same people) is for LEAVE.
How would that be better than
March 20th - Govt is for REMAIN May 9th - Govt declares itself neutral during campaign June 24th - Govt reflects will of people after result of referendum
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.
When was the last time a single-party government had a different policy to the party in question?
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.
I very much doubt you would say that if the policy was to leave.
IDS should go with our thanks,respect and sympathy. A decent religious man who wanted to do his best. Having listened to him on Marr I am quite certain that the pressures of the job overwhelmed him.The position that he held requires a very thick skin. I do not think that he has one. His friends say that he is passionate about his views on welfare. That is usually a euphemism for thin skinned and angry. Gordon Brown was described as passionate when he allegedly hurled mobiles at staff. To do the job that IDS did you have to put up with the constant impugning of your own personal morality by clamant groups, disability charities and opponents. I can almost hear his wife imploring him not to take things personally but to remember that he was only enacting public policy. We get the merest hint on PB of the barrage of abuse that ministers face by reading the deeply unpleasant rants of our Caledonian friend. So thank you IDS. You will feel free today. Free to campaign for Brexit without the heavy burden of running a difficult department. Stephen Crabb will bring pragmatism to a difficult job. I wish him every success.
Which EU leader would you say is the most powerful?
Angela Merkel — 79% David Cameron — 8%
Influence? What influence?
Oof - I know most of the other leaders seem happy with the current situation, but I do wonder how they would stack up in the same scenario though. Pretty similarly I'd bet.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.
I very much doubt you would say that if the policy was to leave.
I really would.
I suspect you find this hard to believe, but the continuance of the party as an election winning force is more important to me than the result of the referendum....
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.
Maybe I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting an extensive campaign of arm-twisting, quite the opposite, I was suggesting the use of the whips in their role of conveying the sentiments of the MPs to the PM. If he doesn't know what his (independent thinking) MPs will accept, how does he know what legislation he has a chance of getting through the house on a slim majority. By extension if we doesn't know that, he doesnt know what he can promise the country without looking like a charlie a few months later, which was the point I was trying to make.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.
I very much doubt you would say that if the policy was to leave.
I really would.
I suspect you find this hard to believe, but the continuance of the party as an election winning force is more important to me than the result of the referendum....
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.
Hammond would IMHO be a new disaster for the tories if he was made leader and PM. First, he looks shifty. Secondly, he is shifty and a liar with his changing stance on the EU ref, and his peculiar foreign policy. Thirdly, he would split the tories even further.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.
I very much doubt you would say that if the policy was to leave.
If the policy of the government were to leave, the policy of the party would be to leave.
IDS should go with our thanks,respect and sympathy. A decent religious man who wanted to do his best. Having listened to him on Marr I am quite certain that the pressures of the job overwhelmed him.The position that he held requires a very thick skin. I do not think that he has one. His friends say that he is passionate about his views on welfare. That is usually a euphemism for thin skinned and angry. Gordon Brown was described as passionate when he allegedly hurled mobiles at staff. To do the job that IDS did you have to put up with the constant impugning of your own personal morality by clamant groups, disability charities and opponents. I can almost hear his wife imploring him not to take things personally but to remember that he was only enacting public policy. We get the merest hint on PB of the barrage of abuse that ministers face by reading the deeply unpleasant rants of our Caledonian friend. So thank you IDS. You will feel free today. Free to campaign for Brexit without the heavy burden of running a difficult department. Stephen Crabb will bring pragmatism to a difficult job. I wish him every success.
Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?
Not sure where you're getting this from.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.
But should it? I say no.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
It is perfectly reasonable for the govt to have a pro-EU policy. What is inappropriate is the levers of govt then campaigning in an election. They are not allowed to do that in general elections, so why is it ok here?? Especially ridiculous when some cabinet ministers are not allowed to read some documents in their own departments. Or when HMRC is not releasing data because it might help Leave.
Comments
Leaving the EU would be (X) for your personal financial situation:
Good: 38%
Bad: 30%
(via Opinium)
Looking like it's Boris, or another one-nation Leaver.
Destroying the Conservative party as well.
Perfect demonstration that Govts are judged on their final acts, rather than their earlier ones.
I have a lot of time for the early Blairite years.
Before Brown turned on the taps and TB decided that the people should be snooped on and taking over foreign policy was the way forward.
Finally - I find it interesting that only Surbiton and Roger seem to be cheerleaders for Cameron now.
With pb support like that.....
It only remains to point out that when a politician gets his own "is crap" threads on PB the writing is on the wall.
It doesn't ring true. The rubbishing of IDS is totally unnecessary and damaging. Cameron's blue on blue attitude is getting way out of hand. I'm so disappointed in him.
Huzzah for George.
- 50 letters to 1922 by end of March
- Swiftly appoint a unity leader (Hammond/May/A.N. Sensible Other big beast)
- Present a new budget/water down existing so much that it is effectively a steady as she goes no change affair
- Await outcome of referendum, stop Govt. campaigning for Remain - likely result = Leave
- Govern on sensible centre-right grounds, reducing deficit but stopping these egregious pensioner giveaways
Wait for 2020 verdict of the people.
A 4 year dose of reality politics rather than 4 years on a campaign/PR footing might be just what the country would like....
It's amazing what we've all missed whilst walking the dog this morning ....
Party GE2015 IN OUT
Con 37% 18.5% 18.5%
Lab 31% 21% 10%
LD 8% 6% 2%
UKIP 13% 1.5% 11.5%
SNP 5% 3.5% 1.5%
GRN 4% 3% 1%
OTH 2% 1.5% 0.5%
That means IN = 55% OUT 45%. The Tories could be 17 / 20
https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M4682c1947f09927e16c200c4ce655e8cH2&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300
Any help on how to directly embed images would be appreciated BTW
As to other posts then yes they can serve in various areas of Government. Same as the wets did under Thatcher.
Opinium Poll: Only 15% of people in the UK identify as European
#Brexit
Push come to shove while I don't think either side is right about how easy they can come together after the referendum, neither will be as brutal in purging the other as their remarks now directly or indirectly, as represented by their supporters, would indicate. Remainers will be in a Boris (or other Leaver) cabinet, and Leavers will be in a Cameron cabinet afterwards.
It's just another example of peoples' rhetoric getting increasingly ridiculous, and then people acting offended at the implications of their ridiculous rhetoric.
Retaliating on the grounds that resignations should be done in person when the person wasn't in the country to resign to is a mite pointless...
This need to continually tinker is doing my head in.
I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.
I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.
But I object to it, because the party of Government is explicitly neutral.
"It's all been Europe Europe Europe, this could be the slap in the face we all need to get back together"
Let the people decide, unhindered.
Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.
You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.
Is one of the perks/pleasures of writing thread headers.
One of the best films I've seen at the cinema for a while.
Wonderful spectacle, and thought provoking - but only if you want it to be.
Right back to the ROFLing.
Some of that mud will be pointless or stupid, but no one is going to come to an agreement on how harsh IDS should have been in his resignation or how harsh Cameron in his response and each of them to remain blameless for additional fallout - there is no rule to such things, and the cheerleaders on various sides want different things, some want things to be taken further than perhaps either IDS or Cameron want to take things.
The key for Osborne is EU ref, if it is Leave both he and Cameron are finished and Boris probably becomes leader with Gove as Chancellor. If it is Remain then Cameron will hold off any challenger and Osborne rains heir apparent though the closer it is the stronger his opponents will be. Remember too that in power the Tories always pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead them and on that basis the only logical alternative to Osborne is Hammond
On Mrs JackW's spending my position is neutral but my wallet has a position that cash should REMAIN where it is ....
Edit - As a policy it a total and unmitigated failure.
But really it's out of a PMs hands: there are just too many international demands and summits that they can't get out of.
Observer poll:
Which EU leader would you say is the most powerful?
Angela Merkel — 79%
David Cameron — 8%
Influence? What influence?
Last night with Corals, the odds on Hancock as next Tory leader was 80/1, he's now 20/1
June 22nd - Govt is for REMAIN
June 24th - Govt (quite possibly the same people) is for LEAVE.
How would that be better than
March 20th - Govt is for REMAIN
May 9th - Govt declares itself neutral during campaign
June 24th - Govt reflects will of people after result of referendum
To do the job that IDS did you have to put up with the constant impugning of your own personal morality by clamant groups, disability charities and opponents. I can almost hear his wife imploring him not to take things personally but to remember that he was only enacting public policy. We get the merest hint on PB of the barrage of abuse that ministers face by reading the deeply unpleasant rants of our Caledonian friend.
So thank you IDS. You will feel free today. Free to campaign for Brexit without the heavy burden of running a difficult department.
Stephen Crabb will bring pragmatism to a difficult job. I wish him every success.
If you are so "riven" that you can't, resign.
I suspect you find this hard to believe, but the continuance of the party as an election winning force is more important to me than the result of the referendum....
Either way....
First, he looks shifty.
Secondly, he is shifty and a liar with his changing stance on the EU ref, and his peculiar foreign policy.
Thirdly, he would split the tories even further.
Straight after @SkyMurnaghan in five minutes time, my live interview with IDS on @skynews ... Tune in