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.
The Government's policy is to have a referendum on the EU, giving the choice to the people. The Government's role in that scenario is to ensure that it has solid plans in place for every contingency.
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.
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'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.
Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs. Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
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....
Either way....
To be an election-winning force you need to maintain a reputation for competence. Not having a policy on a matter of national importance isn't competent. It's like Labour not having a policy on Trident. Ridiculous.
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.
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.
Plato, you've been in PR, you surely know a smear when you read one.
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.
Fair enough.
However, it's quite possible that the independent-thinking MPs haven't made up their minds when the whips ask them. Gove changed on the EU referendum, I believe, and it would have been hard to discern Boris's position until he had decided what was best for himself.
In a way this is a good thing, as it means MPs *might* just be swayed by debates, both inside and outside parliament. It does make it hard to lead, though.
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.
Hmm. You fail to mention IDS's consistent refusal to listen to expert advice and civil servants regarding the practicalities of his reforms. I'm not a fan. Good riddance. At least Crabb has an MBA - maybe he'll be able to handle the day-to-day administration of the department.
Cameron: centre-rigth.competent - PM Howard: right-centre-right:crap - not PM. IDS: right. crap - Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts).crap - Not PM Major: centre-right.competent - PM Thatcher right-centre-rightcompetent - PM
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.
Crabb supported Liam Fox for leader in 2005 - which suggests he is pretty right wing.
Cameron: centre-rigth.competent - PM Howard: right-centre-right:crap - not PM. IDS: right. crap - Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts).crap - Not PM Major: centre-right.competent - PM Thatcher right-centre-rightcompetent - PM
I think the "crap" assignations there are hindsight bias. If he'd lost in 1992 we'd have no problem putting Major in the "crap" column, and if Howard had won you'd be calling him competent.
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.
Hmm. You fail to mention IDS's consistent refusal to listen to expert advice and civil servants regarding the practicalities of his reforms. I'm not a fan. Good riddance. At least Crabb has an MBA - maybe he'll be able to handle the day-to-day administration of the department.
I thought Mr Meeks thought Ms Altmann was a waste of space? No doubt he will correct me if I'm wrong.
Completely O/T: Professor Frank Furedi is talking a lot of sense about inquiries into historic child abuse and the way the justice system is being manipulated and the principle of innocence until proven guilty is being lost. On Radio 4. Worth listening to.
He has written quite a bit on the subject, for example:
Cameron: centre-rigth.competent - PM Howard: right-centre-right:crap - not PM. IDS: right. crap - Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts).crap - Not PM Major: centre-right.competent - PM Thatcher right-centre-rightcompetent - PM
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.
I was reminded of Lloyd George asking would you rather be with the wise virgins in the light or the unwise virgins in the dark. John Grigg's biography left the reader with no doubt about The Goat's likely choice.
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....
Either way....
Yes I find that hard to believe.
I'd love to know why? I was pretty on the fence until Cameron claimed to be the new messiah with his weak concessions from Europe....
Altmann needs to go. She has overstepped the mark.
Brady, an Out-er, says that Altmann is “wrong” about IDS’ motivation.
"The worst thing you can do is impune somebody else’s motives for what they are doing and what they are saying. We are all involved in this because we have strong beliefs and are passionate about our country.
I would caution colleagues and senior advisers in government just to reflect on the damage that can be done."
He said briefings about IDS’ ulterior motivations are “very unwise and will make it harder to pull the party back together after the referendum.”
Cameron: centre-rigth.competent - PM Howard: right-centre-right:crap - not PM. IDS: right. crap - Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts).crap - Not PM Major: centre-right.competent - PM Thatcher right-centre-rightcompetent - PM
Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs. Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).
This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.
Apparently IDS has private correspondence showing Cameron wanted bigger cuts on the disabled.
Because having been a recipient of benefits for the disabledin opposition he decided that lower orders shouldn't have the same from his government
IDS's charge that Osborne is only interested in looking after the Tory client state is the most explosive part of this episode and potentially the most significant over the longer term. Just why is it that Tory-voting pensioners have been insulated from the effects austerity, Chancellor?
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.
I was reminded of Lloyd George asking would you rather be with the wise virgins in the light or the unwise virgins in the dark. John Grigg's biography left the reader with no doubt about The Goat's likely choice.
Surely Lloyd George didn't care about light, dark, foolish, wise etc? As long as they were virgins when he met them and not when they left him he was quite happy!
Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs. Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).
This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.
A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.
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.
Plato, you've been in PR, you surely know a smear when you read one.
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.
Although cancelled in at least one Swedish town due to increased fears of rape by ROPers.
Cameron: centre-rigth.competent - PM Howard: right-centre-right:crap - not PM. IDS: right. crap - Not PM Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts).crap - Not PM Major: centre-right.competent - PM Thatcher right-centre-rightcompetent - PM
Howard was a competent opposition leader
Rather like Corbyn, he is doing an excellent job leading the Opposition, long may it continue
Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs. Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).
This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.
A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.
Indeed. However the weakness of all Jenkins' biographies from Dilke to Churchill is that a lot of the time they are based on personal like and dislike as much as legitimate analysis. Dilke was a good Liberal ergo good, Chamberlain became a Unionist ergo was bad, therefore he entered into a conspiracy to ruin Dilke (excreta of male bovines). Asquith held the Liberals together and was good, Lloyd George destroyed them and was bad. Spot the irony there!
In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.
Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs. Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).
This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.
A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.
Indeed. However the weakness of all Jenkins' biographies from Dilke to Churchill is that a lot of the time they are based on personal like and dislike as much as legitimate analysis. Dilke was a good Liberal ergo good, Chamberlain became a Unionist ergo was bad, therefore he entered into a conspiracy to ruin Dilke (excreta of male bovines). Asquith held the Liberals together and was good, Lloyd George destroyed them and was bad. Spot the irony there!
In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.
Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs. Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).
This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.
A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.
Indeed. However the weakness of all Jenkins' biographies from Dilke to Churchill is that a lot of the time they are based on personal like and dislike as much as legitimate analysis. Dilke was a good Liberal ergo good, Chamberlain became a Unionist ergo was bad, therefore he entered into a conspiracy to ruin Dilke (excreta of male bovines). Asquith held the Liberals together and was good, Lloyd George destroyed them and was bad. Spot the irony there!
In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.
I'd question whether Asquith or Baldwin were particularly effective PMs. Asquith led a government but the driving force in it was Lloyd George.
O/T anecdote: I was giving a seminar for a Chinese group on care for families of fallen soliers with my cousin (Anthony Palmer, former deputy Chief of Defence Staff), and Anthony mentioned that Asquith introduced a policy in WW1 that soldiers should not normally be brought home but buried near where they had fallen (for overpowering logistical reasons in a major war - the rules have since changed). This was much-criticised by wealthy families with private family mausoleums, like Asquith himself.
The policy was instantly tested when Asquith's own son died on the front, days later. Asquith applied it to himself without hesitation or complaint. 100 years later, that moral certainty still rings true, whether or not he was otherwise effective - how sure are we that the average modern politician would not seek to find a way round?
Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs. Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).
This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.
A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.
Indeed. However the weakness of all Jenkins' biographies from Dilke to Churchill is that a lot of the time they are based on personal like and dislike as much as legitimate analysis. Dilke was a good Liberal ergo good, Chamberlain became a Unionist ergo was bad, therefore he entered into a conspiracy to ruin Dilke (excreta of male bovines). Asquith held the Liberals together and was good, Lloyd George destroyed them and was bad. Spot the irony there!
In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.
That is a very common failing of biographies in general.
Apparently IDS has private correspondence showing Cameron wanted bigger cuts on the disabled.
Because having been a recipient of benefits for the disabledin opposition he decided that lower orders shouldn't have the same from his government
IDS's charge that Osborne is only interested in looking after the Tory client state is the most explosive part of this episode and potentially the most significant over the longer term. Just why is it that Tory-voting pensioners have been insulated from the effects austerity, Chancellor?
Surely that was obvious to anyone with a brain cell in any case.
I'd question whether Asquith or Baldwin were particularly effective PMs. Asquith led a government but the driving force in it was Lloyd George.
O/T anecdote: I was giving a seminar for a Chinese group on care for families of fallen soliers with my cousin (Anthony Palmer, former deputy Chief of Defence Staff), and Anthony mentioned that Asquith introduced a policy in WW1 that soldiers should not normally be brought home but buried near where they had fallen (for overpowering logistical reasons in a major war - the rules have since changed). This was much-criticised by wealthy families with private family mausoleums, like Asquith himself.
The policy was instantly tested when Asquith's own son died on the front, days later. Asquith applied it to himself without hesitation or complaint. 100 years later, that moral certainty still rings true, whether or not he was otherwise effective - how sure are we that the average modern politician would not seek to find a way round?
Asquith was not wealthy. His wife was (his second wife, Margot Tennant) but his family were fairly low in the middle classes. They would not have had a private mausoleum.
The timeframe is also wrong. The decision was taken early in 1915. Raymond was killed on the first day of the Somme in summer 1916.
I think your friend with the anecdote is guilty of hero worship outrunning the facts.
Asquith was not wealthy. His wife was (his second wife, Margot Tennant) but his family were fairly low in the middle classes. They would not have had a private mausoleum.
The timeframe is also wrong. The decision was taken early in 1915. Raymond was killed on the first day of the Somme in summer 1916.
I think your friend with the anecdote is guilty of hero worship outrunning the facts.
Interesting, thanks. I'll delete the anecdote from my repertoire!
Comments
Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.
However, it's quite possible that the independent-thinking MPs haven't made up their minds when the whips ask them. Gove changed on the EU referendum, I believe, and it would have been hard to discern Boris's position until he had decided what was best for himself.
In a way this is a good thing, as it means MPs *might* just be swayed by debates, both inside and outside parliament. It does make it hard to lead, though.
UKIP Leave averages 95%
LD/Labour/SNP are around 30%.
This, of course, assumes accurate polls.
The national norm is for them to underscore the right-wing outcome whilst overscoring the left. That was true of phones and online during the GE.
Much of the focus in the GE was on the Con/Lab inaccuracy, rather than the Right/Left one.
What's more likely with a phone pollsters? A Shy Remain or a Shy Leave? Which view is right and which is left?
This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.
He wasn't called the Goat for nothing!
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.
The policy was instantly tested when Asquith's own son died on the front, days later. Asquith applied it to himself without hesitation or complaint. 100 years later, that moral certainty still rings true, whether or not he was otherwise effective - how sure are we that the average modern politician would not seek to find a way round?
The timeframe is also wrong. The decision was taken early in 1915. Raymond was killed on the first day of the Somme in summer 1916.
I think your friend with the anecdote is guilty of hero worship outrunning the facts.
judi capsa