If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.
She sparkled in the debates.
And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.
A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.
Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies
One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.
Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.
I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.
It's a damage limitation exercise and one where we may well have been better off avoiding.
I still don't think so. No buyers remorse here although I am disappointed to lose David Cameron as PM. I don't think any of the 5 are in his class to be frank.
It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.
I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.
It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.
Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.
One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.
Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.
I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.
It's a damage limitation exercise and one where we may well have been better off avoiding.
I still don't think so. No buyers remorse here although I am disappointed to lose David Cameron as PM. I don't think any of the 5 are in his class to be frank.
Im really really annoyed that Boris Johnson dropped out. I'd got "Hyperion to a satyr" lined up and ready to use.
If @OwenSmith_MP wins the Labour Leadership - that is a massive problem for the Conservatives.
Which is why we need to unite behind Theresa. Forget the vanity of electing some politically pure Brexit candidate, Labour might get their arse in gear and we may have a real fight on our hands for the next election.
It just shows how low this country has reached when May is the answer.
It is always a least worse choice. I worry about Mrs May's fence sitting on the referendum rather than taking up a full role for one or the other sides. In her favour is that I can see no role for Osborne with her as the PM but does she nurture talent or meddle too much?
Which is why the whole continent needs a new settlement. Dave was stupid to try and get Britain some special status. He should have tried to reform the idea to shift it back to Labour and to exclude benefits for a year.
This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.
One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.
Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.
I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.
It's a damage limitation exercise and one where we may well have been better off avoiding.
I don't think any of the 5 are in his class to be frank.
One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.
Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.
I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.
Inadvisable, certainly. I prefer other options to some of voteLeave suggestions and hope other options for leave win, but as much as labour paid the price for letting on a voice to the contest to broaden the views, in terms of party management leave light and leave to the max options may need to be put to the members.
Osborne would be a good nomination to head up the Brexit department.
No, no, no! He can't negotiate to save his life. He needs another job, one more in line with his special talents.
Is the post of ambassador to Outer Mongolia vacant (the Khrushchev/Molotov solution)?
A very good friend of mine once stopped a dinner party stone dead when she announced her dad had been a spy. And clearly not a very good one since he'd subsequently become the first Ambassador in Ulan Bator/she'd grown up there.
I'd imagine he was a very good spy if he was sent to Ulan Bator. After all that would be his primary job.
My internet irony didn't travel very well! She'd been told this tale by her parents to explain her peculiar childhood away after the event.
Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.
Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.
Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)
Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.
Butler was dead long before that.
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
Which is why the whole continent needs a new settlement. Dave was stupid to try and get Britain some special status. He should have tried to reform the idea to shift it back to Labour and to exclude benefits for a year.
This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.
yes.
remainers might like to reflect on we're out of the EU because Dave couldnt be arsed to reform the social security system.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
I think the limitations of the current crowd are unavoidable - virtually any profession now offers means of earning far more money than politics without any of the hassle...
Given the attacks on politicians over the past 10 years (albeit granted some of the expenses scandals were self inflicted) you really would have to be a masochist to put yourself (and your family) through the hassle....
Disagree totally , they are overpaid donkeys. They can stick their wages in the bank , gold plated pension and benefits and live high on the hog on expenses, great job with free/subsidised bars where they spend most of their time. Sounds like an easy gig to me.
You gphave to put up with the nuisance of the public though, it's still a fair trade off, but that is a big disincentive
Nonsense - you're happy with May because you're happy being out of the EU - but want to stick with FoM et al because it personally suits you. That's fine for you - it doesn't work for a very large % of the population who believed they were voting for Out, not a subsection of it.
Good Lord, I'm agreeing with you again. The world has certainly changed.
Indeed, the real battle for the Conservative soul is now starting as those who want all the financial trappings of EU membership square off against those for whom said trappings aren't so much of a benefit.
For reasons I've explained elsewhere, I'm in the no Single Market, no Freedom of Movement camp. I realise that's not a pain-free option economically but we can negotiate solid bilateral deals with the EU on the Swiss model. The problem is too many people have enjoyed the benefits the Single Market and FoM has brought them while they have been insulated from the social and humanitarian consequences.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
As you can imagine loads of people have been asking the "I've been here forever and a day" seniors about her time at BZW. So far the answer is solid but not memorable.
Agreed about the money. If she takes it then she loses.
That's consistent with what I'm hearing (from her time at Invesco)
BZW .....blimey, that's going back a bit, makes me think of all those blokes wearing striped blazers, she must have been the only woman working in the City then, although I do recall there was also that "Superwoman" Nicola Horlick, earning millions and bringing up umpteen children at the same time.
If @OwenSmith_MP wins the Labour Leadership - that is a massive problem for the Conservatives.
Which is why we need to unite behind Theresa. Forget the vanity of electing some politically pure Brexit candidate, Labour might get their arse in gear and we may have a real fight on our hands for the next election.
It just shows how low this country has reached when May is the answer.
It is always a least worse choice. I worry about Mrs May's fence sitting on the referendum rather than taking up a full role for one or the other sides. In her favour is that I can see no role for Osborne with her as the PM but does she nurture talent or meddle too much?
The was something (Spectator coffee house?) that said Ms May was a micro manager. But it's all third hand stuff.
Incidentally although I have been stressing Crabb's chances, I would actually love to see May get it, if only to see the consternation it would cause the following:
1) Labour, who have had to manufacture roles for women to try to pretend that they're not a bunch of misogynists;
2) The 'right on' left, who will have to deal with the fact that both Britain's first female Prime Ministers were right-wing Tories;
3) Conservative Home, who wanted a Brexiteer;
4) George Osborne, who sent May to the Home Office to make sure she would never be his rival for the leadership;
5) The BBC, who having spent years attacking her in interviews are now going to have to grovel to her for information on the government.
Somebody who has seriously pissed off so many deeply unpleasant people can't be all bad, and watching their anger would be absolutely hilarious!
I think you've got the BBC wrong - they're cheerleading her right now. She's a Remainer.
Was. She can't be now even if she wanted.
She's not a risk to leave. She's a risk to certain leave options. Whether that's enough to keep what was the pro remain media on side I don't know. But if people do t like her leave option they can vote against her if they're Tories or switch to UKIP afterwards if she wins - nothing definitive said the government would implement voteLeave plans, as voteLeave admitted.
One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.
Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.
I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.
It's a damage limitation exercise and one where we may well have been better off avoiding.
I still don't think so. No buyers remorse here although I am disappointed to lose David Cameron as PM. I don't think any of the 5 are in his class to be frank.
Im really really annoyed that Boris Johnson dropped out. I'd got "Hyperion to a satyr" lined up and ready to use.
Was the only reason I wanted Boris as PM, we would get a lot more classical history references and I could use some more of my brilliant Hellenic puns.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.
She sparkled in the debates.
And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.
A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.
Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies
Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Er, but she 'did'. 1984-5 wasn't the first miners strike. It was just that that was the one she had prepared for and was able to stand her ground.
People still wear their Maggie rose tinted fantasy glasses.
From what I've read, it's true: the Thatcher government well remembered what happened to Heath, and put measures into place. They gave into the miners demands a couple of years before 1984 because they were not in a position to win.
During those couple of years, the government stockpiled massive amounts of coal at power stations and elsewhere, paid for some power stations to be converted to (also?) burn oil, and did deals with road hauliers in case the railway unions came out in sympathy.
All the candidates other than Theresa May are woefully lacking in the necessary top level experience to take over the top job. The Conservatives are going to need a truly exceptional reason to pick anyone else. I can't see one.
Total rubbish. All five would be perfectly capable of doing the job. They are a thousand times more competent than all but a handful in your shambolic party. I suggest you turn your attention on getting your mess sorted out
I'm a member of no party. Though in the last week I've probably moved from ABL to ABC.
Likewise. The nice thing is that it takes me back to how I thought in the 90s so I feel 20 years younger.
One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.
Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.
I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.
In my timeline - Leave is still in campaign mode. It's gone from 100% to 75% - but still very noticeable. We know that we've won Stage One, but those who wanted Remain are doing their damnedest to dilute the result, elect someone who will find reasons stuff can't be done et al.
If May gets the gig, the Leavers won't be happy - at all. Gove didn't knife Boris for the sake of it.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
I think the limitations of the current crowd are unavoidable - virtually any profession now offers means of earning far more money than politics without any of the hassle...
Given the attacks on politicians over the past 10 years (albeit granted some of the expenses scandals were self inflicted) you really would have to be a masochist to put yourself (and your family) through the hassle....
Disagree totally , they are overpaid donkeys. They can stick their wages in the bank , gold plated pension and benefits and live high on the hog on expenses, great job with free/subsidised bars where they spend most of their time. Sounds like an easy gig to me.
The UK's highest paid politician is Sturgeon and Salmond's racked up a half dozen pensions by sitting on his large behind. Your people.
This article is only about 6/10 right. Boris was never ever the favourite, neither amongst MPs nor the membership. He was only ever favourite beyond the party, which has zilch say.
Theresa May is the favourite and that's her biggest problem.
Her second biggest problem is that she doesn't really support Brexit, or at least she was flakey. The membership may love her but they also wanted to Leave the EU. Once Leadsom attacks May over this and all the other Leavers, including Gove and Boris, join in then Theresa May could have problems.
Whatever David has written here, the next four years will be the Brexit Government. That is what will define it for all time.
Andrea Leadsom, tipped here a while back, is beginning to look like a very very good bet.
I'd agree with a lot of that. Does anyone have the latest polling guesstimates re % of Tory members Leave/Remain?
I'm very wary of *I took soundings* posts either way on here. The fellow Tory members they seem to know agree with their own personal view. Shock.
Well quite, the referendum proved that those allegedly close to the action actually know very little, they're all too busy agreeing with each other. I won't name the Labour activist who said he hadn't met a single Leaver, let alone the prominent Tory who was heavily backing Leave at 65% +.
Politics is full of nodding dog sycophants.
I'd forgotten about that Labour activist. I do wonder exactly which wards he was canvassing - and why was he canvassing them at all?!
Actually NickP said he was getting canvass returns of 80% for remain in Isli ngton, which isn't too far off the 75% Remain vote on the day.
Though looking at west Yorkshire's results it was obvious TSE was just ramping when he was reporting "heh good response tonight in Pudsey". Lol.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
As you can imagine loads of people have been asking the "I've been here forever and a day" seniors about her time at BZW. So far the answer is solid but not memorable.
Agreed about the money. If she takes it then she loses.
That's consistent with what I'm hearing (from her time at Invesco)
BZW .....blimey, that's going back a bit, makes me think of all those blokes wearing striped blazers, she must have been the only woman working in the City then, although I do recall there was also that "Superwoman" Nicola Horlick, earning millions and bringing up umpteen children at the same time.
Nicola outsourced her children!
And she wasn't as good as her PR.
I must admit I'm surprised that someone as young as Max still remembers Breezy...
Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.
Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.
Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)
Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.
Butler was dead long before that.
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
Macmillan's duplicity isn't really questionable. I would take issue that Butler's candidacy was dead though. Certainly it was misfiring (which was representative of the man as a potential leader) but until the last moment was in better shape than Home's - someone who was both a peer and who had already ruled himself out of running.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
The legend of thatcher is all there is.
Ps Tories and labourites, except for really apt comparisons please stop talking about what thatcher woukd do.about things. Difficult I know, but we can do it gang! This message to pundits everywhere.
What makes a May vs Leadsom battle so intriguing is that demographically - they're very alike. Both grammar educated, both had significant careers before politics, similar age. Leadsom is a lot warmer, May seems more commanding but has inevitable baggage.
I hope he does challenge. That -£1050 on David Miliband isn't going to expire itself.
All those people taking Milliband at 8 must reckon Corbyn is going to hold on till 2020.
Who knows what they're thinking. He wouldn't be value at 80. How and when does it happen so that he wins the crown? Somehow, he has to reenter parliament while Corbyn is still leader, and then he has to win a contest in a party that has moved markedly to the left since Corbyn won, never mind since EdM won.
Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.
Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.
Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)
Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.
Butler was dead long before that.
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).
Basically Hailsham was popular with activists, but blew his chances among MPs by posing for a photograph with his new baby, which they thought undignified and tacky (how times change). They had never liked him much and this was the last straw. When this was related to Macmillan he realised Hailsham would be unable to block Butler and cast about for another candidate. Home happened to be the only one he thought might command wide support. He was at it happens wrong but the cabinet lacked the backbone to tell him to shove his silly prejudices for the good of the party.
Today Hailsham would have won easily as he was ahead of his time in many ways. But he seemed to want it too much and to be too clownish for most Tories.
It would be unfair to compare him to Boris ...but there is a certain parallel, is there not?
A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.
Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies
Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.
Fair enough - but equally she only qualified in 1953 so I think "successful" is a stretch - she'd only just have been starting out on her career by the time she was elected (1959)
You are all forgetting that Cameron, himself, was completely unknown to the mass of party members and the general public before he was elected leader. True, he made a mess of it in the end.
Cameron was elected LotO. This is for PM.
Leadsom - the UKIP, Banks, MikeK and Daily Express favoured candidate. Four black spots !! ..
Don't forget IDS. What you will be electing in May is an Autocrat in the Tzarina mode; she will tramp allover the Tory party with her favourite slippers. You wait and see.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
The legend of thatcher is all there is.
Ps Tories and labourites, except for really apt comparisons please stop talking about what thatcher woukd do.about things. Difficult I know, but we can do it gang! This message to pundits everywhere.
What makes a May vs Leadsom battle so intriguing is that demographically - they're very alike. Both grammar educated, both had significant careers before politics, similar age. Leadsom is a lot warmer, May seems more commanding but has inevitable baggage.
I hope it comes down to a fight between the two.
Oh it may be apt here - that was more a plea I send out into the aether occasionally In The hope politicians and pundits stop trying to scare or inspire me with thatcher out of nowhere
It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.
I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.
It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.
Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.
We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think. Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.
I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.
It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.
Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
As you can imagine loads of people have been asking the "I've been here forever and a day" seniors about her time at BZW. So far the answer is solid but not memorable.
Agreed about the money. If she takes it then she loses.
That's consistent with what I'm hearing (from her time at Invesco)
BZW .....blimey, that's going back a bit, makes me think of all those blokes wearing striped blazers, she must have been the only woman working in the City then, although I do recall there was also that "Superwoman" Nicola Horlick, earning millions and bringing up umpteen children at the same time.
Nicola outsourced her children!
And she wasn't as good as her PR.
I must admit I'm surprised that someone as young as Max still remembers Breezy...
The smartest decision she made was to build up coal stocks in advance. The mistake Scargill made was to call a strike in the spring/early summer.
Don't know whether those were mistakes that Heath/the miners made in 1973/4
Part of the secret of success is knowing when to fight and when to tactically manoeuvre to better ground
Indeed, my recollection of the events of 1973/4 was that it built up slowly through November and early December and I remember watching Panorama which extrapolated coal stocks and usage and said we would be in trouble in the New Year which we were. The 3-day week was announced in mid December to start after Christmas but this was a dreadful blunder as it encouraged the miners to think they had the Government on the ropes.
The NUM rejected a final pay offer, called a strike ballot which they got and the all out strike began in early February by which time the 3-day week had been up and running for a little while with a programme of increasing rolling power cuts - I remember doing my homework by candle light on a number of occasions.
Counterfactual historians argue if Heath had called the election immediately after Christmas, he would have won but instead he waited until February 7th and called the election for three weeks later.
February 1974 was interesting in that BOTH the Conservatives and Labour lost votes - the former lost 8.5% and the latter 6% with the big winners being the Liberals and the Nationalists. Heath won the popular vote but Wilson won more seats.
Nonsense - you're happy with May because you're happy being out of the EU - but want to stick with FoM et al because it personally suits you. That's fine for you - it doesn't work for a very large % of the population who believed they were voting for Out, not a subsection of it.
Good Lord, I'm agreeing with you again. The world has certainly changed.
Indeed, the real battle for the Conservative soul is now starting as those who want all the financial trappings of EU membership square off against those for whom said trappings aren't so much of a benefit.
For reasons I've explained elsewhere, I'm in the no Single Market, no Freedom of Movement camp. I realise that's not a pain-free option economically but we can negotiate solid bilateral deals with the EU on the Swiss model. The problem is too many people have enjoyed the benefits the Single Market and FoM has brought them while they have been insulated from the social and humanitarian consequences.
It really is quite bizarre - you, me and Dennis Skinner.
Eden (previously Foreign Secretary) Macmillan (previously Chancellor) Home (previously Foreign Secretary) Callaghan (previously Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary) Major (previously Foreign Secretary and Chancellor) Brown (previously Chancellor)
All the candidates other than Theresa May are woefully lacking in the necessary top level experience to take over the top job. The Conservatives are going to need a truly exceptional reason to pick anyone else. I can't see one.
Other than Macmillan, despite their experience, they were all disasters and completely useless Prime Ministers?
A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.
Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies
Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.
Fair enough - but equally she only qualified in 1953 so I think "successful" is a stretch - she'd only just have been starting out on her career by the time she was elected (1959)
As I recall Mrs Thatcher's legal training was only pursued to further her political career. (Charles Moore's biography)
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.
She sparkled in the debates.
And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.
Thatcher was never a housewife. She was a professional politician.
Again, that wasn't what I wrote, or meant. She paraded herself as a housewife, or rather someone who would use the common sense of a household budget to sort out the nation's finances. It was a smart simple strategy which resonated with the post-IMF farce we were in. That ties in with your subsequent point about timing being everything.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.
She sparkled in the debates.
And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.
A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.
Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies
Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.
There was no "bio" to her Chemistry, thank you very much...
May be the Tories, UKIP and LibDems could all vote for that nice lady from Plaid?
(oops, forgot you can't trust the LibDems)
Or everyone could vote for Kirsty Williams and she could run Wales surrounded by a Cabinet of her opponents. It's basically where Thatcher was in 1979 and that turned out all right.
Which is why the whole continent needs a new settlement. Dave was stupid to try and get Britain some special status. He should have tried to reform the idea to shift it back to Labour and to exclude benefits for a year.
This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.
People are now circling the elephant in the room.
One of the final acts that resulted in Brexit was Merkel's unilateral decision to invite all and sundry ( not just refugees) to Germany. She never consulted with the other leaders particularly the leaders of the countries through which these people would transit. She never prepared places for them to go or the finance and infrastructure to support them and she never considered that it would not be just refugees that would come. We then all saw what happened.
Cameron on the other hand realised the issues and went all out for help at the camps in safe areas something the UK had been financing pretty much itself for quite a while.
It was the failure of the EU to identify true refugees from simple economic migrants that caused much concern. The failure meant that the true refugees could not be targeted for the help and our protection they really desperately needed and more time was spent on building border, controls fences and picking up dead bodies from the Med.
It is completely ironic that the most democratic person who had the correct approach has now had to resign from office having been proved entirely correct. On the other hand the on who considers herself the leader of Europe remains in office along with the unelected sycophants in Brussels. They all failed those most in need when they needed it most and they will have to live with that though I suspect they don't really care.
This article is only about 6/10 right. Boris was never ever the favourite, neither amongst MPs nor the membership. He was only ever favourite beyond the party, which has zilch say.
Theresa May is the favourite and that's her biggest problem.
Her second biggest problem is that she doesn't really support Brexit, or at least she was flakey. The membership may love her but they also wanted to Leave the EU. Once Leadsom attacks May over this and all the other Leavers, including Gove and Boris, join in then Theresa May could have problems.
Whatever David has written here, the next four years will be the Brexit Government. That is what will define it for all time.
Andrea Leadsom, tipped here a while back, is beginning to look like a very very good bet.
I'd agree with a lot of that. Does anyone have the latest polling guesstimates re % of Tory members Leave/Remain?
I'm very wary of *I took soundings* posts either way on here. The fellow Tory members they seem to know agree with their own personal view. Shock.
Well quite, the referendum proved that those allegedly close to the action actually know very little, they're all too busy agreeing with each other. I won't name the Labour activist who said he hadn't met a single Leaver, let alone the prominent Tory who was heavily backing Leave at 65% +.
Politics is full of nodding dog sycophants.
I'd forgotten about that Labour activist. I do wonder exactly which wards he was canvassing - and why was he canvassing them at all?!
Actually NickP said he was getting canvass returns of 80% for remain in Isli ngton, which isn't too far off the 75% Remain vote on the day.
Though looking at west Yorkshire's results it was obvious TSE was just ramping when he was reporting "heh good response tonight in Pudsey". Lol.
I think @blackburn63 and I are referring to another poster...
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).
Basically Hailsham was popular with activists, but blew his chances among MPs by posing for a photograph with his new baby, which they thought undignified and tacky (how times change). They had never liked him much and this was the last straw. When this was related to Macmillan he realised Hailsham would be unable to block Butler and cast about for another candidate. Home happened to be the only one he thought might command wide support. He was at it happens wrong but the cabinet lacked the backbone to tell him to shove his silly prejudices for the good of the party.
Today Hailsham would have won easily as he was ahead of his time in many ways. But he seemed to want it too much and to be too clownish for most Tories.
It would be unfair to compare him to Boris ...but there is a certain parallel, is there not?
He cheerfully acknowledged that he would have been terrible at the job. It was the betrayal by a friend that he resented. He was always a man of his word - and expected people to keep their promises.
(Kate - the baby in question - is an absolute star who I rate incredibly highly)
We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.
They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.
Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies
Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.
Fair enough - but equally she only qualified in 1953 so I think "successful" is a stretch - she'd only just have been starting out on her career by the time she was elected (1959)
As I recall Mrs Thatcher's legal training was only pursued to further her political career. (Charles Moore's biography)
Yes, I would agree with that. It didn't make her unsuccessful. Most barristers really struggle to make an impact. She was better than that, although she also had no money problems given Dennis' wealth.
Eden (previously Foreign Secretary) Macmillan (previously Chancellor) Home (previously Foreign Secretary) Callaghan (previously Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary) Major (previously Foreign Secretary and Chancellor) Brown (previously Chancellor)
All the candidates other than Theresa May are woefully lacking in the necessary top level experience to take over the top job. The Conservatives are going to need a truly exceptional reason to pick anyone else. I can't see one.
Other than Macmillan, despite their experience, they were all disasters and completely useless Prime Ministers?
Callaghan received a poisoned chalice from Wilson. I'm not sure anybody else was going to do much better.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Thatcher as a wimp. LOL. She took on the miners and won. She backed down very rarely (the poll tax) and the unions wasn't one of them.
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.
She sparkled in the debates.
And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.
A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.
Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies
Her first degree was in Chemistry but she later qualified and practiced as a barrister, though not for all that long as her marriage to Denis and the birth of her children meant that she didn't need the income and also had family commitments (the 1950s not being an age of return-to-work mums outside of the royal family).
If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.
Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.
"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."
Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.
The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.
She should turn down Aaron Banks's money
It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in
FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.
He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.
As you can imagine loads of people have been asking the "I've been here forever and a day" seniors about her time at BZW. So far the answer is solid but not memorable.
Agreed about the money. If she takes it then she loses.
That's consistent with what I'm hearing (from her time at Invesco)
BZW .....blimey, that's going back a bit, makes me think of all those blokes wearing striped blazers, she must have been the only woman working in the City then, although I do recall there was also that "Superwoman" Nicola Horlick, earning millions and bringing up umpteen children at the same time.
Nicola outsourced her children!
And she wasn't as good as her PR.
I must admit I'm surprised that someone as young as Max still remembers Breezy...
I'm at BIB!
Most of my mates there are on the banking or trading side, so I guess you won't know them
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
The legend of thatcher is all there is.
Ps Tories and labourites, except for really apt comparisons please stop talking about what thatcher woukd do.about things. Difficult I know, but we can do it gang! This message to pundits everywhere.
What makes a May vs Leadsom battle so intriguing is that demographically - they're very alike. Both grammar educated, both had significant careers before politics, similar age. Leadsom is a lot warmer, May seems more commanding but has inevitable baggage.
I hope it comes down to a fight between the two.
They're both strong candidates and if it was for LOTO I think would be evenly matched. But this is for PM. Also don't forget Leadsom's career comes with its own (perfectly legal) baggage too, Labour will enjoy reminding voters about.
He cheerfully acknowledged that he would have been terrible at the job. It was the betrayal by a friend that he resented. He was always a man of his word - and expected people to keep their promises.
(Kate - the baby in question - is an absolute star who I rate incredibly highly)
He was right then, he would have been terrible at it!
I can see though why he made such a good Lord Chancellor on two occasions.
We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.
They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.
Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.
If it looks like there's a realistic chance for the new PM to get a 40-50 seat majority while Labour is in such disarray, I think they should go for it.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Thatcher as a wimp. LOL. She took on the miners and won. She backed down very rarely (the poll tax) and the unions wasn't one of them.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
The legend of thatcher is all there is.
Ps Tories and labourites, except for really apt comparisons please stop talking about what thatcher woukd do.about things. Difficult I know, but we can do it gang! This message to pundits everywhere.
What makes a May vs Leadsom battle so intriguing is that demographically - they're very alike. Both grammar educated, both had significant careers before politics, similar age. Leadsom is a lot warmer, May seems more commanding but has inevitable baggage.
I hope it comes down to a fight between the two.
Oh it may be apt here - that was more a plea I send out into the aether occasionally In The hope politicians and pundits stop trying to scare or inspire me with thatcher out of nowhere
Thatcher's long shadow, like Churchill's won't go away until everyone who knew either are dead. It's an incredible political legacy.
Eden (previously Foreign Secretary) Macmillan (previously Chancellor) Home (previously Foreign Secretary) Callaghan (previously Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary) Major (previously Foreign Secretary and Chancellor) Brown (previously Chancellor)
All the candidates other than Theresa May are woefully lacking in the necessary top level experience to take over the top job. The Conservatives are going to need a truly exceptional reason to pick anyone else. I can't see one.
Other than Macmillan, despite their experience, they were all disasters and completely useless Prime Ministers?
Thinking about it, people have told me in the past that Eden would have been great had he taken over 5 years earlier (when Churchill had promised).
Obviously n=2, but are Brown and Eden both examples of people who became PM once parst their sell by date?
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
The legend of thatcher is all there is.
Ps Tories and labourites, except for really apt comparisons please stop talking about what thatcher woukd do.about things. Difficult I know, but we can do it gang! This message to pundits everywhere.
What makes a May vs Leadsom battle so intriguing is that demographically - they're very alike. Both grammar educated, both had significant careers before politics, similar age. Leadsom is a lot warmer, May seems more commanding but has inevitable baggage.
I hope it comes down to a fight between the two.
I agree 100%. I both hope and think (dangerous combo when betting) that it will be between those two.
I think Leadsom's best hope is if the MP vote goes two or three rounds i.e. the no hopers don't drop straight out. She could do with some momentum.
We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.
They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.
Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.
The House of Lords blocking Brexit woukd see it forced through anyway and the immediate reformation of the chamber,
You are all forgetting that Cameron, himself, was completely unknown to the mass of party members and the general public before he was elected leader. True, he made a mess of it in the end.
Cameron was elected LotO. This is for PM.
Leadsom - the UKIP, Banks, MikeK and Daily Express favoured candidate. Four black spots !! ..
Don't forget IDS. What you will be electing in May is an Autocrat in the Tzarina mode; she will tramp allover the Tory party with her favourite slippers. You wait and see.
IDS .... couldn't hear him. Turn up the volume mate ....
I'm not "electing" anyone as indeed most of PB won't be, that is if the race even gets to the members stage.
I support May because of this field she is, by a distance, the standout candidate to become the best PM. It's a no brainer. Crabb and Leadsom are placing markers for the future. Brutus is a busted flush and Fox's candidature is a triumph of lunacy over reality.
The next domestic count is due to report late in August and then late in November.
It will be interesting to see the impact of these numbers later in the year and to see whether there has been any change in the flow of people following the vote.
Beforehand the commentariat were predicting a surge to beat the deadline yet the exact opposite has happened with many of their other predictions, interest rate hikes and FTSE collapses for example, and I wonder whether potential arrivals will feel dissuaded by both the vote and the arguably overblown reports of hostility in the UK.
On balance, I guess that the flow of people to the UK will slow.
Which is why the whole continent needs a new settlement. Dave was stupid to try and get Britain some special status. He should have tried to reform the idea to shift it back to Labour and to exclude benefits for a year.
This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.
People are now circling the elephant in the room.
One of the final acts that resulted in Brexit was Merkel's unilateral decision to invite all and sundry ( not just refugees) to Germany. She never consulted with the other leaders particularly the leaders of the countries through which these people would transit. She never prepared places for them to go or the finance and infrastructure to support them and she never considered that it would not be just refugees that would come. We then all saw what happened.
Cameron on the other hand realised the issues and went all out for help at the camps in safe areas something the UK had been financing pretty much itself for quite a while.
It was the failure of the EU to identify true refugees from simple economic migrants that caused much concern. The failure meant that the true refugees could not be targeted for the help and our protection they really desperately needed and more time was spent on building border, controls fences and picking up dead bodies from the Med.
It is completely ironic that the most democratic person who had the correct approach has now had to resign from office having been proved entirely correct. On the other hand the on who considers herself the leader of Europe remains in office along with the unelected sycophants in Brussels. They all failed those most in need when they needed it most and they will have to live with that though I suspect they don't really care.
I agree - when the history of what led to Brexit is written Cameron & Merkel's approaches to the refugee question will be seen as an important factor.
May be the Tories, UKIP and LibDems could all vote for that nice lady from Plaid?
(oops, forgot you can't trust the LibDems)
Or everyone could vote for Kirsty Williams and she could run Wales surrounded by a Cabinet of her opponents. It's basically where Thatcher was in 1979 and that turned out all right.
Typical LibDems.
5th largest party and they think they should be in government
Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.
Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.
Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)
Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.
Butler was dead long before that.
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).
Powell's critique of Butler's actions (or inactions) in opting to serve under Home (which Powell of course didn't, so hardly an unbiased source) is beautiful.
You are all forgetting that Cameron, himself, was completely unknown to the mass of party members and the general public before he was elected leader. True, he made a mess of it in the end.
Cameron was elected LotO. This is for PM.
Leadsom - the UKIP, Banks, MikeK and Daily Express favoured candidate. Four black spots !! ..
Don't forget IDS. What you will be electing in May is an Autocrat in the Tzarina mode; she will tramp allover the Tory party with her favourite slippers. You wait and see.
IDS .... couldn't hear him. Turn up the volume mate ....
I'm not "electing" anyone as indeed most of PB won't be, that is if the race even gets to the members stage.
I support May because of this field she is, by a distance, the standout candidate to become the best PM. It's a no brainer. Crabb and Leadsom are placing markers for the future. Brutus is a busted flush and Fox's candidature is a triumph of lunacy over reality.
Leadership elections don't really work like that though. Hitherto none of them have been publicly declaring for the top job, which is political suicide. Now the race has begun we get to see a different dimension to them. Winners often come from behind: Cameron being a prime example. He was 4th at one point and, indeed, little known even in the shadow education brief.
Let's wait and see how this pans out. As the cliche goes, a week is a long time in politics.
We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think. Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
Bar gay marriage and a surprising rise in his majority - what's Cameron's legacy post Brexit? He helped improve the number of kids getting adopted? I liked him for ages, but when I strip away his frontman abilities, where's the meat? Blair did huge damage in the long term - and I regret ever voting for him.
Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.
Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.
Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)
Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.
Butler was dead long before that.
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).
Powell's critique of Butler's actions (or inactions) in opting to serve under Home (which Powell of course didn't, so hardly an unbiased source) is beautiful.
I've never read it but I guess the gist is, 'R. A. Butler; making jellyfish look like brontosauruses since 1902'?
Eden (previously Foreign Secretary) Macmillan (previously Chancellor) Home (previously Foreign Secretary) Callaghan (previously Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary) Major (previously Foreign Secretary and Chancellor) Brown (previously Chancellor)
All the candidates other than Theresa May are woefully lacking in the necessary top level experience to take over the top job. The Conservatives are going to need a truly exceptional reason to pick anyone else. I can't see one.
Other than Macmillan, despite their experience, they were all disasters and completely useless Prime Ministers?
Douglas-Home is rather underrated as a prime minister. He only served for a year, so it's hardly surprising that he's forgotten, but in that time he stabilised the government and came close to winning an election which looked out of the question during the dog days of Macmillan's term. He certainly wasn't a failure. You could argue that Callaghan, given the circumstances bequeathed him, wasn't dissimilar.
We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think. Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
Bar gay marriage and a surprising rise in his majority - what's Cameron's legacy post Brexit? He helped improve the number of kids getting adopted? I liked him for ages, but when I strip away his frontman abilities, where's the meat? Blair did huge damage in the long term - and I regret ever voting for him.
I think by failing to address the UK's budget deficit problem Cameron has also done huge damage. He's wasted years.
We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think. Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
At PMQs, he faces Jeremy Corbyn (and various emailers) in a format that favours the Prime Minister in any case. Even against Ed Miliband, David Cameron looked less impressive. Will history be kind to him? Harold Wilson's stock has risen over recent years but not any others.
p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.
Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Thatcher as a wimp. LOL. She took on the miners and won. She backed down very rarely (the poll tax) and the unions wasn't one of them.
No, she didn't take on the miners in 1981; she backed down. You're just ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit with your caricature of SuperMaggie.
We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.
They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.
Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.
The House of Lords blocking Brexit woukd see it forced through anyway and the immediate reformation of the chamber,
With the likes of Lord Mandelson and Lord Helseltine sitting in the Lords, I have absolutely no confidence they won't try and block Brexit whenever they can.
You are all forgetting that Cameron, himself, was completely unknown to the mass of party members and the general public before he was elected leader. True, he made a mess of it in the end.
Cameron was elected LotO. This is for PM.
Leadsom - the UKIP, Banks, MikeK and Daily Express favoured candidate. Four black spots !! ..
Don't forget IDS. What you will be electing in May is an Autocrat in the Tzarina mode; she will tramp allover the Tory party with her favourite slippers. You wait and see.
IDS .... couldn't hear him. Turn up the volume mate ....
I'm not "electing" anyone as indeed most of PB won't be, that is if the race even gets to the members stage.
I support May because of this field she is, by a distance, the standout candidate to become the best PM. It's a no brainer. Crabb and Leadsom are placing markers for the future. Brutus is a busted flush and Fox's candidature is a triumph of lunacy over reality.
It had better get to the members stage; if it doesn't there will be cries of an elite stitch up, which will do nobody any good. I don't think you realise how febrile the situation in large parts of our population is. (edit)
News reaches me that Stewart Jackson late, and most certainly unlamented, of this parish is set to become one of the richest Conservative MP's.
Vast quantities of cash is being thrown in his direction by all the campaign teams in the hope he'll not endorse their candidate. Aaron Banks is said to be prepared to bankrupt himself to ensure the Peterborough MP doesn't favour Leadsom with his support.
We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think. Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
At PMQs, he faces Jeremy Corbyn (and various emailers) in a format that favours the Prime Minister in any case. Even against Ed Miliband, David Cameron looked less impressive. Will history be kind to him? Harold Wilson's stock has risen over recent years but not any others.
For the coalition years, yes I think Cameron's stock will rise
He cheerfully acknowledged that he would have been terrible at the job. It was the betrayal by a friend that he resented. He was always a man of his word - and expected people to keep their promises.
(Kate - the baby in question - is an absolute star who I rate incredibly highly)
He was right then, he would have been terrible at it!
I can see though why he made such a good Lord Chancellor on two occasions.
If you ever go to Churchill College it's worth digging out his correspondence with Robert Runcie. I think they exchanged 16 letters on whether it is the "property" or the "nature" of God to have mercy....
It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.
I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.
It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.
Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.
.........maybe? In today's political turmoil who knows what might happen today let alone next week.
Impeachment? Is that different from an act of attainder?
Impeach who? How?
That Mail article on Blair.
How can he be impeached when he holds no office?
Arguably, he *should* have been impeached in 2004, when it was clear that he'd misled parliament into backing war in Iraq, but that boat has long since sailed.
At a time of political crisis, an old friend of ours steps into the breach. Doreen's announcement on our situation. https://youtu.be/rQ0uUdpFKZA "I will build a wall around the black country to keep the yam yams in". "I would have paid £1.99 for BHS as i had my eye on a jumper" "proud people need a sense of identity and our culture is as good as any other bugger"
We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think. Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
Bar gay marriage and a surprising rise in his majority - what's Cameron's legacy post Brexit? He helped improve the number of kids getting adopted? I liked him for ages, but when I strip away his frontman abilities, where's the meat? Blair did huge damage in the long term - and I regret ever voting for him.
Cameron has a tragic legacy, lots of promise and yet somehow he let it all slip through his fingers.
Comments
Not that he needs encouragement. TSE -"I close my eyes and counts to ten ...."
This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.
The smartest decision she made was to build up coal stocks in advance. The mistake Scargill made was to call a strike in the spring/early summer.
Don't know whether those were mistakes that Heath/the miners made in 1973/4
Part of the secret of success is knowing when to fight and when to tactically manoeuvre to better ground
Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary
(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)
remainers might like to reflect on we're out of the EU because Dave couldnt be arsed to reform the social security system.
Indeed, the real battle for the Conservative soul is now starting as those who want all the financial trappings of EU membership square off against those for whom said trappings aren't so much of a benefit.
For reasons I've explained elsewhere, I'm in the no Single Market, no Freedom of Movement camp. I realise that's not a pain-free option economically but we can negotiate solid bilateral deals with the EU on the Swiss model. The problem is too many people have enjoyed the benefits the Single Market and FoM has brought them while they have been insulated from the social and humanitarian consequences.
She's not a risk to leave. She's a risk to certain leave options. Whether that's enough to keep what was the pro remain media on side I don't know. But if people do t like her leave option they can vote against her if they're Tories or switch to UKIP afterwards if she wins - nothing definitive said the government would implement voteLeave plans, as voteLeave admitted.
During those couple of years, the government stockpiled massive amounts of coal at power stations and elsewhere, paid for some power stations to be converted to (also?) burn oil, and did deals with road hauliers in case the railway unions came out in sympathy.
If May gets the gig, the Leavers won't be happy - at all. Gove didn't knife Boris for the sake of it.
All very much step by step, preparing the ground.
He's spoiling the all woman line up
Head of state - Woman
PM - woman
FM Scotland - woman
FM N I - woman
FM Wales - man
he could at least declare himself transgender and not spoil the party.
ngton, which isn't too far off the 75% Remain vote on the day.
Though looking at west Yorkshire's results it was obvious TSE was just ramping when he was reporting "heh good response tonight in Pudsey". Lol.
And she wasn't as good as her PR.
I must admit I'm surprised that someone as young as Max still remembers Breezy...
I hope it comes down to a fight between the two.
Basically Hailsham was popular with activists, but blew his chances among MPs by posing for a photograph with his new baby, which they thought undignified and tacky (how times change). They had never liked him much and this was the last straw. When this was related to Macmillan he realised Hailsham would be unable to block Butler and cast about for another candidate. Home happened to be the only one he thought might command wide support. He was at it happens wrong but the cabinet lacked the backbone to tell him to shove his silly prejudices for the good of the party.
Today Hailsham would have won easily as he was ahead of his time in many ways. But he seemed to want it too much and to be too clownish for most Tories.
It would be unfair to compare him to Boris ...but there is a certain parallel, is there not?
Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.
The NUM rejected a final pay offer, called a strike ballot which they got and the all out strike began in early February by which time the 3-day week had been up and running for a little while with a programme of increasing rolling power cuts - I remember doing my homework by candle light on a number of occasions.
Counterfactual historians argue if Heath had called the election immediately after Christmas, he would have won but instead he waited until February 7th and called the election for three weeks later.
February 1974 was interesting in that BOTH the Conservatives and Labour lost votes - the former lost 8.5% and the latter 6% with the big winners being the Liberals and the Nationalists. Heath won the popular vote but Wilson won more seats.
(oops, forgot you can't trust the LibDems)
Leadsom could be exactly right for the moment.
One of the final acts that resulted in Brexit was Merkel's unilateral decision to invite all and sundry ( not just refugees) to Germany. She never consulted with the other leaders particularly the leaders of the countries through which these people would transit. She never prepared places for them to go or the finance and infrastructure to support them and she never considered that it would not be just refugees that would come. We then all saw what happened.
Cameron on the other hand realised the issues and went all out for help at the camps in safe areas something the UK had been financing pretty much itself for quite a while.
It was the failure of the EU to identify true refugees from simple economic migrants that caused much concern. The failure meant that the true refugees could not be targeted for the help and our protection they really desperately needed and more time was spent on building border, controls fences and picking up dead bodies from the Med.
It is completely ironic that the most democratic person who had the correct approach has now had to resign from office having been proved entirely correct. On the other hand the on who considers herself the leader of Europe remains in office along with the unelected sycophants in Brussels. They all failed those most in need when they needed it most and they will have to live with that though I suspect they don't really care.
(Kate - the baby in question - is an absolute star who I rate incredibly highly)
No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.
Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/
That's the first time I've heard anyone describe Thatcher as a wimp. LOL. She took on the miners and won. She backed down very rarely (the poll tax) and the unions wasn't one of them.
I can see though why he made such a good Lord Chancellor on two occasions.
Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.
If it looks like there's a realistic chance for the new PM to get a 40-50 seat majority while Labour is in such disarray, I think they should go for it.
Obviously n=2, but are Brown and Eden both examples of people who became PM once parst their sell by date?
I think Leadsom's best hope is if the MP vote goes two or three rounds i.e. the no hopers don't drop straight out. She could do with some momentum.
I'm not "electing" anyone as indeed most of PB won't be, that is if the race even gets to the members stage.
I support May because of this field she is, by a distance, the standout candidate to become the best PM. It's a no brainer. Crabb and Leadsom are placing markers for the future. Brutus is a busted flush and Fox's candidature is a triumph of lunacy over reality.
It will be interesting to see the impact of these numbers later in the year and to see whether there has been any change in the flow of people following the vote.
Beforehand the commentariat were predicting a surge to beat the deadline yet the exact opposite has happened with many of their other predictions, interest rate hikes and FTSE collapses for example, and I wonder whether potential arrivals will feel dissuaded by both the vote and the arguably overblown reports of hostility in the UK.
On balance, I guess that the flow of people to the UK will slow.
The only biology involved was in getting the money to retrain as a barrister
5th largest party and they think they should be in government
Tough choice... Rainey Rump Labour in constant bicker mode or the Beach Boys.
Quite a contrast to Howard's eleven years though.
Let's wait and see how this pans out. As the cliche goes, a week is a long time in politics.
With the likes of Lord Mandelson and Lord Helseltine sitting in the Lords, I have absolutely no confidence they won't try and block Brexit whenever they can.
(edit)
Vast quantities of cash is being thrown in his direction by all the campaign teams in the hope he'll not endorse their candidate. Aaron Banks is said to be prepared to bankrupt himself to ensure the Peterborough MP doesn't favour Leadsom with his support.
Developing story ....
Arguably, he *should* have been impeached in 2004, when it was clear that he'd misled parliament into backing war in Iraq, but that boat has long since sailed.
https://youtu.be/rQ0uUdpFKZA
"I will build a wall around the black country to keep the yam yams in".
"I would have paid £1.99 for BHS as i had my eye on a jumper"
"proud people need a sense of identity and our culture is as good as any other bugger"