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.
Right now there is a realistic chance for over 100!
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.
I didn't think it made sense, I was just curious whether the proposed mechanism of impeachment was the same or different to the use of attainder.
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.
And equal marriage really belongs to Featherstone and the LibDems. Within the Tories May deserves as much credit as Cameron, as it was an HO bill.
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.
I don't want to be unfair to Cameron - but when I think back to what he's done, it's very much Continuity New Labour. Academies being another one - I happen to approve of that in principle, but Osborne trying to make in compulsory was so wrong on every level.
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.
Callaghan suffered from the union problem which he helped to fester by undermining Castle's union reforms. As you sow, so shall you reap.
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'?
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....
Was he also an admirer of Edward Gibbon by any chance?
This afternoon, our newbie MP, Heidi Allen, is holding a constituency meeting on Brexit. All welcome; Cambourne 16.00hrs.
How many other MPs are having open meetings, to tell us what she knows, and maybe even to listen to different views?
It's quite common, I thought? I did it from time to time, especially when there was a controversy (e.g. when I was proposing ID cards I invited opponents to a public meeting to debate it), and Anna Soubry held one to defend her support for gay marriage. Firstly it's fun to stand up and debate something you believe in, and second you get some credit for having the guts to do it.
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.
And equal marriage really belongs to Featherstone and the LibDems. Within the Tories May deserves as much credit as Cameron, as it was an HO bill.
The manner in which Cameron introduced gay marriage through the Govt cost him >50,000 members and a lot of festering resentment. Tactically inept as he culd have got the same outcome through a back bencher bill. I supported gay marriage but not the manner of doing it when it was not in the manifesto. A certain Andrew Cooper told Cameron it was a good PR idea, it and the omnishambles budget all led to the need to make the referendum promise.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
63% had voted Leave, 36% Remain. May needs a quarter of the Leavers at least to get over 50%, crudely speaking.
When asked whether they had a positive or negative opinion of various people (not including Leadsom unfortunately) the results for those who had voted Leave were:
May 66% +ve, 18% -ve Gove 84% +ve, 5% -ve Boris 83% +ve, 6% -ve.
This was before Gove stabbed Boris so the positive opinion of him will have gone down no doubt.
Nevertheless it might explain why May supporters are worried about Gove being in second place to May.
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.
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.
Seconded.
LOTO, four years out from a likely GE might be a different question, but its for PM.....
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.
And equal marriage really belongs to Featherstone and the LibDems. Within the Tories May deserves as much credit as Cameron, as it was an HO bill.
The manner in which Cameron introduced gay marriage through the Govt cost him >50,000 members and a lot of festering resentment. Tactically inept as he culd have got the same outcome through a back bencher bill. I supported gay marriage but not the manner of doing it when it was not in the manifesto. A certain Andrew Cooper told Cameron it was a good PR idea, it and the omnishambles budget all led to the need to make the referendum promise.
Mr Cooper's polling and political nous seem a trifle wanting. I went from being sceptical about gay marriage to in favour of it after reading posts on PB. Arguments made on here can have a microscopic impact on public opinion
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
Short of having her wisdom teeth removed, it is hard to see how Theresa May could have played it better.
63% had voted Leave, 36% Remain. May needs a quarter of the Leavers at least to get over 50%, crudely speaking.
When asked whether they had a positive or negative opinion of various people (not including Leadsom unfortunately) the results for those who had voted Leave were:
May 66% +ve, 18% -ve Gove 84% +ve, 5% -ve Boris 83% +ve, 6% -ve.
This was before Gove stabbed Boris so the positive opinion of him will have gone down no doubt.
Nevertheless it might explain why May supporters are worried about Gove being in second place to May.
May beat Boris comfortably overall and with Gove just 1% ahead of Boris there, pre assassination, I don't think she should be too concerned
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.
As I mentioned below, surely in 1981 (actually thought it was '82) she and her government knew the country was not prepared to withstand a strike. What won the miners' strike for the government was the work they did between 1981 and 1984.
A good general tries to pick both the field and the time of the battle.
I'm not sure that giving the miners their pay rise in 1981 can be seen as a sign of gross weakness given what happened later. It would have been if they had given in and not prepared for the next invitable fight.
Then again, it was more or less before my time (in that I was alive, but only a child).
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.
The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
Short of having her wisdom teeth removed, it is hard to see how Theresa May could have played it better.
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)
The British don't do "febrile" over such matters. We are made of sterner stuff .... well most of us are "Corporal Jones".
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
Also worth remembering that whilst the Tory MPs were fairly evenly split between Remain and Leave that was under HUGE pressure from the No.10 and 11 fascists.
Now it's a free for all true colours will emerge. If there's a whiff that Theresa May is in trouble, watch them break for Leadsom.
''The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.''
May is being likened to John Major.
How did that 1997 election turn out again?
When the tories choose a manager they get destroyed. When they choose someone with guts and vision, they win.
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.
They can't. Article 50 can be triggered by the government alone. Once that's done, the clock is ticking.
There is an argument that parliament must be consulted as triggering Article 50 is essentially contrary to the 1972 European Communities Act but I don't buy that. Even if it is against the spirit of that Act (which is itself arguable), the Act has been amended due to the need to incorporate later treaties. Similarly, all the later treaties have been ratified into law. Consequently, A50 is implicitly already an accepted part of the wider British constitution. It would certainly be wise to consult both houses of parliament but it's not necessary and short of removing the government, can't be blocked.
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.
The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.
I agree. I can't understand why the Betfair odds on May (1.55) indicate she has only a 65% chance of winning. That is absurd. It must be nearer 90%. I have lumped all my considerable winnings from betting on Leave in the early hours of the 24th onto May in the expectation of making a tax free 50% return by September.
''The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.''
May is being likened to John Major.
How did that 1997 election turn out again?
When the tories choose a manager they get destroyed. When they choose someone with guts and vision, they win.
People are always saying Cameron has not guts or vision and is a manager, and he won.
We're all struggling to get past the simple statement "Of course May's going to win". The only counter-argument I can muster is that the media dislike one-horse races, so at some point (probably after a debate) they're going to declare that she made a horrible gaffe and thast her opponent masterfully seized advantage. That gives some trading bet advantage - when May gets to 1.1, lay her and wait for the moment. But in the end I think she'll win anyway.
In reply to Moses, I don't expect Corbyn to demand Blair's arrest, because of the way the left thinks (including me). We generally don't go in for targeting individuals because we think it distracts attention from criticising the system. If Iraq was because of a systemic tendency of Western powers to throw their weight about in third world countries, often to disastrous effect, that has important lessons for us in e.g. Syria. If it was merely that Blair misled people (perhaps including himself), that doesn't teach us anything. (The problem about the systemic approach is that it will be perceived as complicated and unsexy, and the media will say Corbyn's missed his chance, but he doesn't worry about that sort of thing.)
It's like tax avoidance. I don't waste my time slagging of Amazon, because I'm sure that loads of competitors do just the same. The problem isn't Amazon, it's the system that rewards tax avoidance.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
Thus spake Carlotta 'I'm a diehard Cameron-supporting-Remainer Vance'
Wasn't it you who said Cameron would not just survive but go from strength to strength?
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
''The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.''
May is being likened to John Major.
How did that 1997 election turn out again?
When the tories choose a manager they get destroyed. When they choose someone with guts and vision, they win.
1997 was Major's second election, 1992 was his first when he won with more votes than any PM in history! IDS and Corbyn arguably have guts and vision
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.
As I mentioned below, surely in 1981 (actually thought it was '82) she and her government knew the country was not prepared to withstand a strike. What won the miners' strike for the government was the work they did between 1981 and 1984.
A good general tries to pick both the field and the time of the battle.
I'm not sure that giving the miners their pay rise in 1981 can be seen as a sign of gross weakness given what happened later. It would have been if they had given in and not prepared for the next invitable fight.
Then again, it was more or less before my time (in that I was alive, but only a child).
Maggie took on the miners, played a long war and won.
''The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.''
May is being likened to John Major.
How did that 1997 election turn out again?
When the tories choose a manager they get destroyed. When they choose someone with guts and vision, they win.
How did 1992 go? That is the relevant election right now. 1997 has as much to do with ERM, Maastricht, bastards etc as it does Major.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
The problem with her Remain views comes when she has to go and play poker in Brussels over Brexit. Merkel and Hollande have seen her cards. They know she won't take Britain to the edge for something she doesn't believe in. It's like Cameron's "renegotiation" all over again....
I think the only way she gets over this is to appoint her negotiating team - and then let Europe's leaders know that she will stand behind whatever deal they negotiate. And make sure there a few Brexiteers heading it.
63% had voted Leave, 36% Remain. May needs a quarter of the Leavers at least to get over 50%, crudely speaking.
When asked whether they had a positive or negative opinion of various people (not including Leadsom unfortunately) the results for those who had voted Leave were:
May 66% +ve, 18% -ve Gove 84% +ve, 5% -ve Boris 83% +ve, 6% -ve.
This was before Gove stabbed Boris so the positive opinion of him will have gone down no doubt.
Nevertheless it might explain why May supporters are worried about Gove being in second place to May.
May beat Boris comfortably overall and with Gove just 1% ahead of Boris there, pre assassination, I don't think she should be too concerned
I'm increasingly feeling this was just a ploy by Gove to set up Leadsom for the top job. Boris couldn't give Gove assurances about his role in Gov't. That was what seems to have unsettled him and Sarah Vine.
So you can imagine the scenario: Gove knifes Boris in order then to pull out and play queenmaker to Andrea Leadsom.
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)
The British don't do "febrile" over such matters. We are made of sterner stuff .... well most of us are "Corporal Jones".
I don't think "the population" could care less whether the next Tory leader is chosen by the MPs or the Tory membership.
In a May vs Leadsom battle don't underestimate the importance of Leadsom being the woman who raised a family while holding down a top job. May, comes across colder and with no children will be harder to relate to. I would expect Leadsom will paint herself as the family woman often in the campaign to her advantage.
People are always saying Cameron has not guts or vision and is a manager, and he won.
I would disagree with that, actually, but there it is.
Which bit would you disagree with, that he won, or that he has not guts or vision? I'm quite well disposed to Cameron, but as Mr Herdson's piece says, many in the party itself never reallyliked him, and definitely criticised him as having no real vision.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
The problem with her Remain views comes when she has to go and play poker in Brussels over Brexit. Merkel and Hollande have seen her cards. They know she won't take Britain to the edge for something she doesn't believe in. It's like Cameron's "renegotiation" all over again....
Yep, hand on heart she will be a disaster.
The only people on here who think otherwise are the Remainers. Voila.
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.
The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.
I agree. I can't understand why the Betfair odds on May (1.55) indicate she has only a 65% chance of winning. That is absurd. It must be nearer 90%. I have lumped all my considerable winnings from betting on Leave in the early hours of the 24th onto May in the expectation of making a tax free 50% return by September.
I agree 65% seem low, but maybe not too much. Who amongst us really knows how the membership are going to vote in these strange times? I fear Leadsom has some way to go yet and as Nick P says a scare or two for May. I'm totally green, so watching with interest, but no sweaty palms.
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.
As I mentioned below, surely in 1981 (actually thought it was '82) she and her government knew the country was not prepared to withstand a strike. What won the miners' strike for the government was the work they did between 1981 and 1984.
A good general tries to pick both the field and the time of the battle.
I'm not sure that giving the miners their pay rise in 1981 can be seen as a sign of gross weakness given what happened later. It would have been if they had given in and not prepared for the next invitable fight.
Then again, it was more or less before my time (in that I was alive, but only a child).
Maggie took on the miners, played a long war and won.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
There is no firewall. The public won't care about such technicalities. Either we make it work or we don't and are punished. That is how the public votes.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
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.
As I mentioned below, surely in 1981 (actually thought it was '82) she and her government knew the country was not prepared to withstand a strike. What won the miners' strike for the government was the work they did between 1981 and 1984.
A good general tries to pick both the field and the time of the battle.
I'm not sure that giving the miners their pay rise in 1981 can be seen as a sign of gross weakness given what happened later. It would have been if they had given in and not prepared for the next invitable fight.
Then again, it was more or less before my time (in that I was alive, but only a child).
Maggie took on the miners, played a long war and won.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
The problem with her Remain views comes when she has to go and play poker in Brussels over Brexit. Merkel and Hollande have seen her cards. They know she won't take Britain to the edge for something she doesn't believe in. It's like Cameron's "renegotiation" all over again....
Yep, hand on heart she will be a disaster.
The only people on here who think otherwise are the Remainers. Voila.
If you ignore all the leavers also saying it, sure.
But then there was always a certain element of the Leave coalition that others were not 'true' leavers.
People are always saying Cameron has not guts or vision and is a manager, and he won.
I would disagree with that, actually, but there it is.
Which bit would you disagree with, that he won, or that he has not guts or vision? I'm quite well disposed to Cameron, but as Mr Herdson's piece says, many in the party itself never reallyliked him, and definitely criticised him as having no real vision.
Ironically, he got round to his vision in his 2015 Conference speech. And an excellent vision it was. Shame he now can't deliver it.
In a May vs Leadsom battle don't underestimate the importance of Leadsom being the woman who raised a family while holding down a top job. May, comes across colder and with no children will be harder to relate to.
Oh I hope they don't push that too hard. I adored Davidson in the Wembly debate for picking up on the robotic 'I'm a mother/grandmother' schtick the other side were doing and joking about it.
That was because it seemed to be coming up every other line though, so i'm sure it couldn't be hammered so hard as to annoy during a campaign.
''The big difference here is that May is the only big beast standing to become PM in a time of huge political turmoil. In such circumstances the MP's and members will choose stability, certainty and steadfastness over all other factors.''
May is being likened to John Major.
How did that 1997 election turn out again?
When the tories choose a manager they get destroyed. When they choose someone with guts and vision, they win.
You forget Major won his first election as PM and further down the line any comparison with Corbyn and Blair as potential landslide Labour PM's is worthy of several chapters in Michael Gove's ongoing speech entitled :
"Why counter factual history is total sh*t. Ask Boris !! "
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
There is no firewall. The public won't care about such technicalities. Either we make it work or we don't and are punished. That is how the public votes.
By choosing Leadsom the Tories say 'we are the party of BREXIT'.
By choosing May the Tories say 'we are the party of the United Kingdom - it was a close call, but decisive, and will now get on with it'.
May has no responsibility for LEAVE claims - Leadsom 100%.
PM Leadsom - 'when are you going to build a hospital a week? - from here to 2020......
Actually on here many people are enthusiastic students of politics and take an active interest in their opponents as well as they own party. It's a betting site after all!
In a May vs Leadsom battle don't underestimate the importance of Leadsom being the woman who raised a family while holding down a top job. May, comes across colder and with no children will be harder to relate to.
Oh I hope they don't push that too hard. I adored Davidson in the Wembly debate for picking up on the robotic 'I'm a mother/grandmother' schtick the other side were doing and joking about it.
That was because it seemed to be coming up every other line though, so i'm sure it couldn't be hammered so hard as to annoy during a campaign.
Didn't the Ice Pixie push that line hard in the Labour leadership debate? "As a mother..."
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
And with Leadsom it's the opposite.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
The problem with her Remain views comes when she has to go and play poker in Brussels over Brexit. Merkel and Hollande have seen her cards. They know she won't take Britain to the edge for something she doesn't believe in. It's like Cameron's "renegotiation" all over again.... I think the only way she gets over this is to appoint her negotiating team - and then let Europe's leaders know that she will stand behind whatever deal they negotiate. And make sure there a few Brexiteers heading it.
Good points. When europhile fanatics such as Soubry back her it makes me think twice.
May will have 150 seething leaver MPs and a 65% leaver membership against her as she rolls out a dogsh8t deal from Brussels.
She has none of Cameron's vote winning power or charisma or intelligence to carry the party. She will not be able to control them.
Then they need to persuade the membership to vote in Leadsom. It's not impossible. But if they don't, well, we will all have to hope May does get the best possible deal. It may well not not be the best deal that many Leavers wanted, but she can still achieve one which other Leavers did want, and which settles the nerves of Remainers.
RIght now, that's a sensible choice (depending on what deal she does go for. If we go for EEA and FOM or whatever, the bits of the Leave campaign which don't want that can keep up the fight, so what's the problem.
In a May vs Leadsom battle don't underestimate the importance of Leadsom being the woman who raised a family while holding down a top job. May, comes across colder and with no children will be harder to relate to.
Oh I hope they don't push that too hard. I adored Davidson in the Wembly debate for picking up on the robotic 'I'm a mother/grandmother' schtick the other side were doing and joking about it.
That was because it seemed to be coming up every other line though, so i'm sure it couldn't be hammered so hard as to annoy during a campaign.
Yea gods! When would a male politician come up with the 'I'm a working father' line?
It says a lot more about voters swayed by such arguments than it does about either May or Leadsom......
Betfair has already decided its a May v Leadsom final. Their prices add up to over 92%.
Having drifted overnight Owen Smith's price is back to 6.8-7.2 so hopefully he will make his bid for the Labour party leadership next week.
Sadly, my Lab bets are a mess, mostly placed months ago when I thought the party would shift away from left types and head back to the centre. I have no idea who is going to actually stand in the end. If it's a truly open competition then some of mine may come into play (Yvette, Jarvis etc), otherwise I'm a bit stuffed.
However, if Balls appears at Batley and runs and wins leadership, then its mega pay day.
In a May vs Leadsom battle don't underestimate the importance of Leadsom being the woman who raised a family while holding down a top job. May, comes across colder and with no children will be harder to relate to.
Oh I hope they don't push that too hard. I adored Davidson in the Wembly debate for picking up on the robotic 'I'm a mother/grandmother' schtick the other side were doing and joking about it.
That was because it seemed to be coming up every other line though, so i'm sure it couldn't be hammered so hard as to annoy during a campaign.
Didn't the Ice Pixie push that line hard in the Labour leadership debate? "As a mother..."
I'd not wager against that having been the case. There is a line between highlighting an aspect of one's self and being a robot of course, always a danger with repeated lines that you do it too much as well. Remember the 'I met a man' stuff from 2010 leader's debates?
In a May vs Leadsom battle don't underestimate the importance of Leadsom being the woman who raised a family while holding down a top job. May, comes across colder and with no children will be harder to relate to.
Oh I hope they don't push that too hard. I adored Davidson in the Wembly debate for picking up on the robotic 'I'm a mother/grandmother' schtick the other side were doing and joking about it.
That was because it seemed to be coming up every other line though, so i'm sure it couldn't be hammered so hard as to annoy during a campaign.
Yea gods! When would a male politician come up with the 'I'm a working father' line?
It says a lot more about voters swayed by such arguments than it does about either May or Leadsom......
Men usually try other lines. Did you know that Andy Burnham is a scouser? He may have mentioned it once or twice during his leadership campaign.
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
It is undeniably smart politics, whether she does anything with the prize once she has got it is an altogether different matter. I have nothing against her but she does seem to me to be the sort of politician that will be overly concerned with how things reflect on her. Not someone to take the difficult unpopular decisions methinks.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. Having gone through the pain I can't see the half way house satisfying anyone but the City types. If FoM continues, the Mail, Sun etc will continue to blame everything on "immigrants", the poisonous atmosphere will continue and we will be right back where we started asking ourselves was it worth it.
If we end up with a solution that is perceived to be tailored to suit those already doing very well, in London in particular, then I think we are heading for problems. But as Scott constantly reminded us, the "elite" will always come out on top, they will make sure Brexit is fixed to suit their needs. Thepoor saps on the sink estates who voted to give them Brexit will go away empty handed, it was ever thus.
Are you on? I was working on a Brexit piece at work, and was trying to calculate exports to the EU as a percent of GDP. We'd all been working a 9% number or somesuch, but when I did the sums it came out as a little over 12%.
People are always saying Cameron has not guts or vision and is a manager, and he won.
I would disagree with that, actually, but there it is.
Which bit would you disagree with, that he won, or that he has not guts or vision? I'm quite well disposed to Cameron, but as Mr Herdson's piece says, many in the party itself never reallyliked him, and definitely criticised him as having no real vision.
Ironically, he got round to his vision in his 2015 Conference speech. And an excellent vision it was. Shame he now can't deliver it.
And then he undid it all by having eff all in the Queen's Speech - I cite as Exhibit A *space ports*
May will have 150 seething leaver MPs and a 65% leaver membership against her as she rolls out a dogsh8t deal from Brussels.
She has none of Cameron's vote winning power or charisma or intelligence to carry the party. She will not be able to control them.
Then they need to persuade the membership to vote in Leadsom. It's not impossible. But if they don't, well, we will all have to hope May does get the best possible deal. It may well not not be the best deal that many Leavers wanted, but she can still achieve one which other Leavers did want, and which settles the nerves of Remainers.
RIght now, that's a sensible choice (depending on what deal she does go for. If we go for EEA and FOM or whatever, the bits of the Leave campaign which don't want that can keep up the fight, so what's the problem.
+1
And "Cameron's winning charisma and intelligence" isn't something I have read so much about, recently.
We're all struggling to get past the simple statement "Of course May's going to win". The only counter-argument I can muster is that the media dislike one-horse races, so at some point (probably after a debate) they're going to declare that she made a horrible gaffe and thast her opponent masterfully seized advantage. That gives some trading bet advantage - when May gets to 1.1, lay her and wait for the moment. But in the end I think she'll win anyway.
In reply to Moses, I don't expect Corbyn to demand Blair's arrest, because of the way the left thinks (including me). We generally don't go in for targeting individuals because we think it distracts attention from criticising the system. If Iraq was because of a systemic tendency of Western powers to throw their weight about in third world countries, often to disastrous effect, that has important lessons for us in e.g. Syria. If it was merely that Blair misled people (perhaps including himself), that doesn't teach us anything. (The problem about the systemic approach is that it will be perceived as complicated and unsexy, and the media will say Corbyn's missed his chance, but he doesn't worry about that sort of thing.)
It's like tax avoidance. I don't waste my time slagging of Amazon, because I'm sure that loads of competitors do just the same. The problem isn't Amazon, it's the system that rewards tax avoidance.
"We generally don't go in for targeting individuals..."
Tell that to members of Major's government. Or members of your own government targeted by Brown's thugs in his attempts to wrest power from Blair. Or the smears against Cameron that came direct from No.10 via McBride. Or picketing outside people's houses during Grangemouth, etc, etc.
Yes Nick, I'm sure that the left don't target individuals, generally or otherwise.
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.
As I mentioned below, surely in 1981 (actually thought it was '82) she and her government knew the country was not prepared to withstand a strike. What won the miners' strike for the government was the work they did between 1981 and 1984.
A good general tries to pick both the field and the time of the battle.
I'm not sure that giving the miners their pay rise in 1981 can be seen as a sign of gross weakness given what happened later. It would have been if they had given in and not prepared for the next invitable fight.
Then again, it was more or less before my time (in that I was alive, but only a child).
Maggie took on the miners, played a long war and won.
End of.
No.
Scargill took on the government and lost.
Thatcher was left with no choice in 1984 after Scargill called a strike without a ballot.
Even after the strike Thatcher's government continued to subsidise coal production and pay good wages and very generous redundancy packages to miners.
''Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong''
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
It is undeniably smart politics, whether she does anything with the prize once she has got it is an altogether different matter. I have nothing against her but she does seem to me to be the sort of politician that will be overly concerned with how things reflect on her. Not someone to take the difficult unpopular decisions methinks.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. Having gone through the pain I can't see the half way house satisfying anyone but the City types. If FoM continues, the Mail, Sun etc will continue to blame everything on "immigrants", the poisonous atmosphere will continue and we will be right back where we started asking ourselves was it worth it.
If we end up with a solution that is perceived to be tailored to suit those already doing very well, in London in particular, then I think we are heading for problems. But as Scott constantly reminded us, the "elite" will always come out on top, they will make sure Brexit is fixed to suit their needs. Thepoor saps on the sink estates who voted to give them Brexit will go away empty handed, it was ever thus.
Mr T your analysis is absolutely correct in my view. And the electorate will not forgive the tories for making such a dreadful choice.
May is the candidate Nigel Farage would choose. His perfect candidate.
Lib-coalition 87 looks to me, they go slightly backwards but hold power still.
Still far too early to call, most marginal seats still not in, the L/NP will probably come out ahead question is how far and if they can hold their majority
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
Remember your Churchill: cats looks down at you whereas pigs treat you as an equal.
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.
And equal marriage really belongs to Featherstone and the LibDems. Within the Tories May deserves as much credit as Cameron, as it was an HO bill.
The manner in which Cameron introduced gay marriage through the Govt cost him >50,000 members and a lot of festering resentment. Tactically inept as he culd have got the same outcome through a back bencher bill. I supported gay marriage but not the manner of doing it when it was not in the manifesto. A certain Andrew Cooper told Cameron it was a good PR idea, it and the omnishambles budget all led to the need to make the referendum promise.
Mr Cooper's polling and political nous seem a trifle wanting. I went from being sceptical about gay marriage to in favour of it after reading posts on PB. Arguments made on here can have a microscopic impact on public opinion
Yes. I stood apart from most of my local Conservative Assn members who were dead against it. But there was nothing to be gained by arguing about it and their legitimate point was "its not in the manifesto, so here's my resignation".
Confession time for me. For years I have been mixing up my Hoggs and my Moggs. I thought the Rees-Moggs and the Hoggs were the same clan when of course they are not. Google has sorted me out.
As far as I'm aware the Rees-Moggs didn't feature in Dukes of Hazard.
Comments
Pretty much, but more Powellesque:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1l6CDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=powell+butler+guns+bang&source=bl&ots=psJUNfsR7t&sig=o-xLWjEUuNoV_Ieuyy8G1yrU8cw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDxJ7Or9TNAhXlBsAKHSNmA8oQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=powell butler guns bang&f=false
Wonderful.
If the negotiations go well and the economy improves she will take a bow and accept the plaudits
If the negotiations go badly, the experts are proved to be correct and the economy tanks she will then remind people that she was opposed to this madness from the outset and is only following behind with a shovel trying to clear up the mess.
Smart lady. She has been very quiet about her Remain views but expect that to change big time if it all goes wrong
Butler's career therefore ended not with a bang but a whimper?
http://bit.ly/299QWCb
63% had voted Leave, 36% Remain.
May needs a quarter of the Leavers at least to get over 50%, crudely speaking.
When asked whether they had a positive or negative opinion of various people (not including Leadsom unfortunately) the results for those who had voted Leave were:
May 66% +ve, 18% -ve
Gove 84% +ve, 5% -ve
Boris 83% +ve, 6% -ve.
This was before Gove stabbed Boris so the positive opinion of him will have gone down no doubt.
Nevertheless it might explain why May supporters are worried about Gove being in second place to May.
LOTO, four years out from a likely GE might be a different question, but its for PM.....
A good general tries to pick both the field and the time of the battle.
I'm not sure that giving the miners their pay rise in 1981 can be seen as a sign of gross weakness given what happened later. It would have been if they had given in and not prepared for the next invitable fight.
Then again, it was more or less before my time (in that I was alive, but only a child).
L/NP 39 Lab 23 Other 2
Awkward.
If it goes pear shaped ITS ALL HER FAULT. She suggested it, she campaigned for it, she won it. Now, she can't deliver it.
Another reason for the Tories to pick May - it helps put a firewall between them and BREXIT problems.....
At the very best we're a few years away from the golden sunlit uplands promised by LEAVE.....
Theresa's gut instinct is to distance herself from anything that goes remotely wrong. Nothing is ever her fault. She does not take ownership of anything, ever.
That is why she'll make a rotten leader, who will be hammered by a decent labour choice.
If the tories elect her, they will bitterly regret it - and soon.
https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/748790981466558464
Not looking to good for Gove this morning. He was on 5 at BF only 48 or so hours ago. Now 22.
Now it's a free for all true colours will emerge. If there's a whiff that Theresa May is in trouble, watch them break for Leadsom.
May is being likened to John Major.
How did that 1997 election turn out again?
When the tories choose a manager they get destroyed. When they choose someone with guts and vision, they win.
There is an argument that parliament must be consulted as triggering Article 50 is essentially contrary to the 1972 European Communities Act but I don't buy that. Even if it is against the spirit of that Act (which is itself arguable), the Act has been amended due to the need to incorporate later treaties. Similarly, all the later treaties have been ratified into law. Consequently, A50 is implicitly already an accepted part of the wider British constitution. It would certainly be wise to consult both houses of parliament but it's not necessary and short of removing the government, can't be blocked.
In reply to Moses, I don't expect Corbyn to demand Blair's arrest, because of the way the left thinks (including me). We generally don't go in for targeting individuals because we think it distracts attention from criticising the system. If Iraq was because of a systemic tendency of Western powers to throw their weight about in third world countries, often to disastrous effect, that has important lessons for us in e.g. Syria. If it was merely that Blair misled people (perhaps including himself), that doesn't teach us anything. (The problem about the systemic approach is that it will be perceived as complicated and unsexy, and the media will say Corbyn's missed his chance, but he doesn't worry about that sort of thing.)
It's like tax avoidance. I don't waste my time slagging of Amazon, because I'm sure that loads of competitors do just the same. The problem isn't Amazon, it's the system that rewards tax avoidance.
Wasn't it you who said Cameron would not just survive but go from strength to strength?
I would disagree with that, actually, but there it is.
End of.
I think the only way she gets over this is to appoint her negotiating team - and then let Europe's leaders know that she will stand behind whatever deal they negotiate. And make sure there a few Brexiteers heading it.
I'm increasingly feeling this was just a ploy by Gove to set up Leadsom for the top job. Boris couldn't give Gove assurances about his role in Gov't. That was what seems to have unsettled him and Sarah Vine.
So you can imagine the scenario: Gove knifes Boris in order then to pull out and play queenmaker to Andrea Leadsom.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/
LNP 54 ALP 33 Others 3
The only people on here who think otherwise are the Remainers. Voila.
Arthur Scargill = The High Sparrow
But, hey, why should I know more than an ex Labour MP about, er, the Tory party ...
But then there was always a certain element of the Leave coalition that others were not 'true' leavers.
That was because it seemed to be coming up every other line though, so i'm sure it couldn't be hammered so hard as to annoy during a campaign.
"Why counter factual history is total sh*t. Ask Boris !! "
She has none of Cameron's vote winning power or charisma or intelligence to carry the party. She will not be able to control them.
By choosing May the Tories say 'we are the party of the United Kingdom - it was a close call, but decisive, and will now get on with it'.
May has no responsibility for LEAVE claims - Leadsom 100%.
PM Leadsom - 'when are you going to build a hospital a week? - from here to 2020......
Actually on here many people are enthusiastic students of politics and take an active interest in their opponents as well as they own party. It's a betting site after all!
Having drifted overnight Owen Smith's price is back to 6.8-7.2 so hopefully he will make his bid for the Labour party leadership next week.
I did write At the very best!
RIght now, that's a sensible choice (depending on what deal she does go for. If we go for EEA and FOM or whatever, the bits of the Leave campaign which don't want that can keep up the fight, so what's the problem.
Looks like Lab +1; Lib -1 to me.
It says a lot more about voters swayed by such arguments than it does about either May or Leadsom......
However, if Balls appears at Batley and runs and wins leadership, then its mega pay day.
LNP 50 ALP 45 Others 5
Won't Labor do better than the coalition on the second prefs?
It is undeniably smart politics, whether she does anything with the prize once she has got it is an altogether different matter. I have nothing against her but she does seem to me to be the sort of politician that will be overly concerned with how things reflect on her. Not someone to take the difficult unpopular decisions methinks.
I'm in the Stodge & SO camp, I was opposed to Brexit but now we have it should be what people voted for, fully out and no FoM. Having gone through the pain I can't see the half way house satisfying anyone but the City types. If FoM continues, the Mail, Sun etc will continue to blame everything on "immigrants", the poisonous atmosphere will continue and we will be right back where we started asking ourselves was it worth it.
If we end up with a solution that is perceived to be tailored to suit those already doing very well, in London in particular, then I think we are heading for problems. But as Scott constantly reminded us, the "elite" will always come out on top, they will make sure Brexit is fixed to suit their needs. Thepoor saps on the sink estates who voted to give them Brexit will go away empty handed, it was ever thus.
Are you on? I was working on a Brexit piece at work, and was trying to calculate exports to the EU as a percent of GDP. We'd all been working a 9% number or somesuch, but when I did the sums it came out as a little over 12%.
43.6% of UK exports go to the EU
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Intra-EU_trade_in_goods_-_recent_trends
Exports are 28.4% of GDP
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS
Which equals 12.4% of GDP.
And "Cameron's winning charisma and intelligence" isn't something I have read so much about, recently.
Tell that to members of Major's government. Or members of your own government targeted by Brown's thugs in his attempts to wrest power from Blair. Or the smears against Cameron that came direct from No.10 via McBride. Or picketing outside people's houses during Grangemouth, etc, etc.
Yes Nick, I'm sure that the left don't target individuals, generally or otherwise.
Scargill took on the government and lost.
Thatcher was left with no choice in 1984 after Scargill called a strike without a ballot.
Even after the strike Thatcher's government continued to subsidise coal production and pay good wages and very generous redundancy packages to miners.
May is the candidate Nigel Farage would choose. His perfect candidate.
That being said, it does mean there are a lot of betting opportunities.
So would PBers be kind enough to give me a brief update on:
1) What tax rises and spending cuts were in Osborne's promised Emergency Budget.
2) How far the stock market has crashed. I assume from the BBC reports that the FTSE100 is now below 5,000 maybe even below 4,000.
They could never have been from the same clan.