Conservative voters are just decoration the same as Labour members and an election is a waste of money.A coronation is much more preferable so I can stop waiting to get paid out my winnings.Can the Tory party get on with it please.
Heartily disagree. Coronations are just awful. They give the *winner* no legitimacy. I really can't understand the rush, unless those backing the current leader think they'll lose ground. Recess begins on 22nd July.
Each Party has rules and should stick to them.
The rush is not do do with the recess or other inward looking points. It's to do with the wider world and our interaction with it. At present, that interaction is frozen. You may not care, employers and the employed should do.
Hope you get a pretty one. I can see some good things about arranged marriages.
My son broke up with an young surgeon whose uncle owned a brewery, and she was pretty too. "Are you thought this one through?" I asked him, but kids ... He married someone else and they divorced after a year or two.
The BBC and most of the media may disagree, but Brexit gives us a chance to make our own way again. It's the sign of the times. We are the Progressives now.
I decided about 20 years ago that an arranged marriage wasn't for me.
Conservative voters are just decoration the same as Labour members and an election is a waste of money.A coronation is much more preferable so I can stop waiting to get paid out my winnings.Can the Tory party get on with it please.
Heartily disagree. Coronations are just awful. They give the *winner* no legitimacy. I really can't understand the rush, unless those backing the current leader think they'll lose ground. Recess begins on 22nd July.
Each Party has rules and should stick to them.
The rush is not do do with the recess or other inward looking points. It's to do with the wider world and our interaction with it. At present, that interaction is frozen. You may not care, employers and the employed should do.
Absolutely correct. We need a destination and some certainty. Even if the destination is completely out I'd rate it better than uncertainty because at least then we could plan for it.
She has described her 25 years in financial services and running ‘enormous teams’ as evidence of her suitability for the roles.
Prominent supporter Bernard Jenkin has cited her senior position at ‘a large investment firm where she was responsible for managing hundreds of people and billions of pounds’.
But the Times said that during ten years at the investment fund Invesco Perpetual, from 1999 to 2009, she did not have any role in managing funds or advising clients.
I guess this is where she needs her tax returns to show she was paid squillions during the period in question. Whether any of this makes her a better or worse candidate to succeed David Cameron (who was a SpAd with a spell in PR) is unclear.
Cameron was up for LOTO - not PM.
Even fox felt the same apparently. Becoming the former very different to the latter.
"Describing her as a liberal centrist would seem a bit of stretch."
I thought I was describing her as a populist. Liberal? No problems. Authoritarian? No problems.
A career politician in fact.
As a Remainer when it seemed likely to win, but likely to be more Leaver now that has won.
Mr Eagles, the pain will ease and you will embrace the concept of an independent UK soon.
There is no pain. I'm loving it, plenty of opportunities professionally, plus SeanT's transformation into a mewling quim is another highlight.
are you on a different time zone or does the lager shed start at 6.00 am in Sheffield ? :-)
It's Eid, so I'm in a grumpy mood, I'm going to spend most of the day with my mum and dad's friends, who are going to suggest various arranged marriages for me.
You could explain your selection criteria. In detail.
"Describing her as a liberal centrist would seem a bit of stretch."
I thought I was describing her as a populist. Liberal? No problems. Authoritarian? No problems.
A career politician in fact.
As a Remainer when it seemed likely to win, but likely to be more Leaver now that has won.
Mr Eagles, the pain will ease and you will embrace the concept of an independent UK soon.
There is no pain. I'm loving it, plenty of opportunities professionally, plus SeanT's transformation into a mewling quim is another highlight.
are you on a different time zone or does the lager shed start at 6.00 am in Sheffield ? :-)
It's Eid, so I'm in a grumpy mood, I'm going to spend most of the day with my mum and dad's friends, who are going to suggest various arranged marriages for me.
You could explain your selection criteria. In detail.
That would shut them up pronto...
I was thinking more the ranking system. AV, quasi-AV, or full-on PR?
Now back: rested and refreshed. Wonder how long it will last?
I see that Leadsom's CV is being put under scrutiny at last. I did say a few days ago that my investigative antenna were twitching, that her back room roles were less than the overhype was saying and that they were the sort of roles which did not provide evidence of the exercise of the sort of judgment needed in a PM. If a candidate for a job in my place of work were to embellish their CV or to misdescribe their role they would get no further and, if employed, would face disciplinary action including dismissal. And that has happened.
It's not the smallness of the lie which matters. It's the fact that a lie has been said. It tells you a great deal about that person's default instincts. There are plenty of people in the City who appear to have good CVs but who, in substance, are less than they seem. We don't need their ilk as PM.
The nation can relax again. Sanity can prevail. The pound can rise.
"Describing her as a liberal centrist would seem a bit of stretch."
I thought I was describing her as a populist. Liberal? No problems. Authoritarian? No problems.
A career politician in fact.
As a Remainer when it seemed likely to win, but likely to be more Leaver now that has won.
Mr Eagles, the pain will ease and you will embrace the concept of an independent UK soon.
There is no pain. I'm loving it, plenty of opportunities professionally, plus SeanT's transformation into a mewling quim is another highlight.
are you on a different time zone or does the lager shed start at 6.00 am in Sheffield ? :-)
It's Eid, so I'm in a grumpy mood, I'm going to spend most of the day with my mum and dad's friends, who are going to suggest various arranged marriages for me.
Just wear your ruby slippers. That should silence them....
I thought the last Labour leadership contest had seen us scraping the bottom of the barrel, but the Conservatives have outdone them again. The Labour candidates were very poor quality, the Tories marginally better, but the spite and manouvering is in a different league.
There must be quite a few ministers who wish they'd thrown their hat into the ring, if only they'd known Boris would not come under starter's orders. They might not have won but surely most would fancy themselves to be second over Leadsom or Gove, and thus all but guarantee themselves a senior Cabinet post.
Perhaps we don't pay our politicians enough, or staff their offices properly. We do seem to have a lot of second-raters compared with years gone by.
The businessman and owner of Hull City football club said he is ready to fund a “Gang of Four” style defection, a reference to when senior Labour figures dramatically quit the party to create the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981.
Morning. One major donor willing to back SDP2, it's a good start. Also of note that he's interested in backing UKIP if Labour don't split.
At least someone's stepping up to the plate, now where are the Labour MPs ready to defect to the new party?
Why a Labour donor and potential SDP Mk2 donor would want to back UKIP evades me.
That's from a year ago, but again noises in the right direction that SDP2 could be funded. Now if only a few spineless MPs would get off their arses and pull the trigger.
Conservative voters are just decoration the same as Labour members and an election is a waste of money.A coronation is much more preferable so I can stop waiting to get paid out my winnings.Can the Tory party get on with it please.
Heartily disagree. Coronations are just awful. They give the *winner* no legitimacy. I really can't understand the rush, unless those backing the current leader think they'll lose ground. Recess begins on 22nd July.
Each Party has rules and should stick to them.
While I would tend to agree in theory, we've already had the election. It's not a case of May being 'crowned' but of her being so far ahead of the rest as to make carrying on pointless.
Brown, who used various forms of bribery and intimidation to ensure he would face no form of contest at all, was a wholly different case. May cannot be said to have no mandate even if the others withdraw in the next hour.
To put her dominance in context, she only needs to pick up less than half of Crabb and Fox's voters, for example, to have won more votes than Major did in 1990 when the PCP was about 15% larger. Moreover the other votes are fairly evenly split, while in 1990 Hesser was only 54 votes behind.
To her great credit however, she has always said and always made sure her supporters have said that she wants this election to be properly conducted including the ballot by members.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
However the Tories pick the next, in effect, coronation or members vote, the legitimacy will be the same, as not even indirectly will the wider public have a view as happens at a GE, so on that score it doesn't matter. Given in the modern era party rules to include provision for member involvement, I can't see why members woukd dislike not bring given options though - although already we're seeing some won't be happy unless given the choice they want, that it would be unfair for the MPs to deny that due to presumed motivation which might be true but might now.
Personally I think lead done coukd well win. She doesn't seem as great presentationally as her breathless admirers think, but neither is May. She is at the least credible seeming. She's the best hope for a leaver candidate which count or a lot - at present experience is trumping that, but may can only go backwards, she has baggage, she coukd slip up - and she has the opportunity to appear fresh and new.
I tend to take the view a high pound is not a symbol of the nation's virility, in fact it hits exporters and UK tourism so a relatively low £ for a short while is hardly a disaster
1) We haven't had a high pound for quite a while. A high pound is the Noughties £1=$2.1. Even the £1=$1.5 when the polls shut was pitiful. 2) £1=$1.3 is not relatively low. £1=$1.3 is extraordinarily low.
Again, unless you are going on holiday to the states or you buy a lot of goods from the states why is a low pound against the dollar of great concern? It may also encourage more Americans to visit London and the UK and help sell more British goods to the US
Virtually everyone buys lots of goods in dollars. It's what oil is priced in.
The cost of the average supermarket shop does not depend on the value of the dollar
ISTR we import most of our food.
Well that may encourage us to buy more British meat and fruit and vegetables again, no bad thing!
I've noticed I've spent most of the night responding to your posts, so I'll desist lest it be thought personal. But before I go, I need to point out that even during WWII, with the UK-resident population less than half what it is today, rationing, enormous investment in allotments, and a population well used to growing food in the garden, we were nowhere near food self-sufficiency.
On that last comment, we need to note that basic farm productivity has more than doubled since WW2, and therefore roughly kept pace with the population.
Although presumably the amount of land used for agriculture is declining: there are simply more economic uses for land in the UK. (Pheasant shooting, that kind of thing.)
The massive subsidies shooting estates receive is a scandal.
The pound was very low during the mid-1980s, when we had spectacular economic growth. The sight of left wingers putting all their faith in financial markets, while not understanding the meaning of them, is a sight to behold.
Says the poster who does not understand the Times story.
Says the poster who is incapable of understanding one can accept the point of a story while condemning a supposed business paper for not knowing the difference between basic financial sectors.
The Times is reporting that she did not manage funds, despite claims made by her supporters. It's her supporters who have got it completely wrong.
Out by "billions of pounds and hundreds of people".....
The businessman and owner of Hull City football club said he is ready to fund a “Gang of Four” style defection, a reference to when senior Labour figures dramatically quit the party to create the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981.
Morning. One major donor willing to back SDP2, it's a good start. Also of note that he's interested in backing UKIP if Labour don't split.
At least someone's stepping up to the plate, now where are the Labour MPs ready to defect to the new party?
Why a Labour donor and potential SDP Mk2 donor would want to back UKIP evades me.
That's from a year ago, but again noises in the right direction that SDP2 could be funded. Now if only a few spineless MPs would get off their arses and pull the trigger.
Surely the big worry is how many members and activists woukd come with them? Not many I'd bet.
@DPJHodges: One of the most enjoyable spectacles of the next 48 hours will be Michael Gove claiming Andrea Leadsom has insufficient expertise to be PM.
The pound was very low during the mid-1980s, when we had spectacular economic growth. The sight of left wingers putting all their faith in financial markets, while not understanding the meaning of them, is a sight to behold.
Says the poster who does not understand the Times story.
Says the poster who is incapable of understanding one can accept the point of a story while condemning a supposed business paper for not knowing the difference between basic financial sectors.
The Times is reporting that she did not manage funds, despite claims made by her supporters. It's her supporters who have got it completely wrong.
Out by "billions of pounds and hundreds of people".....
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Daily mirror? Also some genuine fears about what sort of PM AL might turn out to be, IMHO.
If you are May or one of her ardent supporters who would you rather be facing - Gove or Leadsom? My take is that Gove is a bit toxic in the world at large. He's a genius and has a super manifesto - but he's marmite and has the mouth of a toad. I'm not seeing Gove winning any elections either internal to the party or at GE time. Leadsom is, on the other hand, the new Maggie apparently. If I was May I'd be a lot more worried to face Leadsom because the result would be genuinely uncertain. I'd be feeling a lot more confident facing Gove.
The pound was very low during the mid-1980s, when we had spectacular economic growth. The sight of left wingers putting all their faith in financial markets, while not understanding the meaning of them, is a sight to behold.
Says the poster who does not understand the Times story.
Says the poster who is incapable of understanding one can accept the point of a story while condemning a supposed business paper for not knowing the difference between basic financial sectors.
The Times is reporting that she did not manage funds, despite claims made by her supporters. It's her supporters who have got it completely wrong.
Out by "billions of pounds and hundreds of people".....
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
I thought the last Labour leadership contest had seen us scraping the bottom of the barrel, but the Conservatives have outdone them again. The Labour candidates were very poor quality, the Tories marginally better, but the spite and manouvering is in a different league.
There must be quite a few ministers who wish they'd thrown their hat into the ring, if only they'd known Boris would not come under starter's orders. They might not have won but surely most would fancy themselves to be second over Leadsom or Gove, and thus all but guarantee themselves a senior Cabinet post.
Perhaps we don't pay our politicians enough, or staff their offices properly. We do seem to have a lot of second-raters compared with years gone by.
Nostalgia blinkers. Outside a few greats, most were likely always like this, because people are basically the same too.
I don't think it woukd be pay in any case but culture, we as electors reward (or rewarded, we shall see if the long predicted backlash occurs) the bland, cautious party automatons. And we get the leaders we deserve.
If you are May or one of her ardent supporters who would you rather be facing - Gove or Leadsom? My take is that Gove is a bit toxic in the world at large. He's a genius and has a super manifesto - but he's marmite and has the mouth of a toad. I'm not seeing Gove winning any elections either internal to the party or at GE time. Leadsom is, on the other hand, the new Maggie apparently. If I was May I'd be a lot more worried to face Leadsom because the result would be genuinely uncertain. I'd be feeling a lot more confident facing Gove.
The revelations about her CV and job title inflation are going to hurt.
The view on conhome seemed to be that people dropping out doesn't necessarily accelerate the process and they have decided to allow more time for campaigning and vote again next Tuesday. It surprised me - it was only in the comments section so may only be one person's opinion, but no-one there challenged it as wrong.
Since the member ballot dates have already been published, it may be right, however.
Wishful thinking I'd guess. Brady announced the vote. It wouldn't look good to amend it. Timetable has been clear from the off.
I agree that is wishful thinking. The timetable with ballots every Tuesday and Thursday isn't set by Brady. It is mandated by the 1922 Committee's rules. Any change would need to be agreed by the 1922 Committee.
There is one big link between Chilcott and the Tory leadership election and the referendum.
The willingness / ability of politicians to tell us the truth, to be honest about themselves, about the institutions we are in and the policies governments are proposing.
And that failure to speak honestly and intelligently is at the root of so many of our problems.
I thought the last Labour leadership contest had seen us scraping the bottom of the barrel, but the Conservatives have outdone them again. The Labour candidates were very poor quality, the Tories marginally better, but the spite and manouvering is in a different league.
There must be quite a few ministers who wish they'd thrown their hat into the ring, if only they'd known Boris would not come under starter's orders. They might not have won but surely most would fancy themselves to be second over Leadsom or Gove, and thus all but guarantee themselves a senior Cabinet post.
Perhaps we don't pay our politicians enough, or staff their offices properly. We do seem to have a lot of second-raters compared with years gone by.
Nostalgia blinkers. Outside a few greats, most were likely always like this, because people are basically the same too.
I don't think it woukd be pay in any case but culture, we as electors reward (or rewarded, we shall see if the long predicted backlash occurs) the bland, cautious party automatons. And we get the leaders we deserve.
Except that we almost got Boris, who wasn't like that, but would have been much worse than we deserve (except for people who voted leave, of course)
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
UKIP and Arron Banks, Supporters of Andrea are certainly not trashing her @CarlottaVance, as you have been all morning. Don't know about Murdoch though.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Were the AV sindy and 75 referendums not democratic?
Also plenty of leavers say they think may is the best option, hardly remainer revenge.
But no, paranoia about the msm (code for media one dislikes, by and large) out to get someone is the way to go. Even though as we've seen from Corbynistas, it can all be an msm smear even when quoting someone's own words.
There is a lot of mud being thrown at Andrea Leadsom. How the hell did she become an MP in the first place? Do the Tories not do due diligence on their candidates?
Well she was a rejected finalist in my home seat. Nobody has ever regretted the choice we made and ive always pitied South Northants for getting lumbered. I assume she dropped her major selling point from our selection process which went down like a cup of cold sick.
What was that "major selling point"?
She tried to convince a Conservative Constituency of her commitment by telling a story of how she once gave birth in the morning and went to a Parliamentary Selection in the evening. Like I say it didn't go down well. At. All!!
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
If you are May or one of her ardent supporters who would you rather be facing - Gove or Leadsom? My take is that Gove is a bit toxic in the world at large. He's a genius and has a super manifesto - but he's marmite and has the mouth of a toad. I'm not seeing Gove winning any elections either internal to the party or at GE time. Leadsom is, on the other hand, the new Maggie apparently. If I was May I'd be a lot more worried to face Leadsom because the result would be genuinely uncertain. I'd be feeling a lot more confident facing Gove.
I imagine she woukd. Personally she may as well get supporters to get Gove into the final two - she's going to face a lot of grief regardless.
There is a lot of mud being thrown at Andrea Leadsom. How the hell did she become an MP in the first place? Do the Tories not do due diligence on their candidates?
Well she was a rejected finalist in my home seat. Nobody has ever regretted the choice we made and ive always pitied South Northants for getting lumbered. I assume she dropped her major selling point from our selection process which went down like a cup of cold sick.
What was that "major selling point"?
She tried to convince a Conservative Constituency of her commitment by telling a story of how she once gave birth in the morning and went to a Parliamentary Selection in the evening. Like I say it didn't go down well. At. All!!
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Daily mirror? Also some genuine fears about what sort of PM AL might turn out to be, IMHO.
And the Guardian......but NOOOOO! St Andrea of BREXIT must not be subject to scrutiny - it's only the PM job she's after....
I thought the last Labour leadership contest had seen us scraping the bottom of the barrel, but the Conservatives have outdone them again. The Labour candidates were very poor quality, the Tories marginally better, but the spite and manouvering is in a different league.
There must be quite a few ministers who wish they'd thrown their hat into the ring, if only they'd known Boris would not come under starter's orders. They might not have won but surely most would fancy themselves to be second over Leadsom or Gove, and thus all but guarantee themselves a senior Cabinet post.
Perhaps we don't pay our politicians enough, or staff their offices properly. We do seem to have a lot of second-raters compared with years gone by.
Nostalgia blinkers. Outside a few greats, most were likely always like this, because people are basically the same too.
I don't think it woukd be pay in any case but culture, we as electors reward (or rewarded, we shall see if the long predicted backlash occurs) the bland, cautious party automatons. And we get the leaders we deserve.
Except that we almost got Boris, who wasn't like that, but would have been much worse than we deserve (except for people who voted leave, of course)
There is a reason they developed into such types, for the most part - we can react agaibst anything else because Boris types can indeed be worse, yes.
The Times claims Leadsom has no experience as an investment banker because she didn't manage money. Investment bankers don't manage money. They sort out things like mergers and IPOs. The Times, supposedly the paper of big business, does not know the difference between investment banking and investment management. What a joke of a newspaper.
The issue is that her CV claimed she was the Chief Investment Officer for a very large fund management company. A claim that appears a gross exaggeration.
To put it mildly.
And people seriously think she should be this country's Prime Minister.
Ed Miliband. Need I say more ?
Not sure what that has to do with putting an inexperienced fantasist in charge during a pivotal moment in this country's post-war history. Ed Miliband was rejected by the voters.
Ed Miliband was the labour party's candidate for PM and he had less experience than Leadsom. On all levels Leadsom has done more.
I really dont care that much who wins the vote, but this simply shows we have allowed ourselves to be governed by clowns and media whores. There's hardly a serious politicians left in the country.
A "serious politician" is someone who has some experience to bring to Westminster from their dealings in some other sphere. Someone who wants to go into politics aged 21 (probably having dreamt of being a SPAD since they were six) should be whacked around the head with an enormo-haddock until they are prepared to start their way up the slippery hill by stacking shelves at TESCO...
Wanting to be a politician should be a bar to being a politician.
I believe that some libertarian members of the Republican Party in the US came up with a version of democracy akin to Jury Service. A number of the people would be selected at random and asked to represent their constituency in government and limited to a term. It could probably be improved with a two term process - jury service at random and the country then electing the most competent out of the cull for a second term in higher office. No political parties, no career politicians, real world experience. A tad radical for my tastes but if we elected 1200 - 2400 for the UK (the numbers weeding out the Tinfoil hat wearers) then 600 for the higher chamber it would certainly make a more representative segment of the population than the Corbyn's, Farron's & Osborne's of this world.
The businessman and owner of Hull City football club said he is ready to fund a “Gang of Four” style defection, a reference to when senior Labour figures dramatically quit the party to create the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981.
Morning. One major donor willing to back SDP2, it's a good start. Also of note that he's interested in backing UKIP if Labour don't split.
At least someone's stepping up to the plate, now where are the Labour MPs ready to defect to the new party?
Why a Labour donor and potential SDP Mk2 donor would want to back UKIP evades me.
That's from a year ago, but again noises in the right direction that SDP2 could be funded. Now if only a few spineless MPs would get off their arses and pull the trigger.
Surely the big worry is how many members and activists woukd come with them? Not many I'd bet.
It depends on what sort of party it is. I don't sense there is a mood for SDP2, looking towards the centre and the LibDems. You're right that this wouldn't pull many members and would need to bring in another slice of people new to politics.
My sense is that things are getting so bad that resolving the "which is the real Labour Party?" question may have to be put to the voters, with two different flavours of labour competing to see which survives. The analogy here would be the year or two when the rump SDP and the new SLD competed for the crown of centre party, which culminated in the SDP giving up when the loonies beat them into some distant place at that by-election.
I don't think we are there, yet, but the party is certainly not making much progress in finding a better solution.
There is one big link between Chilcott and the Tory leadership election and the referendum.
The willingness / ability of politicians to tell us the truth, to be honest about themselves, about the institutions we are in and the policies governments are proposing.
And that failure to speak honestly and intelligently is at the root of so many of our problems.
Yes, although I out that down to lack of courage - we the public tend to punish politicians who tell the truth do honestly, even if done intelligently.
If remainers prove right and things go poorly I'll have to admit to foing the same!
There is a lot of mud being thrown at Andrea Leadsom. How the hell did she become an MP in the first place? Do the Tories not do due diligence on their candidates?
Well she was a rejected finalist in my home seat. Nobody has ever regretted the choice we made and ive always pitied South Northants for getting lumbered. I assume she dropped her major selling point from our selection process which went down like a cup of cold sick.
What was that "major selling point"?
She tried to convince a Conservative Constituency of her commitment by telling a story of how she once gave birth in the morning and went to a Parliamentary Selection in the evening. Like I say it didn't go down well. At. All!!
Talk about misjudging an audience.
Well quite. She must have dropped the story as cannot imagine it working ever.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Oh, what about her 10 years at Barclays that was cleverly, and on purpose, not even mentioned in the article, where she was in charge of funds and had a position of some responsibility.
Revealing that Andrea Mitty has not been entirely honest about her career prior to becoming an MP is not trashing her reputation, it is shining some more light on someone who aspirs to be this country's leader. She does not have the experience either she or her supporters claim she has. The public has every right to know that. It puts other claims and assertions she has made into context.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
While they can't vote, I wouldn't say they have absolutely zero influence....
Seems like a long time between the shortlist being decided upon and the decision being made.
Yes indeed. With mass printing of ballots to then be mailed, I presumed, that'd be a couple of weeks I think. Then you could give a couple of weeks for people to decide. Could be done early August.
There is one big link between Chilcott and the Tory leadership election and the referendum.
The willingness / ability of politicians to tell us the truth, to be honest about themselves, about the institutions we are in and the policies governments are proposing.
And that failure to speak honestly and intelligently is at the root of so many of our problems.
Yes, although I out that down to lack of courage - we the public tend to punish politicians who tell the truth do honestly, even if done intelligently.
If remainers prove right and things go poorly I'll have to admit to foing the same!
I think the opposite myself. I think the public would respect politicians who did that consistently. You reap what you sow.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
He probably doesn't know her very well given that she doesn't seem to have been very senior in the end.
There is one big link between Chilcott and the Tory leadership election and the referendum.
The willingness / ability of politicians to tell us the truth, to be honest about themselves, about the institutions we are in and the policies governments are proposing.
And that failure to speak honestly and intelligently is at the root of so many of our problems.
I've been saying that for ages, we're all entitled to opinions but some prefer to lie. Scan this site for ten minutes, its full of people making things up, I genuinely have no idea why they do it, I put it down to insecurity and a desire to belong.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
It's called obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception where I work.
Revealing that Andrea Mitty has not been entirely honest about her career prior to becoming an MP is not trashing her reputation, it is shining some more light on someone who aspirs to be this country's leader. She does not have the experience either she or her supporters claim she has. The public has every right to know that. It puts other claims and assertions she has made into context.
If it is true it may be trashing her reputation, but it would be justifiable. It's the same issue with criticism of scaremongering, which if it is true is not unreasonable simp,y because it is scary.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
While they can't vote, I wouldn't say they have absolutely zero influence....
Well from what I gather any association with Banks is negative so in that respect you're right. I can't see many tories consulting Ukip supporters before they vote.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
He probably doesn't know her very well given that she doesn't seem to have been very senior in the end.
Yes - but he might be a tad miffed to see her claiming his role as her own. It was Woodford who managed funds and made investment decisions. If anyone was the Invesco Perpetual "star" it was him.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
It's called obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception where I work.
It's an interesting issue as at some point doesn't it become a criminal offence? Or is that just lying about qualifications....
I tend to take the view a high pound is not a symbol of the nation's virility, in fact it hits exporters and UK tourism so a relatively low £ for a short while is hardly a disaster
1) We haven't had a high pound for quite a while. A high pound is the Noughties £1=$2.1. Even the £1=$1.5 when the polls shut was pitiful. 2) £1=$1.3 is not relatively low. £1=$1.3 is extraordinarily low.
Again, unless you are going on holiday to the states or you buy a lot of goods from the states why is a low pound against the dollar of great concern? It may also encourage more Americans to visit London and the UK and help sell more British goods to the US
Virtually everyone buys lots of goods in dollars. It's what oil is priced in.
The cost of the average supermarket shop does not depend on the value of the dollar
ISTR we import most of our food.
Well that may encourage us to buy more British meat and fruit and vegetables again, no bad thing!
I've noticed I've spent most of the night responding to your posts, so I'll desist lest it be thought personal. But before I go, I need to point out that even during WWII, with the UK-resident population less than half what it is today, rationing, enormous investment in allotments, and a population well used to growing food in the garden, we were nowhere near food self-sufficiency.
On that last comment, we need to note that basic farm productivity has more than doubled since WW2, and therefore roughly kept pace with the population.
Although presumably the amount of land used for agriculture is declining: there are simply more economic uses for land in the UK. (Pheasant shooting, that kind of thing.)
The massive subsidies shooting estates receive is a scandal.
Especially the most environmentally damaging activity - driven grouse shooting, where vast sums of subsidy are paid to little public benefit. Mark Avery's blog is brilliant on this.
Morning GIN, easily distilled, hubris from Cameron and Osborne stupidly believing they were smart and popular , then left campaign to a bunch of halfwitted metropolitan bubble chums pals , cronies , relatives etc add some stupidity and not knowing what was happening in the real world and Hey Presto , hoist by their own Petard. No longer the wanted grand legacy , just a foot note in history as the dumbo's who wrecked the UK.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
It's called obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception where I work.
You bloody lawyers and your technical descriptions! Why not just call it lying to get ahead.
Revealing that Andrea Mitty has not been entirely honest about her career prior to becoming an MP is not trashing her reputation, it is shining some more light on someone who aspirs to be this country's leader. She does not have the experience either she or her supporters claim she has. The public has every right to know that. It puts other claims and assertions she has made into context.
If it is true it may be trashing her reputation, but it would be justifiable. It's the same issue with criticism of scaremongering, which if it is true is not unreasonable simp,y because it is scary.
My objection to all of this is that it makes the Tory Party look thoroughly inept. These things about her past don't just make her unsuitable to be PM, they make her unsuitable to be an MP.
The pound was very low during the mid-1980s, when we had spectacular economic growth. The sight of left wingers putting all their faith in financial markets, while not understanding the meaning of them, is a sight to behold.
In the 1980s we had growth on the way out of a severe recession and political/industrial turmoil, which is how the currency got so low in the first place.
Whilst it's true that a low currency will make exports more competitive, claiming that this makes a falling £ brilliant news is looking at the silver lining and ignoring the cloud.
Unfortunately, we do not have enough companies that export to make the most of the falling pound. Anecdotally, what we are seeing are hiring freezes and investment delays. That does not indicate a march of the makers. What the falling pound will definitely mean is much higher prices - for commodities and in the shops.
Only in the short term. In the medium and longer term, no, because market economies adjust. Consumers adjust their behaviour quite quickly in reponse to price, but suppliers adjust more slowly while investment in capacity to respond to increased consumer demand takes place. The decision to leave the EU is a long term one and should be judged accordingly.
This is an interesting report from the German car manufacturers. They are really fearful about losing tariff-free access to their most important export market, which would be on top of the impact of the appreciation of the Euro relative to the pound.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Possibly backers of Gove. Happy to back off attacking Leadsom while she was doing a good job promoting Brexit. But that job is now done so they can clear her out of the way and let the big boys take over.
The Times claims Leadsom has no experience as an investment banker because she didn't manage money. Investment bankers don't manage money. They sort out things like mergers and IPOs. The Times, supposedly the paper of big business, does not know the difference between investment banking and investment management. What a joke of a newspaper.
The issue is that her CV claimed she was the Chief Investment Officer for a very large fund management company. A claim that appears a gross exaggeration.
To put it mildly.
And people seriously think she should be this country's Prime Minister.
Ed Miliband. Need I say more ?
Not sure what that has to do with putting an inexperienced fantasist in charge during a pivotal moment in this country's post-war history. Ed Miliband was rejected by the voters.
Ed Miliband was the labour party's candidate for PM and he had less experience than Leadsom. On all levels Leadsom has done more.
I really dont care that much who wins the vote, but this simply shows we have allowed ourselves to be governed by clowns and media whores. There's hardly a serious politicians left in the country.
A "serious politician" is someone who has some experience to bring to Westminster from their dealings in some other sphere. Someone who wants to go into politics aged 21 (probably having dreamt of being a SPAD since they were six) should be whacked around the head with an enormo-haddock until they are prepared to start their way up the slippery hill by stacking shelves at TESCO...
Wanting to be a politician should be a bar to being a politician.
I believe that some libertarian members of the Republican Party in the US came up with a version of democracy akin to Jury Service. A number of the people would be selected at random and asked to represent their constituency in government and limited to a term. It could probably be improved with a two term process - jury service at random and the country then electing the most competent out of the cull for a second term in higher office. No political parties, no career politicians, real world experience. A tad radical for my tastes but if we elected 1200 - 2400 for the UK (the numbers weeding out the Tinfoil hat wearers) then 600 for the higher chamber it would certainly make a more representative segment of the population than the Corbyn's, Farron's & Osborne's of this world.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
He probably doesn't know her very well given that she doesn't seem to have been very senior in the end.
Yes - but he might be a tad miffed to see her claiming his role as her own. It was Woodford who managed funds and made investment decisions. If anyone was the Invesco Perpetual "star" it was him.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
The Times claims Leadsom has no experience as an investment banker because she didn't manage money. Investment bankers don't manage money. They sort out things like mergers and IPOs. The Times, supposedly the paper of big business, does not know the difference between investment banking and investment management. What a joke of a newspaper.
The issue is that her CV claimed she was the Chief Investment Officer for a very large fund management company. A claim that appears a gross exaggeration.
To put it mildly.
And people seriously think she should be this country's Prime Minister.
Sadly this is all too common. Remember IDS and his university course (which turned out to be a two-day residential)? Or Ed Miliband claiming he came from a normal background? Or Blair's inventive recreation of himself as a member of a miners' club?
Leadsom appears about typical. Corbyn of course is the most implausible of the lot, claiming he is sane and honourable.
Douglas Hurd claimed he was the son of a tenant farmer when that became very fashionable vs Major. He hoped no one would notice the peer, several knights, MPs etc that also made up his clan.
Ah the UK equivalent of "Son of a Coal Miner", "Son of a Military Vet Golf ball washer", "Son of a Car Dealer" "Son of an Irish Immigrant sheep herder". Neglecting to mention the fact that they owned the Mine/Golf Course/General Motors/Were the 8th Duke of Sligo.
Oh and as for the Times - neglecting the 10 years Leadsom spent at Barclays De Zoete Wedd seems a tad on the selective side. Why oh why do I think this is a planted article by team May. And they are bemused at the lack of trust in politics.
Gold is just rocketing ahead at the moment - in $ terms and doubly so in £ terms. Yippee! I do hope PBers listened to my sincere from months ago to but some.
Revealing that Andrea Mitty has not been entirely honest about her career prior to becoming an MP is not trashing her reputation, it is shining some more light on someone who aspirs to be this country's leader. She does not have the experience either she or her supporters claim she has. The public has every right to know that. It puts other claims and assertions she has made into context.
If it is true it may be trashing her reputation, but it would be justifiable. It's the same issue with criticism of scaremongering, which if it is true is not unreasonable simp,y because it is scary.
Revealing that Andrea Mitty has not been entirely honest about her career prior to becoming an MP is not trashing her reputation, it is shining some more light on someone who aspirs to be this country's leader. She does not have the experience either she or her supporters claim she has. The public has every right to know that. It puts other claims and assertions she has made into context.
If it is true it may be trashing her reputation, but it would be justifiable. It's the same issue with criticism of scaremongering, which if it is true is not unreasonable simp,y because it is scary.
My objection to all of this is that it makes the Tory Party look thoroughly inept. These things about her past don't just make her unsuitable to be PM, they make her unsuitable to be an MP.
This is the whole point, its likely she'll be in cabinet and the pb tories will be telling us what a great job she's doing.
Stephen Pollard As usual, Vernon Bogdanor gets to the heart of things https://t.co/vVUQoqBHp3
In one sense yes, he does. But he fails to mention that nobody had any idea what ticking the 'Leave the EU' box entailed. And we still don't. Unfortunately it means different things to different people. It seems large numbers felt it meant an end to migration, which it doesn't.
It may mean an end to free movement of people from EU and I am coming around to viewing that failing to negotiate that at least out of the EU will be seen as a betrayal. However, FoM may well fall apart as an idea across Europe anyway as we play for time over the negotiations.
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Oh, what about her 10 years at Barclays that was cleverly, and on purpose, not even mentioned in the article, where she was in charge of funds and had a position of some responsibility.
No - her role was a relatively junior one. And there is nothing about her CV before then, which is odd because there appears to be a gap. Was BZW her first job?
UKIP and Arron Banks, Supporters of Andrea are certainly not trashing her @CarlottaVance, as you have been all morning. Don't know about Murdoch though.
The fact that Banks and UKIP are openly supporting Leadsom clearly shows they really want May to win ....
There is a lot of mud being thrown at Andrea Leadsom. How the hell did she become an MP in the first place? Do the Tories not do due diligence on their candidates?
Well she was a rejected finalist in my home seat. Nobody has ever regretted the choice we made and ive always pitied South Northants for getting lumbered. I assume she dropped her major selling point from our selection process which went down like a cup of cold sick.
What was that "major selling point"?
She tried to convince a Conservative Constituency of her commitment by telling a story of how she once gave birth in the morning and went to a Parliamentary Selection in the evening. Like I say it didn't go down well. At. All!!
I can see why she didn't make it in banking...need to tailor your pitch to the audience!
Well, well, well, The MSM backing May are doing a job on Andrea Leadsom this morning, backed by May supporting Remainers in Politics and Business and led on PB by who else but TSE, the Tory that Sucks on Europe. Who would have thunk it, that shit throwing Remainers are determined to get some revenge for their defeat in the only democratic (Just) referendum we will see our lifetimes.
Not really, she has serious questions to answer about her time at De Putron and Invesco. Job title inflation is something that a lot of people do, but she claimed to be in charge of billions in funds and managing at least a hundred people. Neither seem to be true.
Misdescribing your role is a disciplinary offence at my firm.
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
It's called obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception where I work.
It's an interesting issue as at some point doesn't it become a criminal offence? Or is that just lying about qualifications....
It comes down to an issue if you misled to a sufficient amount as to be material.
In the financial services industry it becomes an issue if you lied to become an approved/authorised by the FSA/PRC person.
As May and Gove have published their tax returns can we expect Andrea Leadsom's in the next 24 hours . Also I really cannot get around the thought of an ex banker as a conservative pm, it would be a gift wrapped in gold ribbon to labour
I was surprised to how little May earns - she appears to have no other financial interests beyond Home Sec
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
There is one big link between Chilcott and the Tory leadership election and the referendum.
The willingness / ability of politicians to tell us the truth, to be honest about themselves, about the institutions we are in and the policies governments are proposing.
And that failure to speak honestly and intelligently is at the root of so many of our problems.
Yes, although I out that down to lack of courage - we the public tend to punish politicians who tell the truth do honestly, even if done intelligently.
If remainers prove right and things go poorly I'll have to admit to foing the same!
I think the opposite myself. I think the public would respect politicians who did that consistently. You reap what you sow.
I may be more pessimistic. Anytime a politician tries to tell hard truths they get pilloried. If a nuanced position is attempted most supporters at least see it as betrayal, opponents as shameful u turning or confusion, lacking extremity or ideological purity is seen as being weak, vacillating, lacking conviction and vision. How often fo see someone praised nd popular for being principled, regardless of other qualities and what those principles are?
I guess it's a chicken and egg thing. I don't believe politicians would have developed the style end culture they have if it did not work. If it did not, they'd do something else, they'd have no choice. Now, it won't work forever and the culture changes, but it has worked till now.
Thought on Leadsom: she is supposedly a Christian as far as I'm aware. How does sexing up your CV square with the injunction "thou shalt not bear false witness"?
He was never serious about the "renegotiation". While he was pretending to "negotiate" with the EU, He and Osborne, and Mandelson and Cooper and Jack Straw's son were busy having cosy meetings setting everything up to keep us "IN"
Thus the "renegotiation" was a complete and utter farce and Cameron was being entirely disingenuous... As we all knew.
The political class took the public for fools and the public struck back. They were hoisted by their own blatant cynicism.
Worryingly it doesn't look like they've even begun to comprehend the lesson the GBP have dished out to them...
GIN, you did not need to read that to know exactly what the useless big turnip was thinking.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
Leadsom's refusal to rule out a deal with Farage has been a deal breaker for me and for a lot of other members I've spoken to. If she doesn't intend to do a deal with Nige then she should say so.
Morning GIN, easily distilled, hubris from Cameron and Osborne stupidly believing they were smart and popular , then left campaign to a bunch of halfwitted metropolitan bubble chums pals , cronies , relatives etc add some stupidity and not knowing what was happening in the real world and Hey Presto , hoist by their own Petard. No longer the wanted grand legacy , just a foot note in history as the dumbo's who wrecked the UK.
It was a fascinating read, Malc, and I think your short critique pretty much nailed the gist of it!
Revealing that Andrea Mitty has not been entirely honest about her career prior to becoming an MP is not trashing her reputation, it is shining some more light on someone who aspirs to be this country's leader. She does not have the experience either she or her supporters claim she has. The public has every right to know that. It puts other claims and assertions she has made into context.
If it is true it may be trashing her reputation, but it would be justifiable. It's the same issue with criticism of scaremongering, which if it is true is not unreasonable simp,y because it is scary.
What on earth are you talking about? There are sometimes negative consequences to decisions, even if we think the positives outweigh those negatives. Mentioning the negatives is always labelled as scaremongering, but that would only be the case if the negatives are not true. It someone's reputation is built on lies, then it is hardly unfair if that is exposed - and I did not say, at this stage, the claims on leadsome are true.
I am genuinely confused how it is facist to suggest sometimes when people talk about negatives they are correct.
Thought on Leadsom: she is supposedly a Christian as far as I'm aware. How does sexing up your CV square with the injunction "thou shalt not bear false witness"?
A lawyer could argue her out of that one on the basis that technically it wasn't false witness against her neighbour. It could be considered an injunction against gossip rather than lying.
As May and Gove have published their tax returns can we expect Andrea Leadsom's in the next 24 hours . Also I really cannot get around the thought of an ex banker as a conservative pm, it would be a gift wrapped in gold ribbon to labour
I was surprised to how little May earns - she appears to have no other financial interests beyond Home Sec
The Times claims Leadsom has no experience as an investment banker because she didn't manage money. Investment bankers don't manage money. They sort out things like mergers and IPOs. The Times, supposedly the paper of big business, does not know the difference between investment banking and investment management. What a joke of a newspaper.
The issue is that her CV claimed she was the Chief Investment Officer for a very large fund management company. A claim that appears a gross exaggeration.
To put it mildly.
And people seriously think she should be this country's Prime Minister.
Sadly this is all too common. Remember IDS and his university course (which turned out to be a two-day residential)? Or Ed Miliband claiming he came from a normal background? Or Blair's inventive recreation of himself as a member of a miners' club?
Leadsom appears about typical. Corbyn of course is the most implausible of the lot, claiming he is sane and honourable.
Douglas Hurd claimed he was the son of a tenant farmer when that became very fashionable vs Major. He hoped no one would notice the peer, several knights, MPs etc that also made up his clan.
Ah the UK equivalent of "Son of a Coal Miner", "Son of a Military Vet Golf ball washer", "Son of a Car Dealer" "Son of an Irish Immigrant sheep herder". Neglecting to mention the fact that they owned the Mine/Golf Course/General Motors/Were the 8th Duke of Sligo.
Oh and as for the Times - neglecting the 10 years Leadsom spent at Barclays De Zoete Wedd seems a tad on the selective side. Why oh why do I think this is a planted article by team May. And they are bemused at the lack of trust in politics.
I hope she can successfully rebutt this stuff, it really is an onslaught.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
Leadsom's refusal to rule out a deal with Farage has been a deal breaker for me and for a lot of other members I've spoken to. If she doesn't intend to do a deal with Nige then she should say so.
I would like to see him involved, the chances of it happening are so negligible they are irrelevant.
Comments
That would shut them up pronto...
Ms Cyclefree is back....
Perhaps we don't pay our politicians enough, or staff their offices properly. We do seem to have a lot of second-raters compared with years gone by.
Brown, who used various forms of bribery and intimidation to ensure he would face no form of contest at all, was a wholly different case. May cannot be said to have no mandate even if the others withdraw in the next hour.
To put her dominance in context, she only needs to pick up less than half of Crabb and Fox's voters, for example, to have won more votes than Major did in 1990 when the PCP was about 15% larger. Moreover the other votes are fairly evenly split, while in 1990 Hesser was only 54 votes behind.
To her great credit however, she has always said and always made sure her supporters have said that she wants this election to be properly conducted including the ballot by members.
Personally I think lead done coukd well win. She doesn't seem as great presentationally as her breathless admirers think, but neither is May. She is at the least credible seeming. She's the best hope for a leaver candidate which count or a lot - at present experience is trumping that, but may can only go backwards, she has baggage, she coukd slip up - and she has the opportunity to appear fresh and new.
Corbyn has one more pummelling to look forward to if everyone sane gets their way.
https://twitter.com/johngapper/status/750584816211460096
Seems like a long time between the shortlist being decided upon and the decision being made.
@DPJHodges: One of the most enjoyable spectacles of the next 48 hours will be Michael Gove claiming Andrea Leadsom has insufficient expertise to be PM.
http://reaction.life/was-andrea-leadsom-really-such-a-city-hotshot/
I don't think it woukd be pay in any case but culture, we as electors reward (or rewarded, we shall see if the long predicted backlash occurs) the bland, cautious party automatons. And we get the leaders we deserve.
The willingness / ability of politicians to tell us the truth, to be honest about themselves, about the institutions we are in and the policies governments are proposing.
And that failure to speak honestly and intelligently is at the root of so many of our problems.
Also plenty of leavers say they think may is the best option, hardly remainer revenge.
But no, paranoia about the msm (code for media one dislikes, by and large) out to get someone is the way to go. Even though as we've seen from Corbynistas, it can all be an msm smear even when quoting someone's own words.
My sense is that things are getting so bad that resolving the "which is the real Labour Party?" question may have to be put to the voters, with two different flavours of labour competing to see which survives. The analogy here would be the year or two when the rump SDP and the new SLD competed for the crown of centre party, which culminated in the SDP giving up when the loonies beat them into some distant place at that by-election.
I don't think we are there, yet, but the party is certainly not making much progress in finding a better solution.
I see Leadsom has drifted out on BF overnight.
If remainers prove right and things go poorly I'll have to admit to foing the same!
There are plenty of raging egomaniacs in the City. We don't need one as PM. I wonder what Neil Woodford, who was the real hotshot at Invesco Perpetual, thinks of La Leadsom's claims.
As usual, Vernon Bogdanor gets to the heart of things https://t.co/vVUQoqBHp3
I'll be resigning live on all programmes I'm booked for.
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/750592677641592833
MSmithsonPB: .@TSEofPB You seem really desperate to Tweet negative news about Leadsom.
This is an interesting report from the German car manufacturers. They are really fearful about losing tariff-free access to their most important export market, which would be on top of the impact of the appreciation of the Euro relative to the pound.
http://www.just-auto.com/news/vda-warns-against-post-brexit-customs-barriers_id170313.aspx
Blair's (Londo) deal with Bush (Morden):
http s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-0zq3ato4&t=0m47s
How Tony Blair must have felt after the war:
http s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjIlqrAfbbg&t=0m30s
How many people want to see Tony Blair:
http s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47DfQcHMYLY&t=0m51s
How he will end up:
http s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LVvsRpr-Sw
(Remove spaces to create the links)
Oh and as for the Times - neglecting the 10 years Leadsom spent at Barclays De Zoete Wedd seems a tad on the selective side. Why oh why do I think this is a planted article by team May. And they are bemused at the lack of trust in politics.
It may mean an end to free movement of people from EU and I am coming around to viewing that failing to negotiate that at least out of the EU will be seen as a betrayal. However, FoM may well fall apart as an idea across Europe anyway as we play for time over the negotiations.
In the financial services industry it becomes an issue if you lied to become an approved/authorised by the FSA/PRC person.
I guess it's a chicken and egg thing. I don't believe politicians would have developed the style end culture they have if it did not work. If it did not, they'd do something else, they'd have no choice. Now, it won't work forever and the culture changes, but it has worked till now.
I am genuinely confused how it is facist to suggest sometimes when people talk about negatives they are correct.