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.
TBH, The Times is still in Remain campaigning mode. I'm looking forward to them regaining their balance.
Danny Fink has penned the most risible article today - he's produced a few thin contributions in succession, but he's really scraping the barrel this morning.
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.
I must be off, but I must say, and perhaps my inner fascist is really good at self deception, but I think this has to be one of the most singularly bizarre criticisms I think I've ever experienced or seen on this site.
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.
You're a UKIP member and voter, so not really surprising. Again, Leadsom needs to confirm that it is off the table, not just assume that Tory members know it is. May has sensibly come out and said it while Leadsom has been evasive when asked.
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.
Quite. And it's not as if others hostile to her interests, and those of the Conservatives, wouldn't be making the same points were she to win. Best that they're aired early for the public (or at least, MPs and party members) to judge to what extent they're of relevance.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
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.
You're a UKIP member and voter, so not really surprising. Again, Leadsom needs to confirm that it is off the table, not just assume that Tory members know it is. May has sensibly come out and said it while Leadsom has been evasive when asked.
Yup, gulf in class!
Incidentally I suspect the anti-Leadsom stuff is more likely Gove than May. He stands to gain more in the short term and we know he doesn't have scruples about sharing a stage one week and knifing someone the next!
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
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.
You're a UKIP member and voter, so not really surprising. Again, Leadsom needs to confirm that it is off the table, not just assume that Tory members know it is. May has sensibly come out and said it while Leadsom has been evasive when asked.
Why would someone from Vote Leave involve someone from Grassroots Out? Not to mention all of the political capital wasted having to subsequently defend the poster. There is just no way it happens no matter who the candidate is - I think you're overly worried.
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.
This Farage business seems like a complete non-story. No-one has suggested Mr Farage will be negotiating with the EU on behalf of the UK. Do the candidates need to issue statements that UK air defences will not attack any cows attempting a moon-jump?
The chief Leadsom issue is this malarky about her CV. What was her experience before becoming an MP?
In parliament she seems to have done OK. Her role in the Fresh Start group, examining the UK-EU relationship and suggesting reforms looks good and relevant. The junior minister roles are OK. But I get the impression that with the exceptions of half a dozen power players in the cabinet, all ministers are juniors.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
Yes, were it not for his barmy views on the EU he would have easily won, my dad voted for IDS, but would have voted for Portillo had he been there instead of IDS.
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.
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.
I must be off, but I must say, and perhaps my inner fascist is really good at self deception, but I think this has to be one of the most singularly bizarre criticisms I think I've ever experienced or seen on this site.
Don't deny it. You spend all your waking hours practising your goosesteps
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.
TBH, The Times is still in Remain campaigning mode. I'm looking forward to them regaining their balance.
Danny Fink has penned the most risible article today - he's produced a few thin contributions in succession, but he's really scraping the barrel this morning.
Isn't Danny one of Osborne's close friends.. ?
I don't know. He's just been such a suck up during the campaign. I get being loyal, but he's jumped the shark today.
This whole referendum has created some strange bedfellows and stirred even odder passions for the unloved EU.
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.
No, ICM on Sunday had only 28% with immigration as the main priority for the next PM compared to over 60% for the economy. If you add together the 48% who voted Remain and some liberal Leave voters who backed F of M but opposed many of the EU directives and regulations you get a clear majority across the country for F of M even if a small majority of Leave voters opposed 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.
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.
Absolutely. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
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.
If she's been exaggerating and has been found out it's going to be difficult to rebut.
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.
I would wait on the performance of Woodford Asset Management before determining whether it was real or good personal PR. The fact that he insisted in negotiating his salary with the Chairman is a warning flag for me...
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.
I must be off, but I must say, and perhaps my inner fascist is really good at self deception, but I think this has to be one of the most singularly bizarre criticisms I think I've ever experienced or seen on this site.
Don't deny it. You spend all your waking hours practising your goosesteps
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.
This Farage business seems like a complete non-story. No-one has suggested Mr Farage will be negotiating with the EU on behalf of the UK. Do the candidates need to issue statements that UK air defences will not attack any cows attempting a moon-jump?
Then why not just rule it out when asked by the press, other MPs and soon party members? It makes no sense to be evasive on the subject, May has ruled it out and been pretty unequivocal about it. Leadsom's dithering and evasiveness makes it look like a deal has been done with Banks for Leave.EU's support if she give Farage a role, conveniently he is no longer leader of UKIP either...
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.
I must be off, but I must say, and perhaps my inner fascist is really good at self deception, but I think this has to be one of the most singularly bizarre criticisms I think I've ever experienced or seen on this site.
Don't deny it. You spend all your waking hours practising your goosesteps
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.
ceteris paribus, sunshine, ceteris paribus. And ceteris ain't paribus.
We import plenty of from USD-denominated countries (mainly US & China) and including much of our energy needs, so the line "good for exports", although true, doesn't mean a low exchange rate is unambiguously good for the UK.
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.
When we have a membership ballot, and if it goes Corbyn's way, then things would be as they are now, with the impasse confirmed.
One option open to the Labour MPs would be to act independently and do enough to satisfy Bercow that they satisfied the criteria of becoming the official opposition. Crucially that would remove Corbyn as official opposition leader and mean that we would see a different face at the despatch box. This would probably mean establishing themselves as the "Independent Parliamentary Labour Party" and putting in place a constitution not dissimilar to the way the Independent Labour Party sought to cooperate at arms length with the Labour Party in the 1930s, with several MPs being members of both until the Labour Party eventually made that incompatible.
That would be a sub-nuclear option because it would leave open the possibility of Corbyn being removed as leader, at which point a reconciliation would be possible. I suspect that a move by the Corbynites to try and expel 170 MPs of the Independent Parliamentary Labour Party from the Labour Party would do the job.
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.
Which of us would 'scape a whipping if embellishing one's CV were seriously punished?
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.
They are paid far more than their competence suggests they should be, some would struggle to deserve minimum wages.
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.
Best one was Hague's sixteen pints
...not a tiny patch on Dave's 'I'm a Eurosceptic...that particular lie has kind of exploded!
Why do we think May is attacking Leadsom. Surely Machiavelli Gove is as likely a candidate.
It's got to be Gove. We have the Sun saying on the front page that Gove should make the final two and then the Times printing these serious revelations about her career before being an MP. Lady Macbeth said Brutus would have Murdoch's support, and so he has.
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.
Quite. It's like the US Representatives that campaign on taking the money out of politics, yet when they arrive in Washington they realise they have to spend three hours a day on the phone soliciting donations. Then a lobbyist comes along with a six figure cheque for their re-election campaign and all of a sudden their high moral ground goes out of the window.
The politicians and the media also thrive off each other in a way that's detrimental to the national discourse and to achieving the outcomes desired by the public at large. See what happens in a referendum for good examples of this in practice, followed by the media and politicians saying that it's somehow wrong to allow the public to decide such important policy directions.
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.
This Farage business seems like a complete non-story. No-one has suggested Mr Farage will be negotiating with the EU on behalf of the UK. Do the candidates need to issue statements that UK air defences will not attack any cows attempting a moon-jump?
Then why not just rule it out when asked by the press, other MPs and soon party members? It makes no sense to be evasive on the subject, May has ruled it out and been pretty unequivocal about it. Leadsom's dithering and evasiveness makes it look like a deal has been done with Banks for Leave.EU's support if she give Farage a role, conveniently he is no longer leader of UKIP either...
Incidentally I suspect the anti-Leadsom stuff is more likely Gove than May. He stands to gain more in the short term and we know he doesn't have scruples about sharing a stage one week and knifing someone the next!
Gove involved in duplicitous behaviour. Say it isn't so !!!!
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.
I must be off, but I must say, and perhaps my inner fascist is really good at self deception, but I think this has to be one of the most singularly bizarre criticisms I think I've ever experienced or seen on this site.
Don't deny it. You spend all your waking hours practising your goosesteps
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
She is in a majority then, 52% voted to leave, they ignored party lines.
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.
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.
TBH, The Times is still in Remain campaigning mode. I'm looking forward to them regaining their balance.
Danny Fink has penned the most risible article today - he's produced a few thin contributions in succession, but he's really scraping the barrel this morning.
Isn't Danny one of Osborne's close friends.. ?
I don't know. He's just been such a suck up during the campaign. I get being loyal, but he's jumped the shark today.
This whole referendum has created some strange bedfellows and stirred even odder passions for the unloved EU.
There was a good story about Osborne attending the Labour Party conference as one of two representatives of the Conservative party in the very early years of Blair. Having heard him speak Osborne was gutted and said we are never going to beat this man, he gives us nowhere to go. The other representative who agreed with this assessment (which of course proved spot on) was his close friend Danny the Fink.
I guess that old fool Corbyn will get up to have one last go at Blair and all his works to poison the well for his political enemies. He will use Chilcott as his swansong then resign by the weekend.
On the other hand he might well do something else.
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.
I must be off, but I must say, and perhaps my inner fascist is really good at self deception, but I think this has to be one of the most singularly bizarre criticisms I think I've ever experienced or seen on this site.
Don't deny it. You spend all your waking hours practising your goosesteps
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
She is in a majority then, 52% voted to leave, they ignored party lines.
You are utterly incapable of doing so.
You want a PM for BREXIT - I want a PM for the UK and leader of the Conservative Party.
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
This would be a very smart move by the SNP and would go down extremely well in Madrid. The Scottish and Catalonian routes to independence inside the EU are no longer analogous ... https://twitter.com/euwatchers/status/750544883966963712
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?
I thought she joined as a bond trader out of university and then a few years later ended up as a Director in FIG (like an unsuccessful version of the charming Italian)
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.
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
She is in a majority then, 52% voted to leave, they ignored party lines.
You are utterly incapable of doing so.
You want a PM for BREXIT - I want a PM for the UK and leader of the Conservative Party.
Even though most tories voted Leave?
I don't want a Conservative PM at all, the last year has proven how useless and out of touch they are.
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.
TBH, The Times is still in Remain campaigning mode. I'm looking forward to them regaining their balance.
Danny Fink has penned the most risible article today - he's produced a few thin contributions in succession, but he's really scraping the barrel this morning.
Isn't Danny one of Osborne's close friends.. ?
I don't know. He's just been such a suck up during the campaign. I get being loyal, but he's jumped the shark today.
This whole referendum has created some strange bedfellows and stirred even odder passions for the unloved EU.
There was a good story about Osborne attending the Labour Party conference as one of two representatives of the Conservative party in the very early years of Blair. Having heard him speak Osborne was gutted and said we are never going to beat this man, he gives us nowhere to go. The other representative who agreed with this assessment (which of course proved spot on) was his close friend Danny the Fink.
Yet, in the end, what did Blair amount to? A Prime Minister for good times, who (Iraq excepted) ducked hard decisions, and may well have killed his own party in the long run.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
Yes, were it not for his barmy views on the EU he would have easily won, my dad voted for IDS, but would have voted for Portillo had he been there instead of IDS.
Is that the sort of thing you should admit in a public forum? Sins of the fathers and all that.
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.
Chilcott will be expensive waffle, it will tiptoe round the bushes and the culprits will have had anything like critical criticism watered down to next to nothing. Bit like Clinton and the e-mails, normal practice is to shove person in jail for 30 years minimum for risking state secrets, however when it is one of the establishment , it is just a little error , please try not to do that again when you are President and we will forget the 30 years in jail seeing its you.
Jeremy Corbyn has proven some key leadership qualities this week.His toughness and resilience cannot be questioned.He is resolute.Chilcot is very much his day to put his stamp on the leadership,defy the coup plotters,and win the day.As Peter Oborne has pointed out,far from being a threat to national security,Jeremy Corbyn has been consistently right on foreign policy matters.He is much less of a risk to national security than Tony Blair was by a mile. Corbyn is not going anywhere.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
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.
When we have a membership ballot, and if it goes Corbyn's way, then things would be as they are now, with the impasse confirmed.
One option open to the Labour MPs would be to act independently and do enough to satisfy Bercow that they satisfied the criteria of becoming the official opposition. Crucially that would remove Corbyn as official opposition leader and mean that we would see a different face at the despatch box. This would probably mean establishing themselves as the "Independent Parliamentary Labour Party" and putting in place a constitution not dissimilar to the way the Independent Labour Party sought to cooperate at arms length with the Labour Party in the 1930s, with several MPs being members of both until the Labour Party eventually made that incompatible.
I can see the logic but the fact the Labour Party made it incompatible in the 1930s probably means its impossible now...
I think the best we can hope for is that Corbyn enjoys his day in the sun today and decides to call it quits...
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
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.
Chilcott will be expensive waffle, it will tiptoe round the bushes and the culprits will have had anything like critical criticism watered down to next to nothing. Bit like Clinton and the e-mails, normal practice is to shove person in jail for 30 years minimum for risking state secrets, however when it is one of the establishment , it is just a little error , please try not to do that again when you are President and we will forget the 30 years in jail seeing its you.
I would bet that the report will exonerate the big fish, and blame the small fry.
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
She is in a majority then, 52% voted to leave, they ignored party lines.
You are utterly incapable of doing so.
You want a PM for BREXIT - I want a PM for the UK and leader of the Conservative Party.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
Yes, were it not for his barmy views on the EU he would have easily won, my dad voted for IDS, but would have voted for Portillo had he been there instead of IDS.
Is that the sort of thing you should admit in a public forum? Sins of the fathers and all that.
It's better than a vote for Clarke, I have nightmares of the counterfactual in which we are in the euro. I'd say the blame falls on the MPs for the lose-lose choice...
Do we know the views of May, Leadsom and Gove on turnips .... might be a deal breaker for some Scottish Tories?
Jack, Question is what has happened to Darling Ruthie , missing in action since Brexit. One minute her mush is never off TV and media and next thing she is gone.
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.
TBH, The Times is still in Remain campaigning mode. I'm looking forward to them regaining their balance.
Danny Fink has penned the most risible article today - he's produced a few thin contributions in succession, but he's really scraping the barrel this morning.
Isn't Danny one of Osborne's close friends.. ?
I don't know. He's just been such a suck up during the campaign. I get being loyal, but he's jumped the shark today.
This whole referendum has created some strange bedfellows and stirred even odder passions for the unloved EU.
There was a good story about Osborne attending the Labour Party conference as one of two representatives of the Conservative party in the very early years of Blair. Having heard him speak Osborne was gutted and said we are never going to beat this man, he gives us nowhere to go. The other representative who agreed with this assessment (which of course proved spot on) was his close friend Danny the Fink.
Yet, in the end, what did Blair amount to? A Prime Minister for good times, who (Iraq excepted) ducked hard decisions, and may well have killed his own party in the long run.
'Ducked hard decisions' fits Cameron and Osborne too.
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
She is in a majority then, 52% voted to leave, they ignored party lines.
You are utterly incapable of doing so.
You want a PM for BREXIT - I want a PM for the UK and leader of the Conservative Party.
Even though most tories voted Leave?
I don't want a Conservative PM at all, the last year has proven how useless and out of touch they are.
You said that today, yesterday and probably the day before and the day before that.
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.
TBH, The Times is still in Remain campaigning mode. I'm looking forward to them regaining their balance.
Danny Fink has penned the most risible article today - he's produced a few thin contributions in succession, but he's really scraping the barrel this morning.
Isn't Danny one of Osborne's close friends.. ?
I don't know. He's just been such a suck up during the campaign. I get being loyal, but he's jumped the shark today.
This whole referendum has created some strange bedfellows and stirred even odder passions for the unloved EU.
There was a good story about Osborne attending the Labour Party conference as one of two representatives of the Conservative party in the very early years of Blair. Having heard him speak Osborne was gutted and said we are never going to beat this man, he gives us nowhere to go. The other representative who agreed with this assessment (which of course proved spot on) was his close friend Danny the Fink.
Yet, in the end, what did Blair amount to? A Prime Minister for good times, who (Iraq excepted) ducked hard decisions, and may well have killed his own party in the long run.
He had the opportunity and power to change this country for the better and he did not take it. But, as today will hopefully and finally confirm, Iraq was his greatest sin showing the perils of a fundamental lack of honesty and self delusion that Cyclefree described.
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.
I would wait on the performance of Woodford Asset Management before determining whether it was real or good personal PR. The fact that he insisted in negotiating his salary with the Chairman is a warning flag for me...
Agreed re his latest fund. Which is why I am waiting before investing with him again. But he did well for me at Perpetual. And like all such "stars" he will have had a good team behind him.
I clocked v early on - and you can see my earlier posts - that La Leadsom was another bullshitting average City person. Why can't people understand that over egging always ruins a good argument? And once people see you as a fantasist or untrustworthy you are going to come a cropper, eventually.
And on that note we have Chilcott to look forward to......
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.
She appears to have been at Barclays for 5 years in an administrative role dealing with contractual relationships with other banks. She wasn't in charge of funds there either.
Jack, Question is what has happened to Darling Ruthie , missing in action since Brexit. One minute her mush is never off TV and media and next thing she is gone.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
Quite. He would have made an excellent LotO in 2001, were it not for the fact that he would have conspired with Blair to get the UK into the Euro.
Talking of Blair, a poignant 45 minutes until Chilcot reports.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
Yes, were it not for his barmy views on the EU he would have easily won, my dad voted for IDS, but would have voted for Portillo had he been there instead of IDS.
Is that the sort of thing you should admit in a public forum? Sins of the fathers and all that.
It's better than a vote for Clarke, I have nightmares of the counterfactual in which we are in the euro. I'd say the blame falls on the MPs for the lose-lose choice...
I suspect that including the UK in the Euro would have blown up the Euro. We would have had both the pre-2008 boom, and the subsequent crash, on steroids, and we are far too big to bail out like Greece.
Callaghan on the Franks Report: for 338 paragraphs he painted a splendid picture, delineated the light and the shade, and the glowing colours in it, and when Franks got to paragraph 339 he got fed up with the canvas he was painting, and chucked a bucket of whitewash over it".
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
Quite. He would have made an excellent LotO in 2001, were it not for the fact that he would have conspired with Blair to get the UK into the Euro.
Talking of Blair, a poignant 45 minutes until Chilcot reports.
I was just about to ask. 10am? A weapon of political destruction could be unleashed in 45 minutes.
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.
Chilcott will be expensive waffle, it will tiptoe round the bushes and the culprits will have had anything like critical criticism watered down to next to nothing. Bit like Clinton and the e-mails, normal practice is to shove person in jail for 30 years minimum for risking state secrets, however when it is one of the establishment , it is just a little error , please try not to do that again when you are President and we will forget the 30 years in jail seeing its you.
I would bet that the report will exonerate the big fish, and blame the small fry.
For sure it will be a Captain or a Corporal that did it , and all the chums have pocketed 27M and ruined some trees to print some bollox we could have told them in a single page 7 years ago.
Jack, Question is what has happened to Darling Ruthie , missing in action since Brexit. One minute her mush is never off TV and media and next thing she is gone.
Is she related to Charlie Falconer ??
At least had lessons from him it appears, or has been reading the Scarlet Pimpernel.
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
Or 3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
Australia is having the extraordinary spectacle of a narrow L/ND coalition majority victory being made to look like a hung parliament due to late postal votes incoming.
The media narrative is completely different to what it would be if the votes were in in timely matter.
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.
Theresa May voted no on Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability Of Adopters
I'm a massive liberal (I literally would legalise just about everything, except guns), but I'm reflexively unsure on gay adoption.
I have no easily-explicable objection to it and I wouldn't be that bothered if it was made law. But as a parent, and knowing how idiosyncratic and fragile kids are, I've got to 'know' that, instinctively, children sometimes need a mother-figure and sometimes a father-figure..
But I also know they need love and lots of children don't get enough of that from their natural parents when they could be getting it off gay-adopting couples.
So MEH!? My gay friend told me off for being a wanker.
Jeremy Corbyn has proven some key leadership qualities this week.His toughness and resilience cannot be questioned.He is resolute.Chilcot is very much his day to put his stamp on the leadership,defy the coup plotters,and win the day.As Peter Oborne has pointed out,far from being a threat to national security,Jeremy Corbyn has been consistently right on foreign policy matters.He is much less of a risk to national security than Tony Blair was by a mile. Corbyn is not going anywhere.
Being opposed to all military intervention in the modern era is an easy way to often appear right.
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.
Which of us would 'scape a whipping if embellishing one's CV were seriously punished?
Any one of us aspiring to be PM certainly shouldn't escape.
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 would like that to be true but Ken Clarke popping up again yesterday with a series of spot on observations on an unguarded mic suggests otherwise. If he had been willing to dissemble about his views on Europe he would have walked the leadership. Twice. Despite not agreeing with him on Europe I have little doubt he would have been an excellent PM.
Quite. He would have made an excellent LotO in 2001, were it not for the fact that he would have conspired with Blair to get the UK into the Euro.
Talking of Blair, a poignant 45 minutes until Chilcot reports.
I was just about to ask. 10am? A weapon of political destruction could be unleashed in 45 minutes.
The BBC are reporting it's 11am when Chilcot will start his statement.
Australia is having the extraordinary spectacle of a narrow L/ND coalition majority victory being made to look like a hung parliament due to late postal votes incoming.
The media narrative is completely different to what it would be if the votes were in in timely matter.
I think the Coalition will get to 76. Most of the Doubtful seats seats seem to be breaking for them.
Australia is having the extraordinary spectacle of a narrow L/ND coalition majority victory being made to look like a hung parliament due to late postal votes incoming.
The media narrative is completely different to what it would be if the votes were in in timely matter.
Even with postal votes the Coalition will likely be on 75 seats i.e. one short of a majority
Australia is having the extraordinary spectacle of a narrow L/ND coalition majority victory being made to look like a hung parliament due to late postal votes incoming.
The media narrative is completely different to what it would be if the votes were in in timely matter.
Similar to what happened in Austria and look how that has(n't) ended.
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.
Theresa May voted no on Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability Of Adopters
I'm a massive liberal (I literally would legalise just about everything, except guns), but I'm reflexively unsure on gay adoption.
I have no easily-explicable objection to it and I wouldn't be that bothered if it was made law. But as a parent, and knowing how idiosyncratic and fragile kids are, I've got to 'know' that, instinctively, children sometimes need a mother-figure and sometimes a father-figure..
But I also know they need love and lots of children don't get enough of that from their natural parents when they could be getting it off gay-adopting couples.
So MEH!? My gay friend told me off for being a wanker.
I am a fair distance from being a massive liberal on many issues, but I am a (twice) adopting parent, and my views are not that far from yours on this subject. I was really highlighting that slamming Leadsome for her less than PC views on gay adoption wasn't a terribly smart line of attack since May clearly has enough doubts herself to vote against it.
Jeremy Corbyn has proven some key leadership qualities this week.His toughness and resilience cannot be questioned.He is resolute.Chilcot is very much his day to put his stamp on the leadership,defy the coup plotters,and win the day.As Peter Oborne has pointed out,far from being a threat to national security,Jeremy Corbyn has been consistently right on foreign policy matters.He is much less of a risk to national security than Tony Blair was by a mile. Corbyn is not going anywhere.
If Corbyn had had his way the Taliban would still be in power and Bin Laden would still be alive even if he was right about Iraq
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.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
Or 3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
And, a cynic might think, that she chose Brexit because she thought it a good career move. One way of getting attention - as we have seen - but she did not apparently realise that the attention would not just be on the things she wanted. Poor judgment is not what is needed in a PM.
Jeremy Corbyn has proven some key leadership qualities this week.His toughness and resilience cannot be questioned.He is resolute.Chilcot is very much his day to put his stamp on the leadership,defy the coup plotters,and win the day.As Peter Oborne has pointed out,far from being a threat to national security,Jeremy Corbyn has been consistently right on foreign policy matters.He is much less of a risk to national security than Tony Blair was by a mile. Corbyn is not going anywhere.
Being opposed to all military intervention in the modern era is an easy way to often appear right.
Australia is having the extraordinary spectacle of a narrow L/ND coalition majority victory being made to look like a hung parliament due to late postal votes incoming.
The media narrative is completely different to what it would be if the votes were in in timely matter.
I think the Coalition will get to 76. Most of the Doubtful seats seats seem to be breaking for them.
I've done some analysis on "Flynn" - currently called for Labor by the ABC.
I'm a massive liberal (I literally would legalise just about everything, except guns), but I'm reflexively unsure on gay adoption.
I have no easily-explicable objection to it and I wouldn't be that bothered if it was made law. But as a parent, and knowing how idiosyncratic and fragile kids are, I've got to 'know' that, instinctively, children sometimes need a mother-figure and sometimes a father-figure..
But I also know they need love and lots of children don't get enough of that from their natural parents when they could be getting it off gay-adopting couples.
So MEH!? My gay friend told me off for being a wanker.
The overarching issue must be the best interests of the child. Are they more likely to thrive in a loving home with adoptive parent(s), whether straight or gay, or in children's home? The history of far too many of the latter make that judgement simple.
Comments
Incidentally I suspect the anti-Leadsom stuff is more likely Gove than May. He stands to gain more in the short term and we know he doesn't have scruples about sharing a stage one week and knifing someone the next!
Do we know the views of May, Leadsom and Gove on turnips .... might be a deal breaker for some Scottish Tories?
There is just no way it happens no matter who the candidate is - I think you're overly worried.
The chief Leadsom issue is this malarky about her CV. What was her experience before becoming an MP?
In parliament she seems to have done OK. Her role in the Fresh Start group, examining the UK-EU relationship and suggesting reforms looks good and relevant. The junior minister roles are OK. But I get the impression that with the exceptions of half a dozen power players in the cabinet, all ministers are juniors.
This whole referendum has created some strange bedfellows and stirred even odder passions for the unloved EU.
meanwhile the high ground has been claimed
https://twitter.com/MrRBourne/status/750598577362182144
One option open to the Labour MPs would be to act independently and do enough to satisfy Bercow that they satisfied the criteria of becoming the official opposition. Crucially that would remove Corbyn as official opposition leader and mean that we would see a different face at the despatch box. This would probably mean establishing themselves as the "Independent Parliamentary Labour Party" and putting in place a constitution not dissimilar to the way the Independent Labour Party sought to cooperate at arms length with the Labour Party in the 1930s, with several MPs being members of both until the Labour Party eventually made that incompatible.
That would be a sub-nuclear option because it would leave open the possibility of Corbyn being removed as leader, at which point a reconciliation would be possible. I suspect that a move by the Corbynites to try and expel 170 MPs of the Independent Parliamentary Labour Party from the Labour Party would do the job.
The politicians and the media also thrive off each other in a way that's detrimental to the national discourse and to achieving the outcomes desired by the public at large. See what happens in a referendum for good examples of this in practice, followed by the media and politicians saying that it's somehow wrong to allow the public to decide such important policy directions.
https://twitter.com/vb2b/status/750592858818740225
You are utterly incapable of doing so.
http://www.geraldscarfe.com/shop/discount/private-eye-cover-denning-is-served/
I guess that old fool Corbyn will get up to have one last go at Blair and all his works to poison the well for his political enemies. He will use Chilcott as his swansong then resign by the weekend.
On the other hand he might well do something else.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/750600143234269184
1. That she has never really believed in Brexit
or
2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
https://twitter.com/euwatchers/status/750544883966963712
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=826
Theresa May voted no on Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability Of Adopters
I don't want a Conservative PM at all, the last year has proven how useless and out of touch they are.
Corbyn is not going anywhere.
I think the best we can hope for is that Corbyn enjoys his day in the sun today and decides to call it quits...
Mr. G, I strongly suspect you're right.
Good at winning elections though.
I clocked v early on - and you can see my earlier posts - that La Leadsom was another bullshitting average City person. Why can't people understand that over egging always ruins a good argument? And once people see you as a fantasist or untrustworthy you are going to come a cropper, eventually.
And on that note we have Chilcott to look forward to......
Talking of Blair, a poignant 45 minutes until Chilcot reports.
My AVC's have gone up a modest 5% in last few weeks
3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
The media narrative is completely different to what it would be if the votes were in in timely matter.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/skulduggery-accusations-misleading-cv-claims-beset-may-leadsoms-tory-leadership-fight-1569104
I have no easily-explicable objection to it and I wouldn't be that bothered if it was made law. But as a parent, and knowing how idiosyncratic and fragile kids are, I've got to 'know' that, instinctively, children sometimes need a mother-figure and sometimes a father-figure..
But I also know they need love and lots of children don't get enough of that from their natural parents when they could be getting it off gay-adopting couples.
So MEH!? My gay friend told me off for being a wanker.
It could have been so much worse, she might have massaged Eric Pickles and Nicholas Soames for their support !!
"Lindsey German, the coalition’s convenor, says that regardless of what Chilcot says, she believes Tony Blair lied." [Guardian blog]
http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/
The electoral analysts at ABC.au seem to be seriously shit.