The party is not choosing a man (or woman) for the moment but to lead through the rest of this parliament and well into the next one.
That's quite an assumption. There is a real chance that the next five years will be brutal making the Brown administration looking like a picnic. Perfectly possible that the Tories may look to reboot with a new leader in 2019.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
One day, I'd like to know why Boris baulked at the last moment, as it seems clear Gove wouldn't have been a threat.
Coffee House did a very brief behind the scenes sketch of it. He lost ~45 supporters immediately. He surmised that the Cameroons would bludgeon him to death slowly for his 'betrayal' and the Leave vote was split. Decided to keep his powder dry. Could be wrong, but seemed plausible.
He seemed to me to be in a crisis of confidence at the time of the referendum. Whether it was because of the result or coincidental, I don't know. Then the Gove betrayal hit at the worst possible moment. I suspect Johnson has a lower self confidence than his brash persona suggests
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
He might have been the man of the moment, but we're not choosing a PM for the moment, we're choosing a PM for a long, hard slog which require consistency, attention to detail, building bridges, unifying the party, and calming the financial and business markets. I'm confident that the party is about to make a good choice for the right reasons.
Good post. Wouldn't it be funny (and so typical of life) if we get an "accidental" PM (*) who turns out to be a good one - in comparison with the recent crop of people who have been ruthlessly ambitious to get the job, and left messes behind.
(*) recognizing that MPs are mostly ambitious, but some less fanatical about getting the top job than others..
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The Conservatives' magic money tree fallacy was in deciding that it was worth blowing tens of billions on leaving the EU. This was an entirely optional project of questionable importance, yet the blue team decided to let the deficit balloon in order to pursue this hobby horse.
You have wrongly thought that the Conservatives were the ones who decided to do this. The voters cut the cord, if anything The Conservatives were majority opposed. (much to my disgust)
Most observers say that it was Tory voters who put Leave (just) over the line.
There was some analysis that showed it was the DNVers who broke almost exclusively for Leave.
It's hard to apportion credit (or blame). There were, what, 600k votes that could have swung it?
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
we're choosing a PM for a long, hard slog
How long does May want to stay as PM? Does she stay until 2020 and then go again for another 5 years as PM or could she keep to Cameron's original plan and stand down in 2019 to allow one of the newer intake to take over. She could certainly end up as one of our older PMs in recent times -although this now seems to be a trend elsewhere in the world.
The current front runner went awol in the referendum and seems to lack conviction or energy. Though it's no longer Leave vs Remain, which was last week's issue, the question now is leadership of the party and the country, and conviction and energy are crucial. 'For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?' It should be Gove. He has shown he has convictions and also ruthlessness in their pursuit, which is no bad thing.
Comments
Wouldn't it be funny (and so typical of life) if we get an "accidental" PM (*) who turns out to be a good one - in comparison with the recent crop of people who have been ruthlessly ambitious to get the job, and left messes behind.
(*) recognizing that MPs are mostly ambitious, but some less fanatical about getting the top job than others..
It's hard to apportion credit (or blame). There were, what, 600k votes that could have swung it?