If you substitute Labour Party for Conservative Party in the last sentence, is there anything there that would sound out of place coming from Jeremy Corbyn?
Guff it is.
But if you substitute LibDem ---> Beacon of Hope....
5) Choose one (fail to anticipate side-effects of a solution that makes the initial problem worse)
example Osbornes hitting btl landlords with not setting there mortgage against tax, most I know who rent including myself have already been informed to expect a rent rise to cover the difference when it comes in. Thanks George
Not really. Most of the quoted text identifies some problems in our society, although some may argue they are not real problems. She then says she'll address them - which you can choose to believe or not. But at least she is identifying problems.
The proper approach: 1) Identify the problem. 2) Characterise the problem. 3) Define several solutions. 4) Identify side-effects of the solutions. 5) Choose one (or importantly, choose not to do anything, if the side-effects of a solution are worse than the initial problem)
Corbyn's solution (and that of some on the right as well):: 1) Identify the problem. 2) Apply an ideological solution, regardless of the consequences. 3) Sit back, knowing you'll never get a chance to implement it.
We see this in (amongst others) Labour's fondness for railway renationalisation.
Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:
"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.
"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."
She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise." Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."
Just guff really.
if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.
people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.
Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.
"philosophical and policy architecture"
I'll put that to the blokes on the factory shop floor this morning and see their views.
I suspect it will entail , three f.s , two words and one meaning.
TBF she's identified some serious problems that need giving
That's an important first step even if she's not set out the answers in this interview - but that's because it's about priority/agenda setting not solutions
I think that are all issues that need addressing not exhaustive of course - affordable housing definitely need to be up there)
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:
"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.
"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."
She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise." Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."
Just guff really.
if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.
people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.
Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.
"philosophical and policy architecture"
I'll put that to the blokes on the factory shop floor this morning and see their views.
I suspect it will entail , three f.s , two words and one meaning.
TBF she's identified some serious problems that need giving
That's an important first step even if she's not set out the answers in this interview - but that's because it's about priority/agenda setting not solutions
I think that are all issues that need addressing not exhaustive of course - affordable housing definitely need to be up there)
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
Not really. Most of the quoted text identifies some problems in our society, although some may argue they are not real problems. She then says she'll address them - which you can choose to believe or not. But at least she is identifying problems.
The proper approach: 1) Identify the problem. 2) Characterise the problem. 3) Define several solutions. 4) Identify side-effects of the solutions. 5) Choose one (or importantly, choose not to do anything, if the side-effects of a solution are worse than the initial problem)
Corbyn's solution (and that of some on the right as well):: 1) Identify the problem. 2) Apply an ideological solution, regardless of the consequences. 3) Sit back, knowing you'll never get a chance to implement it.
We see this in (amongst others) Labour's fondness for railway renationalisation.
Wasn't the line out of King's Cross re-nationalised a while back. with happy results? Isn't a preference for private ownership "an ideological solution"?
(Snip)
The argument is that those 'happy results' would have occurred whatever. There are two unusual things about that line:
1) It has two other Open Access operators on it, who share the line maintenance costs. 2) The rolling stock is aged, reducing the operator's payments to the ROSCO.
The latter advantage is going to disappear when the new IEP trains appear, which allegedly will cost the operator much, much more than the 91+MkIV's that are used on many of their services.
The argument also ignores the other private operators who were returning money to the government - and more of it. See South West Trains.
As some of us said at the start, choosing a Prime Minister is not the same as choosing a LOTO who may have four or five years to become Prime Ministerial (or not).
Apart from Chamberlain in 1940, and that was only because Halifax demurred, whenever a Prime Minister has left office outside the normal electoral process, it has always been a senior colleague that has succeeded.
Eden, Macmillan, Callaghan and Brown were all senior Cabinet members - May is, Leadsom is not. Had May been facing Osborne or Hammond or even Gove at this time, it would be very different but sometimes as Stodge's fourteenth law of politics states:
"Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do".
May has in truth had to do very little as her opponents have undermined and destroyed each other and while Leadsom might have been a potential LOTO, she's not a potential PM.
Perhaps the first hint of what a May administration will look like in tone and style if not substance - it's all fairly vacuous waffle of course - it reads like the sort of thing Michael Heseltine would have said in the 80s and early 90s. It reads as more interventionist and less paternalistic than Cameron or even Major.
How this squares with restoring the public finances I'm less certain and it seems the "a" word has been dropped.
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
On a scale of 1-10 do you think these are the biggest problems facing the UK atm ?
Which do you think is a better way to go - build enough housing so that it becomes affordable for all and people stop moaning about housing , or pass loads of scoial legislation to fix "problems" declared by upper middle class do gooders on a guilt trip ?
These may be problems but there not the chief ones we face.
I'd say her list includes several top 10 problems:
1. Housing 2. WWC male educational attainment (I disagree with the emphasis on university but she's identified a real problem) 3. Equal treatment in the criminal justice system - critical to create an integrated society 4. Mental health - may be this isn't as important an issue to most people, but our treatment of the mentally ill is shameful
If she addresses those 4 issues and does nothing else she will have been a fantastic PM in my view. Which do you regard as unimportant?
I agree with you about number 4. The thing is, it's also popular. Hold a referendum on criminalising mental illness and see what happens.
On a scale of 1-10 do you think these are the biggest problems facing the UK atm ?
Which do you think is a better way to go - build enough housing so that it becomes affordable for all and people stop moaning about housing , or pass loads of scoial legislation to fix "problems" declared by upper middle class do gooders on a guilt trip ?
These may be problems but there not the chief ones we face.
I'd say her list includes several top 10 problems:
1. Housing 2. WWC male educational attainment (I disagree with the emphasis on university but she's identified a real problem) 3. Equal treatment in the criminal justice system - critical to create an integrated society 4. Mental health - may be this isn't as important an issue to most people, but our treatment of the mentally ill is shameful
If she addresses those 4 issues and does nothing else she will have been a fantastic PM in my view. Which do you regard as unimportant?
I agree with you about number 4. The thing is, it's also popular. Hold a referendum on criminalising mental illness and see what happens.
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever? We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding? My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.
Sure referenda can be re-run, but not immediately because some people don't like the answer.
My suggestion was that the electorate may regret the answer, maybe because the NHS aren't getting an extra £350million/week.
But then quite a few remainers actually wanted to Leave but believed the now discredited Project Bollocks. It's quite likely they would vote Leave on a rerun, do you feel lucky
"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.
She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise." Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."
Just guff really.
if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.
people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.
Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.
"philosophical and policy architecture"
I'll put that to the blokes on the factory shop floor this morning and see their views.
I suspect it will entail , three f.s , two words and one meaning.
TBF she's identified some serious problems that need giving
That's an important first step even if she's not set out the answers in this interview - but that's because it's about priority/agenda setting not solutions
I think that are all issues that need addressing not exhaustive of course - affordable housing definitely need to be up there)
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
And I recall vituperative denunciation of "Mrs May on Manoevers" when ever she did stray ...(often from the same people now complaining that she didn't stray...)
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
I disagree, they are largely, experienced thoughtful people, knowing their views on issues of the day adds to the national debate. This is of course a completely different matter to the Osbornite approach of announcing policies outside his brief, which clearly should be done by the minister responsible.
On a scale of 1-10 do you think these are the biggest problems facing the UK atm ?
Which do you think is a better way to go - build enough housing so that it becomes affordable for all and people stop moaning about housing , or pass loads of scoial legislation to fix "problems" declared by upper middle class do gooders on a guilt trip ?
These may be problems but there not the chief ones we face.
I'd say her list includes several top 10 problems:
1. Housing 2. WWC male educational attainment (I disagree with the emphasis on university but she's identified a real problem) 3. Equal treatment in the criminal justice system - critical to create an integrated society 4. Mental health - may be this isn't as important an issue to most people, but our treatment of the mentally ill is shameful
If she addresses those 4 issues and does nothing else she will have been a fantastic PM in my view. Which do you regard as unimportant?
I agree with you about number 4. The thing is, it's also popular. Hold a referendum on criminalising mental illness and see what happens.
They're all worthy issues, but none of these problems has an obvious bureaucratic solution to them.
Whilst I would prefer May to Leadsom, I'd be wary of taking polling too seriously given recent performances from the pollsters. I don't envy them their task, but they've not been quite as accurate as they might like recently.
On a scale of 1-10 do you think these are the biggest problems facing the UK atm ?
Which do you think is a better way to go - build enough housing so that it becomes affordable for all and people stop moaning about housing , or pass loads of scoial legislation to fix "problems" declared by upper middle class do gooders on a guilt trip ?
These may be problems but there not the chief ones we face.
I'd say her list includes several top 10 problems:
1. Housing 2. WWC male educational attainment (I disagree with the emphasis on university but she's identified a real problem) 3. Equal treatment in the criminal justice system - critical to create an integrated society 4. Mental health - may be this isn't as important an issue to most people, but our treatment of the mentally ill is shameful
If she addresses those 4 issues and does nothing else she will have been a fantastic PM in my view. Which do you regard as unimportant?
I agree with you about number 4. The thing is, it's also popular. Hold a referendum on criminalising mental illness and see what happens.
They're all worthy issues, but none of these problems has an obvious bureaucratic solution to them.
True, And they are all also, to a greater or lesser extent, consequences of market failure.
Morning all. I trust we are all braced, ready for PM Leadsom?
Just as crashing the economy was a really stupid way to cut immigration (but we did it), so crashing the Tory party is a really stupid way to resurrect IDS, but there seems to be no rational way to prevent it.
Truth doesn't work in post truth politics.
She lied. Black ops.
She is untrustworthy. She was misunderstood.
She said some nasty things to a journalist. No she didn't. Well, she did, but it was out of context. Well, it was in context, but she didn't want it reported. Well, she didn't mean to cause offence. Well, offence to anyone who might have been offended by actually reading her words. Well, she has apologised.
She burst into tears because people read her words and understood their intent. Mrs Thatcher mark II...
70,000 Leadbangers is all it will take for the lunatics to be given free reign over the asylum.
IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.
Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.
Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.
This is demonstrably absurd.
It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.
Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.
That's pretty blunt, but about where I am. Leadsom has months to prove her quality, but the start has been rocky and the play for the persecution complex crowd is expected but still irritating.
Call me old fashioned but I'd say it's a bit rude - a quick phone call or note would have been politer - at least it's done so we can get onto weightier matters.
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
I disagree, they are largely, experienced thoughtful people, knowing their views on issues of the day adds to the national debate. This is of course a completely different matter to the Osbornite approach of announcing policies outside his brief, which clearly should be done by the minister responsible.
May reportedly never expressed a view in Cabinet except on her own portfolio. All the impressions I have of her is authoritarian technocrat who's uninterested in anything beyond her immediate task list.
I don't find this very appealing. At all. It's very Gordon.
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever? We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding? My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.
Sure referenda can be re-run, but not immediately because some people don't like the answer.
My suggestion was that the electorate may regret the answer, maybe because the NHS aren't getting an extra £350million/week.
But then quite a few remainers actually wanted to Leave but believed the now discredited Project Bollocks. It's quite likely they would vote Leave on a rerun, do you feel lucky
Please explain 'Project Bollocks' and would it have cost anywhere near £350million per week?
Call me old fashioned but I'd say it's a bit rude - a quick phone call or note would have been politer - at least it's done so we can get onto weightier matters.
Yeah I agree. Perhaps I needed a sarcastic emoticon after my earlier comment.
A message to the youth of Britain ... We, the old gits, have decided to condemn you to a life of penury, begging on the streets and going up chimneys (like wot we did).
Here's a tip for you - wear black, it doesn't show the soot so much. And watch that cough, it's probably galloping consumption.
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
I disagree, they are largely, experienced thoughtful people, knowing their views on issues of the day adds to the national debate. This is of course a completely different matter to the Osbornite approach of announcing policies outside his brief, which clearly should be done by the minister responsible.
May reportedly never expressed a view in Cabinet except on her own portfolio. All the impressions I have of her is authoritarian technocrat who's uninterested in anything beyond her immediate task list.
I don't find this very appealing. At all. It's very Gordon.
Sadly we appear to have the choice between an experienced lousy candidate and an inexperienced lousy candidate. Problem is the few minister that over the years appearing to be really good at their job seem to repel voters for one reason or another. One could conclude that the voters seem to warm to incompetence, but perhaps more charitably the only way to be an effective minister is to piss people off, and that makes enemies to brief against you.
I've not been well this weekend so in my delirium, I went all Machiavellian and basically Cameron not only supported May's actions in the EU Referendum, he actively supported and encouraged them.
"Well, that's it, Stodge has finally jumped the porpoise. It's been coming for a while"
Nay, nay and thrice nay as Francis Aloysius would have said. May was the fall-back in the event of LEAVE winning. Unlike Hammond, whose difficulties when dealing with the punters were cruelly exposed in the 2013 floods, May had enough going for her in the party to be seen as the potential unifying candidate.
By this, Cameron has enacted his revenge on Team LEAVE and ensured his legacy will be the continuation of his policies. I suspect had REMAIN won, May's position as a senior Cabinet member would have been preserved and she would have been the obvious choice over the Chancellor who for all his "genius" remains as popular as a (you can complete your own analogy),
I don't think Theresa May has been any great shakes as Home Secretary, or would be as PM, but Andrea Leadsom looks out of her depth, and could not lead a united party.
As so often, it's a choice between not very good and worse.
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever? We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding? My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.
Sure referenda can be re-run, but not immediately because some people don't like the answer.
My suggestion was that the electorate may regret the answer, maybe because the NHS aren't getting an extra £350million/week.
But then quite a few remainers actually wanted to Leave but believed the now discredited Project Bollocks. It's quite likely they would vote Leave on a rerun, do you feel lucky
Please explain 'Project Bollocks' and would it have cost anywhere near £350million per week?
IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.
Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.
Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.
This is demonstrably absurd.
It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.
Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.
That's pretty blunt, but about where I am. Leadsom has months to prove her quality, but the start has been rocky and the play for the persecution complex crowd is expected but still irritating.
Note also that she and her comrades stupidly went up against a News International title and claimed they had misquoted or at least misrepresented what she said. Journalists hate that. The merest hint that you made up a quote is always met with a robust response.
Personally, I hope she pulls out at some point this week and accepts she's not ready for high office.
Another stellar effort from mr herdson, acknowledging how Leadsom can win but seeing the path to that out one as very unlikely. We shall see. May starts from a strong position but is not inspiring so could go backwards if Leadson gets her act together.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
So there's still some big girls blouses whining about the referendum result, get over it ffs. If a party is stupid enough to propose a re-run in their next manifesto they'll get slaughtered.
depends on circumstances. likely to be 4 years away.
And then that party will need to make a case why we should join the EU.
Not going to happen mate, get over it.
Yes I am a Remainer, but honestly I am trying to be objective on all this. It seems at least possible to me that the complexities of negotiating our way out will take years. So we may reach the next election in a position where we haven't finally left.
That's just wishful thinking. If we are to have another referendum a party will have to lay out positive reasons for us to join, its not going to happen, you simply have to move on.
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
I disagree, they are largely, experienced thoughtful people, knowing their views on issues of the day adds to the national debate. This is of course a completely different matter to the Osbornite approach of announcing policies outside his brief, which clearly should be done by the minister responsible.
May reportedly never expressed a view in Cabinet except on her own portfolio. All the impressions I have of her is authoritarian technocrat who's uninterested in anything beyond her immediate task list.
I don't find this very appealing. At all. It's very Gordon.
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
I disagree, they are largely, experienced thoughtful people, knowing their views on issues of the day adds to the national debate. This is of course a completely different matter to the Osbornite approach of announcing policies outside his brief, which clearly should be done by the minister responsible.
May reportedly never expressed a view in Cabinet except on her own portfolio. All the impressions I have of her is authoritarian technocrat who's uninterested in anything beyond her immediate task list.
I don't find this very appealing. At all. It's very Gordon.
Yeah, because Brown never got involved in other departments....
Brown gutted the Labour party of talent to get and gain power, then was handed it unopposed. Not much of a similarity.
IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.
Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.
Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.
This is demonstrably absurd.
It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.
Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.
That's pretty blunt, but about where I am. Leadsom has months to prove her quality, but the start has been rocky and the play for the persecution complex crowd is expected but still irritating.
Note also that she and her comrades stupidly went up against a News International title and claimed they had misquoted or at least misrepresented what she said. Journalists hate that. The merest hint that you made up a quote is always met with a robust response.
Personally, I hope she pulls out at some point this week and accepts she's not ready for high office.
Miss Plato, aversion to putting her head above the parapet is a Brownian trait, but refusing to meddle (or trying to) in other departments would seem to be the antithesis of Brown's way.
At what time is Angela Eagle's declaration she's standing against Chairman Corbyn expected?
Another stellar effort from mr herdson, acknowledging how Leadsom can win but seeing the path to that out one as very unlikely. We shall see. May starts from a strong position but is not inspiring so could go backwards if Leadson gets her act together.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
One newspaper at the weekend quoted a source in Leave campaign who said the only reason she appeared to be good during the debates is that they had rehearsed her "to within an inch of her life", otherwise she would have been crap. The campaign referred to her as 'Loathsome', she was so useless and unreliable.
She'll need to be rehearsing big time this week for the hustings.
IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.
Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.
Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.
This is demonstrably absurd.
It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.
Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.
Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.
?
No, there's nothing coincidental about it, but what does that signify? It's not a coincidence because the editorial positions at least currently agree Leadsom is out of her depth and so are focused on that not may. A confluence of opinion can be wrong, but it's not sinister if it's with cause.
Gove's excellent policy/leadership speech will almost certainly be magpied over. He cranked that out in a couple of days - both ladies seem woefully short of similar content.
May's well known for not taking a position on anything outside her own brief, even in Cabinet. What's her hinterland?
Cabinet Ministers not taking positions outside their brief is how it should be
I disagree, they are largely, experienced thoughtful people, knowing their views on issues of the day adds to the national debate. This is of course a completely different matter to the Osbornite approach of announcing policies outside his brief, which clearly should be done by the minister responsible.
May reportedly never expressed a view in Cabinet except on her own portfolio. All the impressions I have of her is authoritarian technocrat who's uninterested in anything beyond her immediate task list.
I don't find this very appealing. At all. It's very Gordon.
She will become PM by default, just because she's less controversial than the other awful candidates. Anybody expecting her to be remotely good at the job is deluded, she's a fence sitter, we need a Prime Minister not an assistant librarian.
Another stellar effort from mr herdson, acknowledging how Leadsom can win but seeing the path to that out one as very unlikely. We shall see. May starts from a strong position but is not inspiring so could go backwards if Leadson gets her act together.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
One newspaper at the weekend quoted a source in Leave campaign who said the only reason she appeared to be good during the debates is that they had rehearsed her "to within an inch of her life", otherwise she would have been crap. The campaign referred to her as 'Loathsome', she was so useless and unreliable.
She'll need to be rehearsing big time this week for the hustings.
I think it's fair enough to do debate prep, especially for someone with limited experience!
Parliament votes for Article 50 and we Brexit. The only likely reason for it voting against is that the terms or manner of leaving is in dispute. In that circumstance it would act as a delay rather than an outright rejection. Parliament is answerable to the electorate for its decisions, who may punish MPs they think are willfully ignoring the public will.
I think the issue worrying people who object to this approach is that there isn't a majority in the House for A50. Easily a dozen Tories who could object potentially.
More than a dozen Tories would be needed. When you include UKIP MP, Eurosceptic Labour MPs, DUP MPs and Labour MPs in marginal seats there would be a comfortable majority.
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever? We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding? My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.
Sure referenda can be re-run, but not immediately because some people don't like the answer.
My suggestion was that the electorate may regret the answer, maybe because the NHS aren't getting an extra £350million/week.
But then quite a few remainers actually wanted to Leave but believed the now discredited Project Bollocks. It's quite likely they would vote Leave on a rerun, do you feel lucky
Please explain 'Project Bollocks' and would it have cost anywhere near £350million per week?
You need to suck it up and move on, your continual whining is futile and will make you ill.
Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:
"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.
"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."
She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise." Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."
Inequality due to race etc was a section in camerons last conference speech that he got the most passionate about wanting to address, he was more fired up fan when attacking Corbyn.
May will win, it is really a question of her margin of victory. However then her problems start, wealthy financier Aaron Banks who bankrolled Leave.EU had an interview in the Sunday Times yesterday in which he said he was backing Leadsom and if she won UKIP would effectively fold and most of its support switch to the Tories. However he warned he saw May as a Europhile and if she won UKIP would be back ' on steroids' and he would be prepared to invest significant further sums from his £250 million fortune into its campaign
So there's still some big girls blouses whining about the referendum result, get over it ffs. If a party is stupid enough to propose a re-run in their next manifesto they'll get slaughtered.
Probably. If they are already in a terrible position it's a legitimate position to try to improve their prospects though.
Parliament votes for Article 50 and we Brexit. The only likely reason for it voting against is that the terms or manner of leaving is in dispute. In that circumstance it would act as a delay rather than an outright rejection. Parliament is answerable to the electorate for its decisions, who may punish MPs they think are willfully ignoring the public will.
I think the issue worrying people who object to this approach is that there isn't a majority in the House for A50. Easily a dozen Tories who could object potentially.
A possible reason for May being PM rather than Leadsom, especially if you support Brexit. May is too sensible to bring an Article 50 motion to Parliament that might be rejected or to risk the possibility of an executive decision that bypassed parliament being ruled unconstitutional.
It'd be fun to come up with our own lists of the ten major problems we see facing the country. Here are mine, which may well change tomorrow.
1) High illiteracy and innumeracy rates amongst school leavers. 2) Lack of infrastructure long-term planning and investment. 3) Not just lack of new-build housing; also the quality of new housing and developments. 4) Concentration on university or nothing for school leavers' FE. 5) Discrimination of all types. 6) Perceived and/or real disenfranchisement of large parts of society (see 5). 7) Prison: the current system does not work. 8) Lack of government aid and help to small businesses and start-ups. 9) Poor balance of trade figures. 10) Cost and effectiveness of the current NHS system.
Some of these are very long-term problems, with long-term solutions.
Call me old fashioned but I'd say it's a bit rude - a quick phone call or note would have been politer - at least it's done so we can get onto weightier matters.
I'm old fashioned too. If she had the number to text, she had it to call. I'm sure it isn't but text seems an insincere medium.
May will win it is really a question of her margin of victory. However then her problems start, wealthy financier Aaron Banks who bankrolled Leave.EU had an interview in the Sunday Times yesterday in which he said he was backing Leadsom and if she won UKIP would effectively fold and most of its support switch to the Tories. However he warned he saw May as a Europhile and if she won UKIP would be back ' on steroids' and he would be prepared to invest significant further sums from his £250 million fortune into its campaign
Aaron Banks speaks bravado, bluster and bollox – nothing new here.
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever? We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding? My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.
Sure referenda can be re-run, but not immediately because some people don't like the answer.
My suggestion was that the electorate may regret the answer, maybe because the NHS aren't getting an extra £350million/week.
But then quite a few remainers actually wanted to Leave but believed the now discredited Project Bollocks. It's quite likely they would vote Leave on a rerun, do you feel lucky
Please explain 'Project Bollocks' and would it have cost anywhere near £350million per week?
You need to suck it up and move on, your continual whining is futile and will make you ill.
... and the answer to my question? Or don't you do facts?
I don't think Theresa May has been any great shakes as Home Secretary, or would be as PM, but Andrea Leadsom looks out of her depth, and could not lead a united party.
As so often, it's a choice between not very good and worse.
I find this 'united party' angle unpersuasive.
Mr Grayling on the Sunday Politics seemed to say that only Ms May could get Brexit thru parliament as most Con MPs supported Remain, and she was the Remain candidate in this race. But all that says is that Remain MPs cannot be trusted.
I see this contest as a continuation of the referendum with Ms May as the MPs choice to kill Brexit.
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever? We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding? My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.
Sure referenda can be re-run, but not immediately because some people don't like the answer.
My suggestion was that the electorate may regret the answer, maybe because the NHS aren't getting an extra £350million/week.
But then quite a few remainers actually wanted to Leave but believed the now discredited Project Bollocks. It's quite likely they would vote Leave on a rerun, do you feel lucky
Please explain 'Project Bollocks' and would it have cost anywhere near £350million per week?
You need to suck it up and move on, your continual whining is futile and will make you ill.
... and the answer to my question? Or don't you do facts?
What was the question? I'm very happy to answer it once you've calmed down.
IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.
Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.
Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.
This is demonstrably absurd.
It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.
Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.
Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.
Rightwing columnists are e.g. Heffer and Hitchens yesterday
What part of "They are a pressure group not a government" do you not understand? You assume the voter is terminally stupid and that's why you lost.
The hoary £350 million is a matter of fact. The other fact that we get a proportion back in grants to the regions and the farmers is well known, or do you suppose the voters don't understand joined up writing or add-ons? That's the insult, and then you wonder why they vote Leave?
It's not stupidity - a lot is anger at Remain's arrogance .
Another stellar effort from mr herdson, acknowledging how Leadsom can win but seeing the path to that out one as very unlikely. We shall see. May starts from a strong position but is not inspiring so could go backwards if Leadson gets her act together.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
Speaking of moaning about politicians, we get the ones we deserve.
The Times has killed off Crabb over tittle-tattle about his private life. I don't give a fig what he does - it's between him and his family.
Leadsom is criticised for saying she's influenced by having kids.
May did a whole Mail spread that led with not having kids.
I can't put into words how much I don't care. I want to hear and see them talking about what they'll do, not whether their necklace isn't straight, or wore Blackwatch tartan et al.
That Leadsom was very bruised by the media assault and fessed up to it, was rather refreshing. I don't see it as a some fatal flaw. Who wouldn't be personally effected by it?
Some may prefer May's icy manner. Fair enough. I don't. I'm going to wait until the very last minute to decide how I'll vote. Both candidates have drawbacks - big ones.
May will win, it is really a question of her margin of victory. However then her problems start, wealthy financier Aaron Banks who bankrolled Leave.EU had an interview in the Sunday Times yesterday in which he said he was backing Leadsom and if she won UKIP would effectively fold and most of its support switch to the Tories. However he warned he saw May as a Europhile and if she won UKIP would be back ' on steroids' and he would be prepared to invest significant further sums from his £250 million fortune into its campaign
Here's an idea for Aaron Banks and his £250 million fortune: he could give it all to the NHS to pay just part of one week's money that leave promised.
IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.
Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.
Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.
This is demonstrably absurd.
It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.
Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.
Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.
Rightwing columnists are e.g. Heffer and Hitchens yesterday
If I can see that May is the "head" candidate and Leadsom the "heart" one I daresay they can, too.
On topic, I wholeheartedly agree with David, only the terminally stupid or those who don't have the best interests of the party at heart will vote Leadsom.
May will win, it is really a question of her margin of victory. However then her problems start, wealthy financier Aaron Banks who bankrolled Leave.EU had an interview in the Sunday Times yesterday in which he said he was backing Leadsom and if she won UKIP would effectively fold and most of its support switch to the Tories. However he warned he saw May as a Europhile and if she won UKIP would be back ' on steroids' and he would be prepared to invest significant further sums from his £250 million fortune into its campaign
Here's an idea for Aaron Banks and his £250 million fortune: he could give it all to the NHS to pay just part of one week's money that leave promised.
Was Banks involved with Vote Leave?
I must have missed that, strange seeing how highly regarded he is in that group.
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever? We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding? My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.
Yes, they can put it in their manifesto and campaign for it at a General Election - just like the SNP put their Independence Referendum in their Holyrood manifesto (and some think, like Cameron, didn't think they'd win a majority so actually have to implement it...).
That's how it works. But by the end of this Parliamentary Term we should be out of the EU.....if someone wants to stand in 2020 saying 'take us back in' the electorate can decide....
"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.
Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.
But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.
... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind. If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?
Yep. Pretty much.
If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.
The decision has been taken - time to move on.
Does that apply to the other referenda? The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been will have to respond.
Surely IF A50 has been triggered but the electorate has appeared to change it’s mind (Massive swings to loudly pro-EU LD’s, for example) then it’s down to the 27 to consider it. AIUI from comments here triggering A50 is a one way street.
In theory changing minds, even shortly after the initial decision is taken, is possible and In extreme positions reasonable. The idea it is simply not possible to do so is unfair, however it woukd have to be justifiable and that's harder.
As for article 50, I'd assume we'd need to change our minds before we declared - not happening for all sorts of reasons I've blathered on enough - but I'm not a lawyer. However, talk on article 50 can only be extended with agreement of the eu, it starts a ticking clock, and so stopping it presumably requires their agreement too. Given they'll have spent possibly years preparing themselves for Brexit and possibly taken economic hits themselves, and considering the accepted risk when declaring we might not get a deal but would be out anyway, they might not be inclined to halt the process. Particularly since if we really really no longer wanted to leave, it might be better for them to let us go out then have to reapply, thus time accepting the things we opted out to last time so we could not cause trouble again.
Another stellar effort from mr herdson, acknowledging how Leadsom can win but seeing the path to that out one as very unlikely. We shall see. May starts from a strong position but is not inspiring so could go backwards if Leadson gets her act together.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
Speaking of moaning about politicians, we get the ones we deserve.
The Times has killed off Crabb over tittle-tattle about his private life. I don't give a fig what he does - it's between him and his family.
Leadsom is criticised for saying she's influenced by having kids.
May did a whole Mail spread that led with not having kids.
I can't put into words how much I don't care. I want to hear and see them talking about what they'll do, not whether their necklace isn't straight, or wore Blackwatch tartan et al.
That Leadsom was very bruised by the media assault and fessed up to it, was rather refreshing. I don't see it as a some fatal flaw. Who wouldn't be personally effected by it?
Some may prefer May's icy manner. Fair enough. I don't. I'm going to wait until the very last minute to decide how I'll vote. Both candidates have drawbacks - big ones.
The whining is all coming from Leadsom's camp: May herself has been rather silent over Leadsom's stupidity. Which is a sign of a good politician: never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.
I'm quite amused that you're even contemplating Leadsom. To me, she seems just as icy as May, yet with the addition of being quite a nasty little weasel.
Mr. Eagles, not remotely? Whites playing divide and conquer springs to mind.
Also, (from a different post), whilst I would prefer May, calling those who disagree terminally stupid is not necessarily the best way to persuade them. That approach certainly didn't work well in the referendum.
IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.
Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.
Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.
This is demonstrably absurd.
It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.
Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.
Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.
Rightwing columnists are e.g. Heffer and Hitchens yesterday
If I can see that May is the "head" candidate and Leadsom the "heart" one I daresay they can, too.
May will win it is really a question of her margin of victory. However then her problems start, wealthy financier Aaron Banks who bankrolled Leave.EU had an interview in the Sunday Times yesterday in which he said he was backing Leadsom and if she won UKIP would effectively fold and most of its support switch to the Tories. However he warned he saw May as a Europhile and if she won UKIP would be back ' on steroids' and he would be prepared to invest significant further sums from his £250 million fortune into its campaign
Aaron Banks speaks bravado, bluster and bollox – nothing new here.
Mr. Eagles, not remotely? Whites playing divide and conquer springs to mind.
Also, (from a different post), whilst I would prefer May, calling those who disagree terminally stupid is not necessarily the best way to persuade them. That approach certainly didn't work well in the referendum.
Mr. Eagles, not remotely? Whites playing divide and conquer springs to mind.
Also, (from a different post), whilst I would prefer May, calling those who disagree terminally stupid is not necessarily the best way to persuade them. That approach certainly didn't work well in the referendum.
But Star Wars. STAR WARS!
Sorry but for the other point, if you can't stand the heat, time to get back into the kitchen.
She cried over a newspaper interview, what's she going to be like when Putin starts having a go?
Another stellar effort from mr herdson, acknowledging how Leadsom can win but seeing the path to that out one as very unlikely. We shall see. May starts from a strong position but is not inspiring so could go backwards if Leadson gets her act together.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
Speaking of moaning about politicians, we get the ones we deserve.
The Times has killed off Crabb over tittle-tattle about his private life. I don't give a fig what he does - it's between him and his family.
Leadsom is criticised for saying she's influenced by having kids.
May did a whole Mail spread that led with not having kids.
I can't put into words how much I don't care. I want to hear and see them talking about what they'll do, not whether their necklace isn't straight, or wore Blackwatch tartan et al.
That Leadsom was very bruised by the media assault and fessed up to it, was rather refreshing. I don't see it as a some fatal flaw. Who wouldn't be personally effected by it?
Some may prefer May's icy manner. Fair enough. I don't. I'm going to wait until the very last minute to decide how I'll vote. Both candidates have drawbacks - big ones.
While I agree we get the politicians we deserve, I don't think the examples you give on May and Leadsom are comparable. I would have to recheck, but Mays piece was about her opening up, giving people an insight into her as a person not just a candidate. Leadsoms was directly saying she would be better as a PM because she has kids and may doesn't. My biggest issue with Leadsom so far is her outrage and weak defence that she wasn't making a comparison use just because she said she wasn't despite doing so. Saying you aren't doesn't erase the act of doing so.
But it's early days - and Leadsom may well surprise. May can only go backwards or hold steady, not inspire more.
May will win, it is really a question of her margin of victory. However then her problems start, wealthy financier Aaron Banks who bankrolled Leave.EU had an interview in the Sunday Times yesterday in which he said he was backing Leadsom and if she won UKIP would effectively fold and most of its support switch to the Tories. However he warned he saw May as a Europhile and if she won UKIP would be back ' on steroids' and he would be prepared to invest significant further sums from his £250 million fortune into its campaign
Here's an idea for Aaron Banks and his £250 million fortune: he could give it all to the NHS to pay just part of one week's money that leave promised.
Was Banks involved with Vote Leave?
I must have missed that, strange seeing how highly regarded he is in that group.
Leave.EU and Vote Leave are different things. They were both vying to be the official Leave campaign, but Mr Banks' Leave.eu lost.
They didn't shut down though, and I think they're reported to have ~800,000 email list. I think of them as an anti-EU five thirty-eight.
A. Yes. I know Teresa doesn't have X and that must make her sad. I don't want this to be about Andrea has X and Teresa doesn't because that would be really horrible. BUT I DO HAVE X AND SHE DOESN'T which gives me a (greater) stake in the future.
Another stellar effort from mr herdson, acknowledging how Leadsom can win but seeing the path to that out one as very unlikely. We shall see. May starts from a strong position but is not inspiring so could go backwards if Leadson gets her act together.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
Speaking of moaning about politicians, we get the ones we deserve.
The Times has killed off Crabb over tittle-tattle about his private life. I don't give a fig what he does - it's between him and his family.
Leadsom is criticised for saying she's influenced by having kids.
May did a whole Mail spread that led with not having kids.
I can't put into words how much I don't care. I want to hear and see them talking about what they'll do, not whether their necklace isn't straight, or wore Blackwatch tartan et al.
That Leadsom was very bruised by the media assault and fessed up to it, was rather refreshing. I don't see it as a some fatal flaw. Who wouldn't be personally effected by it?
Some may prefer May's icy manner. Fair enough. I don't. I'm going to wait until the very last minute to decide how I'll vote. Both candidates have drawbacks - big ones.
The whining is all coming from Leadsom's camp: May herself has been rather silent over Leadsom's stupidity. Which is a sign of a good politician: never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.
I'm quite amused that you're even contemplating Leadsom. To me, she seems just as icy as May, yet with the addition of being quite a nasty little weasel.
Harsh, but fair.
The fact that May mentioned her childlessness, and not in a "this makes me the better candidate" sort of way, does not give anyone else carte blanche to. Imagine by way of parallel: candidate A says in an interview "I am gay". OK for candidate B to identify her own non-gayness as a reason to vote for her? No.
Mr. Eagles, please re-attach your trousers. You're coming across as a bigger fanboy than Kylo Ren.
It's not heat. It's daftness from those making those comments. We had this conversation when I criticised Cameron for his approach in the referendum. You said he was ruthless, playing to win etc. Calling your adversaries (especially those you wish to become allies immediately after the vote) 'terminally stupid' is just not smart.
I'm hoping that God might yet have a quiet word with Mother Superior - and gets her to stand down.
If He is a merciful God, it would spare us all two months more of this.
Agreed. This dragging on all summer is a pretty dismal prospectus for everyone. If the feeling is that Leadsom is a certain loser, she should have the good grace to spare the country another eight weeks of phoney war.
Mr. Eagles, please re-attach your trousers. You're coming across as a bigger fanboy than Kylo Ren.
It's not heat. It's daftness from those making those comments. We had this conversation when I criticised Cameron for his approach in the referendum. You said he was ruthless, playing to win etc. Calling your adversaries (especially those you wish to become allies immediately after the vote) 'terminally stupid' is just not smart.
I view Leadsom/ContinuityIDS as a virus that needs to be repelled. The future of the country is at stake. By any necessary means to defeat her is acceptable.
I suspect that May is going to win this, but I can't imagine that the membership are particularly happy at being presented with this choice. If I was a member I'd demanding to know why the MPs couldn't come up with two electable candidates (even if one couldn't be Michael Gove)?
Well it should of course have been May Vs Boris. Will always be the great "What If" of British politics... Especially if Theresa starts wriggling out of Brexit which Grieve was hinting over the weekend...
Mr. Eagles, please re-attach your trousers. You're coming across as a bigger fanboy than Kylo Ren.
It's not heat. It's daftness from those making those comments. We had this conversation when I criticised Cameron for his approach in the referendum. You said he was ruthless, playing to win etc. Calling your adversaries (especially those you wish to become allies immediately after the vote) 'terminally stupid' is just not smart.
He's right, anyone who votes for Leadsom is terminally stupid. We are about to enter the nation's most important period of time since the war, only those who are a few braincells short of a full working set would even consider voting for a candidate who has no real government experience and definitely zero experience in working with Brussels. Remember Theresa May opted us out of the Justice measures and then worked with the EU on opting us back into the ones that suited us, a true having one's cake and eating moment which pissed the EU off.
On topic, I wholeheartedly agree with David, only the terminally stupid or those who don't have the best interests of the party at heart will vote Leadsom.
That's an intriguing comment. Ignoring the pathetic jibe, we come down to "those don't have the best interests of the Party at heart" and that is worthy of some comment.
Did Labour supporters think that when they voted for Corbyn or was Corbyn more reflective of the Party they wanted to be in and the policies they wanted to follow. If, for a Conservative, it's only about power and office, what's the point ?
There are usually two sorts of people in political parties - those who want to get into power to do things but aren't really sure what and those who want to debate and argue and for whom the electoral process is a trifle.
It's not, I think, about anger or populism but a re-defining of politics away from the simple acquisition and maintenance of power. It's a response, I think, to increasingly centralised and authoritarian structures in which the average member doesn't have a lot of say.
May is the better qualified candidate but Leadsom may be closer to the heartbeat of the membership in terms of the EU and possibly other issues. Labour have paid for the disconnection between those in power and the membership and so have the LDs. It could be the turn of the Conservatives.
Eagles interview on Pienaar was yesterday was depressing. In answer to why is she running / why should be Labour leader the answer was I am working class Northerner, a women and gay. Nearly as bad as Cameron, well I think I might be quite good at the job.
Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:
"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.
"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."
She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise." Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."
Inequality due to race etc was a section in camerons last conference speech that he got the most passionate about wanting to address, he was more fired up fan when attacking Corbyn.
But, much of what is currently exercising the Home Office, and Ministry of Justice, eg terrorism, FGM, modern slavery, child sexual exploitation, has a racial/religious angle. That is, cracking down on these things will disproportionately affect some ethnic groups more than others. Which leads back to the fact that these issues don't have obvious bureaucratic solutions.
Mr. Eagles, please re-attach your trousers. You're coming across as a bigger fanboy than Kylo Ren.
It's not heat. It's daftness from those making those comments. We had this conversation when I criticised Cameron for his approach in the referendum. You said he was ruthless, playing to win etc. Calling your adversaries (especially those you wish to become allies immediately after the vote) 'terminally stupid' is just not smart.
I view Leadsom/ContinuityIDS as a virus that needs to be repelled. The future of the country is at stake. By any necessary means to defeat her is acceptable.
What extraordinary hyperbole, your desire to attach yourself to a group of individuals and alienate all others is peculiar. You seem to learn nothing from experience.
Parliament votes for Article 50 and we Brexit. The only likely reason for it voting against is that the terms or manner of leaving is in dispute. In that circumstance it would act as a delay rather than an outright rejection. Parliament is answerable to the electorate for its decisions, who may punish MPs they think are willfully ignoring the public will.
I think the issue worrying people who object to this approach is that there isn't a majority in the House for A50. Easily a dozen Tories who could object potentially.
There is a majority in parliament for article 50. It won't just be Tories voting for it, despite remainers being a majority, not too many will be willing to be seen to scupper the referendum like that even if it is only a delay.
But apparently we won't find out as there seems growing consensus the gov can do it itself. Honestly like referendum thresholds it may be something that's a good idea, or worth debating, but if it's not required that's that.
Lets cut to the chase. This is about being or not being in EFTA ie whether you think keeping johnny foreigner out - all johnny foreigners, not just those wanting low skilled jobs subsidised by in work benefits funded by the taxpayer - is more important than keeping the economy on an even keel and having a PM who has experience and competence.
I don't think Theresa May has been any great shakes as Home Secretary, or would be as PM, but Andrea Leadsom looks out of her depth, and could not lead a united party.
As so often, it's a choice between not very good and worse.
I suspect that May is going to win this, but I can't imagine that the membership are particularly happy at being presented with this choice. If I was a member I'd demanding to know why the MPs couldn't come up with two electable candidates (even if one couldn't be Michael Gove)?
Well it should of course have been May Vs Boris. Will always be the great "What If" of British politics... Especially if Theresa starts wriggling out of Brexit was Grieve was hinting over the weekend...
Grayling was on the Sunday Politics at the same time saying there would be no backtrack or no second referendum. He is Theresa May's campaign manager and effective second in command at the moment. He was also a prominent Leave campaigner. He said A50 will be served by the end of the year.
May is the better qualified candidate but Leadsom may be closer to the heartbeat of the membership in terms of the EU and possibly other issues. Labour have paid for the disconnection between those in power and the membership and so have the LDs. It could be the turn of the Conservatives.
Labour have proven that the membership is moving farther away from the electorate.
On topic, I wholeheartedly agree with David, only the terminally stupid or those who don't have the best interests of the party at heart will vote Leadsom.
That's an intriguing comment. Ignoring the pathetic jibe, we come down to "those don't have the best interests of the Party at heart" and that is worthy of some comment.
Did Labour supporters think that when they voted for Corbyn or was Corbyn more reflective of the Party they wanted to be in and the policies they wanted to follow. If, for a Conservative, it's only about power and office, what's the point ?
There are usually two sorts of people in political parties - those who want to get into power to do things but aren't really sure what and those who want to debate and argue and for whom the electoral process is a trifle.
It's not, I think, about anger or populism but a re-defining of politics away from the simple acquisition and maintenance of power. It's a response, I think, to increasingly centralised and authoritarian structures in which the average member doesn't have a lot of say.
May is the better qualified candidate but Leadsom may be closer to the heartbeat of the membership in terms of the EU and possibly other issues. Labour have paid for the disconnection between those in power and the membership and so have the LDs. It could be the turn of the Conservatives.
It's possible, but nor herdson argues, albeit using polls, that may is not disconnected from them nice shed win easily.we shall see.
Just in case PBers missed it, Keiren's thread yesterday on the rights and wrongs of Corbyn gaining an automatic right to be on the ballot trumps pretty much anything you'll read in the MSM.
Keiren - rightly in my view - makes a cogent case that Corbyn should have no such right. Worth adding that if Corbyn was subject to Tory rules, he'd be out on his ear, without even a chance to get the requisite nominations.
So he can have few complaints of the NEC rules that the Kinnock Precedent stands and he will be asked to find 51 MPs to support his candidacy.
On topic, I wholeheartedly agree with David, only the terminally stupid or those who don't have the best interests of the party at heart will vote Leadsom.
That's an intriguing comment. Ignoring the pathetic jibe, we come down to "those don't have the best interests of the Party at heart" and that is worthy of some comment.
Did Labour supporters think that when they voted for Corbyn or was Corbyn more reflective of the Party they wanted to be in and the policies they wanted to follow. If, for a Conservative, it's only about power and office, what's the point ?
There are usually two sorts of people in political parties - those who want to get into power to do things but aren't really sure what and those who want to debate and argue and for whom the electoral process is a trifle.
It's not, I think, about anger or populism but a re-defining of politics away from the simple acquisition and maintenance of power. It's a response, I think, to increasingly centralised and authoritarian structures in which the average member doesn't have a lot of say.
May is the better qualified candidate but Leadsom may be closer to the heartbeat of the membership in terms of the EU and possibly other issues. Labour have paid for the disconnection between those in power and the membership and so have the LDs. It could be the turn of the Conservatives.
I was really cross at those Tories that voted for Jez, they'd have been screaming blue murder if Labour supporters had interfered with a Tory leadership contest.
Comments
5) Choose one (fail to anticipate side-effects of a solution that makes the initial problem worse)
example Osbornes hitting btl landlords with not setting there mortgage against tax, most I know who rent including myself have already been informed to expect a rent rise to cover the difference when it comes in. Thanks George
1) It has two other Open Access operators on it, who share the line maintenance costs.
2) The rolling stock is aged, reducing the operator's payments to the ROSCO.
The latter advantage is going to disappear when the new IEP trains appear, which allegedly will cost the operator much, much more than the 91+MkIV's that are used on many of their services.
The argument also ignores the other private operators who were returning money to the government - and more of it. See South West Trains.
If He is a merciful God, it would spare us all two months more of this.
As some of us said at the start, choosing a Prime Minister is not the same as choosing a LOTO who may have four or five years to become Prime Ministerial (or not).
Apart from Chamberlain in 1940, and that was only because Halifax demurred, whenever a Prime Minister has left office outside the normal electoral process, it has always been a senior colleague that has succeeded.
Eden, Macmillan, Callaghan and Brown were all senior Cabinet members - May is, Leadsom is not. Had May been facing Osborne or Hammond or even Gove at this time, it would be very different but sometimes as Stodge's fourteenth law of politics states:
"Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do".
May has in truth had to do very little as her opponents have undermined and destroyed each other and while Leadsom might have been a potential LOTO, she's not a potential PM.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36760953
Perhaps the first hint of what a May administration will look like in tone and style if not substance - it's all fairly vacuous waffle of course - it reads like the sort of thing Michael Heseltine would have said in the 80s and early 90s. It reads as more interventionist and less paternalistic than Cameron or even Major.
How this squares with restoring the public finances I'm less certain and it seems the "a" word has been dropped.
1. Housing
2. WWC male educational attainment (I disagree with the emphasis on university but she's identified a real problem)
3. Equal treatment in the criminal justice system - critical to create an integrated society
4. Mental health - may be this isn't as important an issue to most people, but our treatment of the mentally ill is shameful
If she addresses those 4 issues and does nothing else she will have been a fantastic PM in my view. Which do you regard as unimportant?
I agree with you about number 4. The thing is, it's also popular. Hold a referendum on criminalising mental illness and see what happens.
Been told that @AndreaLeadsom apologised via text message and @TheresaMay2016 has accepted it.
They're all worthy issues, but none of these problems has an obvious bureaucratic solution to them.
Whilst I would prefer May to Leadsom, I'd be wary of taking polling too seriously given recent performances from the pollsters. I don't envy them their task, but they've not been quite as accurate as they might like recently.
Speaking of inaccurate forecasts, my post-race analysis of the British Grand Prix is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/united-kingdom-post-race-analysis-2016.html
True, And they are all also, to a greater or lesser extent, consequences of market failure.
Just as crashing the economy was a really stupid way to cut immigration (but we did it), so crashing the Tory party is a really stupid way to resurrect IDS, but there seems to be no rational way to prevent it.
Truth doesn't work in post truth politics.
She lied. Black ops.
She is untrustworthy. She was misunderstood.
She said some nasty things to a journalist. No she didn't. Well, she did, but it was out of context. Well, it was in context, but she didn't want it reported. Well, she didn't mean to cause offence. Well, offence to anyone who might have been offended by actually reading her words. Well, she has apologised.
She burst into tears because people read her words and understood their intent. Mrs Thatcher mark II...
70,000 Leadbangers is all it will take for the lunatics to be given free reign over the asylum.
Buckle up!
I don't find this very appealing. At all. It's very Gordon.
A message to the youth of Britain ... We, the old gits, have decided to condemn you to a life of penury, begging on the streets and going up chimneys (like wot we did).
Here's a tip for you - wear black, it doesn't show the soot so much. And watch that cough, it's probably galloping consumption.
"Well, that's it, Stodge has finally jumped the porpoise. It's been coming for a while"
Nay, nay and thrice nay as Francis Aloysius would have said. May was the fall-back in the event of LEAVE winning. Unlike Hammond, whose difficulties when dealing with the punters were cruelly exposed in the 2013 floods, May had enough going for her in the party to be seen as the potential unifying candidate.
By this, Cameron has enacted his revenge on Team LEAVE and ensured his legacy will be the continuation of his policies. I suspect had REMAIN won, May's position as a senior Cabinet member would have been preserved and she would have been the obvious choice over the Chancellor who for all his "genius" remains as popular as a (you can complete your own analogy),
As so often, it's a choice between not very good and worse.
Personally, I hope she pulls out at some point this week and accepts she's not ready for high office.
With the derision we pour, not without cause, on our political leaders, it will be interesting to see if Mays vast experience at the top does indeed show up an amateurish operation from Leadsom, and how out of depth someone can be. Also interesting to see how fast Leadsom can pick things up - even Corbyn has learned to modulate himself a bit, or just keep quiet every now and the, he's learned a few things.
Brown gutted the Labour party of talent to get and gain power, then was handed it unopposed. Not much of a similarity.
At what time is Angela Eagle's declaration she's standing against Chairman Corbyn expected?
May's "detachment" is slightly more understandable though not much.
She'll need to be rehearsing big time this week for the hustings.
No, there's nothing coincidental about it, but what does that signify? It's not a coincidence because the editorial positions at least currently agree Leadsom is out of her depth and so are focused on that not may. A confluence of opinion can be wrong, but it's not sinister if it's with cause.
But honestly, why are we even considering Leadsom? Tory members need to take a step back and seriously ask themselves: 'Leadsom, PM?', at this time?
Get a bloody grip for the sake of the country.
1) High illiteracy and innumeracy rates amongst school leavers.
2) Lack of infrastructure long-term planning and investment.
3) Not just lack of new-build housing; also the quality of new housing and developments.
4) Concentration on university or nothing for school leavers' FE.
5) Discrimination of all types.
6) Perceived and/or real disenfranchisement of large parts of society (see 5).
7) Prison: the current system does not work.
8) Lack of government aid and help to small businesses and start-ups.
9) Poor balance of trade figures.
10) Cost and effectiveness of the current NHS system.
Some of these are very long-term problems, with long-term solutions.
Mr Grayling on the Sunday Politics seemed to say that only Ms May could get Brexit thru parliament as most Con MPs supported Remain, and she was the Remain candidate in this race. But all that says is that Remain MPs cannot be trusted.
I see this contest as a continuation of the referendum with Ms May as the MPs choice to kill Brexit.
What part of "They are a pressure group not a government" do you not understand? You assume the voter is terminally stupid and that's why you lost.
The hoary £350 million is a matter of fact. The other fact that we get a proportion back in grants to the regions and the farmers is well known, or do you suppose the voters don't understand joined up writing or add-ons? That's the insult, and then you wonder why they vote Leave?
It's not stupidity - a lot is anger at Remain's arrogance .
It's over, we are leaving.
The Times has killed off Crabb over tittle-tattle about his private life. I don't give a fig what he does - it's between him and his family.
Leadsom is criticised for saying she's influenced by having kids.
May did a whole Mail spread that led with not having kids.
I can't put into words how much I don't care. I want to hear and see them talking about what they'll do, not whether their necklace isn't straight, or wore Blackwatch tartan et al.
That Leadsom was very bruised by the media assault and fessed up to it, was rather refreshing. I don't see it as a some fatal flaw. Who wouldn't be personally effected by it?
Some may prefer May's icy manner. Fair enough. I don't. I'm going to wait until the very last minute to decide how I'll vote. Both candidates have drawbacks - big ones.
But carry on
I must have missed that, strange seeing how highly regarded he is in that group.
As for article 50, I'd assume we'd need to change our minds before we declared - not happening for all sorts of reasons I've blathered on enough - but I'm not a lawyer. However, talk on article 50 can only be extended with agreement of the eu, it starts a ticking clock, and so stopping it presumably requires their agreement too. Given they'll have spent possibly years preparing themselves for Brexit and possibly taken economic hits themselves, and considering the accepted risk when declaring we might not get a deal but would be out anyway, they might not be inclined to halt the process. Particularly since if we really really no longer wanted to leave, it might be better for them to let us go out then have to reapply, thus time accepting the things we opted out to last time so we could not cause trouble again.
https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/752402610100047872
I'm quite amused that you're even contemplating Leadsom. To me, she seems just as icy as May, yet with the addition of being quite a nasty little weasel.
Also, (from a different post), whilst I would prefer May, calling those who disagree terminally stupid is not necessarily the best way to persuade them. That approach certainly didn't work well in the referendum.
Venezuelans stream into Colombia for food
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36761978
Sorry but for the other point, if you can't stand the heat, time to get back into the kitchen.
She cried over a newspaper interview, what's she going to be like when Putin starts having a go?
But it's early days - and Leadsom may well surprise. May can only go backwards or hold steady, not inspire more.
They didn't shut down though, and I think they're reported to have ~800,000 email list. I think of them as an anti-EU five thirty-eight.
Q Does having X matter to you?
A. Yes. I know Teresa doesn't have X and that must make her sad. I don't want this to be about Andrea has X and Teresa doesn't because that would be really horrible. BUT I DO HAVE X AND SHE DOESN'T which gives me a (greater) stake in the future.
The fact that May mentioned her childlessness, and not in a "this makes me the better candidate" sort of way, does not give anyone else carte blanche to. Imagine by way of parallel: candidate A says in an interview "I am gay". OK for candidate B to identify her own non-gayness as a reason to vote for her? No.
It's not heat. It's daftness from those making those comments. We had this conversation when I criticised Cameron for his approach in the referendum. You said he was ruthless, playing to win etc. Calling your adversaries (especially those you wish to become allies immediately after the vote) 'terminally stupid' is just not smart.
I’m not nasty, I’m just shit at this, insists Leadsom
http://thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/im-not-nasty-im-just-shit-at-this-insists-leadsom-20160711110548
Did Labour supporters think that when they voted for Corbyn or was Corbyn more reflective of the Party they wanted to be in and the policies they wanted to follow. If, for a Conservative, it's only about power and office, what's the point ?
There are usually two sorts of people in political parties - those who want to get into power to do things but aren't really sure what and those who want to debate and argue and for whom the electoral process is a trifle.
It's not, I think, about anger or populism but a re-defining of politics away from the simple acquisition and maintenance of power. It's a response, I think, to increasingly centralised and authoritarian structures in which the average member doesn't have a lot of say.
May is the better qualified candidate but Leadsom may be closer to the heartbeat of the membership in terms of the EU and possibly other issues. Labour have paid for the disconnection between those in power and the membership and so have the LDs. It could be the turn of the Conservatives.
Ah, the PLP. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
But apparently we won't find out as there seems growing consensus the gov can do it itself. Honestly like referendum thresholds it may be something that's a good idea, or worth debating, but if it's not required that's that.
The Tories are probably about to do the same.
Keiren - rightly in my view - makes a cogent case that Corbyn should have no such right. Worth adding that if Corbyn was subject to Tory rules, he'd be out on his ear, without even a chance to get the requisite nominations.
So he can have few complaints of the NEC rules that the Kinnock Precedent stands and he will be asked to find 51 MPs to support his candidacy.
All eyes on the NEC tomorrow...