What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
Give her time - she has a thankless job at present
Which is why she needs to syndicate her risk and involve others not slap down anyone who says anything slightly different.
To my mind her best moment was how she approached the campaign to be leader. But since then, it's all felt a bit "meh" and some worrying signs have emerged.
Having got into power by making it clear that she got the country's message, she needed to be open and generous and reassuring - to us, all of us - andcan work practically is leading to a vacuum.
I think it was Nick Robinson who said, on R4's profile, that much as he had access to and was invited to interview May, he used to refuse to do so.
He said that after an hour and a half's interview, he walked out knowing nothing more about her, or her policies, or her intent than he did when he walked in.
May is the ideal candidate to do 'grey' Brexit, ie she was never the enthusiastic Remainer Cameron and Osborne were but nor was she theLeave by just 52% to 48%
I think the whole "we need someone to communicate that vision to her ministers and to the country.
Not 100% sure that is Tezza. We shall see.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
As every Brexiter tells us, it is up to the government to determine our post-EU future. So let the government determine it. It will irritate as many people to see that we are controlling free movement as it would to see that we are not controlling free movement.
If she doesn't want a referendum about every clause and article, she had better start leading.
The world's changed a bit since then, don't you think?
You mean the 'Pax Americana' comfort blanket looks less secure than it did back in June?
"If the people of Scotland are forced to choose between the United Kingdom and the European Union we do not know what the result would be. But only a little more than eighteen months after the referendum that kept the United Kingdom together, I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more."
Do we now know the answer to this question?
The whole speech merits close analysis given that it's the best thing we have to go on regarding May's real views on some of the key issues.
Was there a question in that quote? Yes, the risk has gone up, but that isn't going to stop Brexit from happening.
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Remember when Alastair Meeks used to post advice to the Leave campaign? It meant they were winning....
The criticisms of May on here are I feel are a bit unfair. My take: Theresa May essentially has an impossible job, all she is doing is keeping her head above water, and she is doing admirably well at that. The snipers are lurking in every concievable direction and behind every corner. As soon as she sets out a position of any substance, it will be torn to shreds. So she says very little, talks in generalities, affirms certain positions, lets others do the talking, keeps control of the ship while buying time to do the spadework necessary behind the scenes to enable the country to enter in to this enormous renegotiation - the work that her predecessors notably neglected to even contemplate, such was their arrogance and willingness to screw the whole country if they couldn't get their way. As someone who has never voted conservative on principle I have to say that at the moment she is the only person capable of holding the country together and taking Brexit to a sensible conclusion. The idea that Jeremy Corbyn would do a better job is so laughable it is almost insane. He would be an absolute catastrophe. The people who I know in the labour party, the sensible people, agree privately. And the idea that Andrea Leadsom, with her 'get on with article 50 with no preperation' stance could do any better is equally ridiculous.
My increasing feeling is that Theresa May needs our support because she is the last and only sensible option
Revolutions consume their own, they are pretty good at consuming sense too.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
The criticisms of May on here are I feel are a bit unfair. My take: Theresa May essentially has an impossible job, all she is doing is keeping her head above water, and she is doing admirably well at that. The snipers are lurking in every concievable direction and behind every corner. As soon as she sets out a position of any substance, it will be torn to shreds. So she says very little, talks in generalities, affirms certain positions, lets others do the talking, keeps control of the ship while buying time to do the spadework necessary behind the scenes to enable the country to enter in to this enormous renegotiation - the work that her predecessors notably neglected to even contemplate, such was their arrogance and willingness to screw the whole country if they couldn't get their way. As someone who has never voted conservative on principle I have to say that at the moment she is the only person capable of holding the country together and taking Brexit to a sensible conclusion. The idea that Jeremy Corbyn would do a better job is so laughable it is almost insane. He would be an absolute catastrophe. The people who I know in the labour party, the sensible people, agree privately. And the idea that Andrea Leadsom, with her 'get on with article 50 with no preperation' stance could do any better is equally ridiculous.
My increasing feeling is that Theresa May needs our support because she is the last and only sensible option
Nicely said.
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She became leader of the Conservatives because, with the pro-Leave Tories going AWOL in the days after the vote, and the dawning horror of the rancorous mess the Referendum had stirred up, everyone (not just the Tories) desperately needed someone who looked and acted like a grown-up to calm everything down and sort the mess out. TM fitted the bill then, and she still fits the bill now.
Which is why the Tories have such a lead in the polls, and why there won't be a GE anytime soon.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
No fact. Obviously the PM cannot be a diehard Remainer implementing Brexit who will alienate all the Leave voters nor can they be a diehard Leaver who will alienate all the Remain voters as well as the EU, it has to be someone as close to the middle as possible and certainly May would be a far more rigorous negotiator than Boris would ever be
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
We need a leader who is able to speak some hard truths to both Leavers and Remainers
I think that's right. But it's easier to speak hard truths if you have a vision to base your speech on.
Can you see May being able to control David Davis, IDS, and Boris (I would include Fox, but he's a lightweight).
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She was clearly lukewarm on the value of the referendum, but if you read her speech it is much less on the fence than the coverage it got suggests. Reading between the lines the strongest message is that she would be a better PM than Cameron, not that she has any real doubts that our national interest lies in being a member of the EU.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
No fact. Obviously the PM cannot be a diehard Remainer implementing Brexit nor can they be a diehard Leaver who will alienate all the Remain voters as well as the EU, it has to be someone as close to the middle as possible and certainly May would be a far more rigorous negotiator than Boris would ever be
Someone can be close to the middle because they genuinely find it a hard decision, with advantage and disadvantages on both sides. Or they can be close to the middle because it is politically advantageous. Or because they're indecisive and incompetent.
"May would be a far more rigorous negotiator than Boris would ever be"
I think you're right, but that's a very, very low comparator.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
No fact. Obviously the PM cannot be a diehard Remainer implementing Brexit nor can they be a diehard Leaver who will alienate all the Remain voters as well as the EU, it has to be someone as close to the middle as possible and certainly May would be a far more rigorous negotiator than Boris would ever be
Someone can be close to the middle because they genuinely find it a hard decision, with advantage and disadvantages on both sides. Or they can be close to the middle because it is politically advantageous. Or because they're indecisive and incompetent.
"May would be a far more rigorous negotiator than Boris would ever be"
I think you're right, but that's a very, very low comparator.
Regardless of the reasoning behind it that is the only possible figure who can unite the country at the moment without completely alienating the EU in the Brexit negotiations, there is no viable alternative to May
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
Six years as Home Secretary is a good start
What of any significance did she negotiate whilst she was there?
To a certain extent I'm playing devil's advocate here: I quite like May, but she's not impressed me so far from what we publicly know. But she may be doing good things that we haven't really seen at the moment, and which will come to light when things have settled down.
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
I'm not saying they should back the Tories, but that they could oppose them in a way that doesn't look anti-democratic and would have wider appeal.
That's if as JJ suggested they want to be influential in local and national politics. If they want ideological purity, then (as I've argued on here before) a viable strategy is going for the ultra-Remain areas in London, Oxbridge, Edinburgh etc. and writing off the West Country, North and so on.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
Six years as Home Secretary is a good start
What did she accomplish in those 6 years?
She chartered some mobile advertising hoardings as I recall; in her very own personal leave campaign.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
I'm not saying they should back the Tories, but that they could oppose them in a way that doesn't look anti-democratic and would have wider appeal.
That's if as JJ suggested they want to be influential in local and national politics. If they want ideological purity, then (as I've argued on here before) a viable strategy is going for the ultra-Remain areas in London, Oxbridge, Edinburgh etc. and writing off the West Country, North and so on.
It's a mistake to assume that you can directly map the strength of the Remain vote to the electoral prospects for a pro-Remain political party. If the Leave vote is split, apathetic or disillusioned, even an area which voted against Remain could be fertile ground for the Lib Dems.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
Six years as Home Secretary is a good start
What did she accomplish in those 6 years?
Not being sacked
Cameron did not 'sack' many people: the stability he sought in appointments was a good trait IMO, especially compared to the Blair and Brown ministerial turnstiles.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
Six years as Home Secretary is a good start
What of any significance did she negotiate whilst she was there?
To a certain extent I'm playing devil's advocate here: I quite like May, but she's not impressed me so far from what we publicly know. But she may be doing good things that we haven't really seen at the moment, and which will come to light when things have settled down.
P'haps.
Her test will come when the Supreme Court rules in January. I expect that she is ready to respond to the judgement and act on that judgement immediately with some force and leadership. This will be a big moment for her and the Country
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
I'm not saying they should back the Tories, but that they could oppose them in a way that doesn't look anti-democratic and would have wider appeal.
That's if as JJ suggested they want to be influential in local and national politics. If they want ideological purity, then (as I've argued on here before) a viable strategy is going for the ultra-Remain areas in London, Oxbridge, Edinburgh etc. and writing off the West Country, North and so on.
It's a mistake to assume that you can directly map the strength of the Remain vote to the electoral prospects for a pro-Remain political party. If the Leave vote is split, apathetic or disillusioned, even an area which voted against Remain could be fertile ground for the Lib Dems.
As Brexit becomes reality rather than prospect, attention will move to different areas of policy.
What should we spend the £350m per week dividend on for example...
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
I'm not saying they should back the Tories, but that they could oppose them in a way that doesn't look anti-democratic and would have wider appeal.
That's if as JJ suggested they want to be influential in local and national politics. If they want ideological purity, then (as I've argued on here before) a viable strategy is going for the ultra-Remain areas in London, Oxbridge, Edinburgh etc. and writing off the West Country, North and so on.
It's a mistake to assume that you can directly map the strength of the Remain vote to the electoral prospects for a pro-Remain political party. If the Leave vote is split, apathetic or disillusioned, even an area which voted against Remain could be fertile ground for the Lib Dems.
As Brexit becomes reality rather than prospect, attention will move to different areas of policy.
What should we spend the £350m per week dividend on for example...
The criticisms of May on here are I feel are a bit unfair. My take: Theresa May essentially has an impossible job, all she is doing is keeping her head above water, and she is doing admirably well at that. The snipers are lurking in every concievable direction and behind every corner. As soon as she sets out a position of any substance, it will be torn to shreds. So she says very little, talks in generalities, affirms certain positions, lets others do the talking, keeps control of the ship while buying time to do the spadework necessary behind the scenes to enable the country to enter in to this enormous renegotiation - the work that her predecessors notably neglected to even contemplate, such was their arrogance and willingness to screw the whole country if they couldn't get their way. As someone who has never voted conservative on principle I have to say that at the moment she is the only person capable of holding the country together and taking Brexit to a sensible conclusion. The idea that Jeremy Corbyn would do a better job is so laughable it is almost insane. He would be an absolute catastrophe. The people who I know in the labour party, the sensible people, agree privately. And the idea that Andrea Leadsom, with her 'get on with article 50 with no preperation' stance could do any better is equally ridiculous.
My increasing feeling is that Theresa May needs our support because she is the last and only sensible option
At the moment, TM has my sympathy & good wishes (though not my vote). She has an intractable mess to sort out. A mess left by the Posh Bully Boys.
Also, I like her choice of presents for Angela Merkel.
"Ms May handed her counterpart - who turned 62 on Sunday - a new edition of Coast To Coast With Wainwright, a classic photographic book from 1973 on beauty spots between the Irish and North seas. She also presented a copy of Great Mountain Days In Snowdonia, which includes a guide to walks in the National Park.”
Both superb books.
I have actually seen the Mays walking in Snowdonia while she was Home Secretary.
Although probably now she is PM, she has to walk Snowdonia with an entourage of security guards.
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
Pretty sure no one was against "our boys" - dodgy, irrseponsible wars or otherwise.
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
The only reason the underwhelming Mr Farron is so safe is the lack of potential challengers.
I'm far from sure he's underwhelming. You are probably not his audience, but he's exactly what the Lib Dems require at the moment.
The recent win in Richmond Park was not an accident.
Whether or not he's underwhelming (and his rhetoric honestly hasn't blown me away, but you're not wrong that I'm not his target audience), if Vince Cable were still in Parliament Farron would have an obvious challenger, or more likely wouldn't be leader.
Richmond is Farron's target audience, but the UK is not Richmond.
The Lib Dems are not looking to form the next government. They are looking to recover their position (as they see it) of being an influential voice in local and national politics.
They're not doing that with this second referendum nonsense, which appeals to a minority of hardcore Remnants and repels Leavers along with an awful lot of Remainers. A positive case for EEA/EFTA might put them back on the map, Farron is keeping them irrelevant.
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
I'm not saying they should back the Tories, but that they could oppose them in a way that doesn't look anti-democratic and would have wider appeal.
That's if as JJ suggested they want to be influential in local and national politics. If they want ideological purity, then (as I've argued on here before) a viable strategy is going for the ultra-Remain areas in London, Oxbridge, Edinburgh etc. and writing off the West Country, North and so on.
It's a mistake to assume that you can directly map the strength of the Remain vote to the electoral prospects for a pro-Remain political party. If the Leave vote is split, apathetic or disillusioned, even an area which voted against Remain could be fertile ground for the Lib Dems.
Only a very narrow Leave vote, for now many Remainers are also still voting Tory and Labour
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She was clearly lukewarm on the value of the referendum, but if you read her speech it is much less on the fence than the coverage it got suggests. Reading between the lines the strongest message is that she would be a better PM than Cameron, not that she has any real doubts that our national interest lies in being a member of the EU.
I guess she could see, in the words of Sir Humphrey. "arguments on both sides"...
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
I'm not sure about that. Her sacking of Osborne is probably why the hard-core nutters are willing to cut her a lot of slack. I wouldn't be surprised if she encouraged him to ham it up for the press.
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Cameron regularly comprehensively demolished Corbyn at PMQs. May's not done as well.
In addition, Cameron had been party leader for ten years, and had suffered continual attacks from a competent Labour spin machine for all those years. May's new to the job and has got no competent opposition.
Osborne would also have been subject to the same problem as Cameron: he's been the focus of many attacks that May has more or less (her infamous speech aside) been free from.
Like Cameron, Osborne was a very able performer at the despatch box for years, both in Opposition and as Chancellor. Cameron was a far more natural performer at the Despatch than May has ever been, but he was also well prepared by a team that involved Osborne and Gove. But May ditched both of them, and while they sit on the backbenches her PMQs performances have seen an improvement in Corbyn's performances.
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She was clearly lukewarm on the value of the referendum, but if you read her speech it is much less on the fence than the coverage it got suggests. Reading between the lines the strongest message is that she would be a better PM than Cameron, not that she has any real doubts that our national interest lies in being a member of the EU.
I guess she could see, in the words of Sir Humphrey. "arguments on both sides"...
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Cameron regularly comprehensively demolished Corbyn at PMQs. May's not done as well.
In addition, Cameron had been party leader for ten years, and had suffered continual attacks from a competent Labour spin machine for all those years. May's new to the job and has got no competent opposition.
Osborne would also have been subject to the same problem as Cameron: he's been the focus of many attacks that May has more or less (her infamous speech aside) been free from.
Like Cameron, Osborne was a very able performer at the despatch box for years, both in Opposition and as Chancellor. Cameron was a far more natural performer at the Despatch than May has ever been, but he was also well prepared by a team that involved Osborne and Gove. But May ditched both of them, and while they sit on the backbenches her PMQs performances have seen an improvement in Corbyn's performances.
Hm, would Cameron have served if offered a position? His quick exit suggests otherwise, unless he was pitching for a great office of state.
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She was clearly lukewarm on the value of the referendum, but if you read her speech it is much less on the fence than the coverage it got suggests. Reading between the lines the strongest message is that she would be a better PM than Cameron, not that she has any real doubts that our national interest lies in being a member of the EU.
I guess she could see, in the words of Sir Humphrey. "arguments on both sides"...
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
It was a silly move by TM. and her triumphalistic briefing was appalling & showed her own manifest inadequacues
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
I'm not sure about that. Her sacking of Osborne it probably why the hard-core nutters are willing to cut her a lot of slack. I wouldn't be surprised if she encouraged him to ham it up for the press.
It is not the 'hard-core nutters' that May needs to keep on side if she wants to win her own GE mandate. Its the loyal moderates like me she is losing and should be concerned about if she wants to reach out across the country and win a majority.
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Cameron regularly comprehensively demolished Corbyn at PMQs. May's not done as well.
In addition, Cameron had been party leader for ten years, and had suffered continual attacks from a competent Labour spin machine for all those years. May's new to the job and has got no competent opposition.
Osborne would also have been subject to the same problem as Cameron: he's been the focus of many attacks that May has more or less (her infamous speech aside) been free from.
Like Cameron, Osborne was a very able performer at the despatch box for years, both in Opposition and as Chancellor. Cameron was a far more natural performer at the Despatch than May has ever been, but he was also well prepared by a team that involved Osborne and Gove. But May ditched both of them, and while they sit on the backbenches her PMQs performances have seen an improvement in Corbyn's performances.
Hm, would Cameron have served if offered a position? His quick exit suggests otherwise, unless he was pitching for a great office of state.
Cameron wanted to go. (He had said he would go anyhow before 2020).
Osborne had no credibility left after the Kneecapper's Budget. Even if Cameron had stayed, he would have had to sacrifice Osborne.
Having observed some of the response to Hammonds "Brexit may take more than two years and need an interim agreement" on Twitter (always dangerous), the hardcore Brexiteers seem convinced this will result in the Tories losing any GE (or some Trump figure sweeping in and taking control of the Parlimentary Party). Not seeing it myself - in fact, I see a real opportunity here for May and the Tories.
Here's the YouGov poll from Dec 9: CON 42%, LAB 25%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, GRN 4% (YouGov Dec 9)
The longer Brexit drags out, the more people will lose interest. A significant number of pre-leave voters will stick with the Tories, as they will deliver Brexit 'eventually'. Remainers will line up behind the LibDems (if they don't overplay the 'second referendum' calls, and come up with a sound soft Brexit plan). Under a competent leader UKIP might reach 15% (the 'market top' for protest parties) and enough core Labour voters returning out of loyalty/habit - it just won't be enough.
Generating ennui might just be a masterstroke political strategy...
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She was clearly lukewarm on the value of the referendum, but if you read her speech it is much less on the fence than the coverage it got suggests. Reading between the lines the strongest message is that she would be a better PM than Cameron, not that she has any real doubts that our national interest lies in being a member of the EU.
I guess she could see, in the words of Sir Humphrey. "arguments on both sides"...
indecision as a strength. Its a view.
Yes, doesn't quite work in the quote:
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. indecision is strength."
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
I'm not sure about that. Her sacking of Osborne is probably why the hard-core nutters are willing to cut her a lot of slack. I wouldn't be surprised if she encouraged him to ham it up for the press.
Hm, would Cameron have served if offered a position? His quick exit suggests otherwise, unless he was pitching for a great office of state.
No, and neither would he have wanted one. Cameron did want to carry on and remain as a backbencher, but again, May's early strategic mistakes ruled that out. You don't arrive in No10 in the way that May won that Leadership contest, and then immediately go about trying to trash the manifesto your predecessor successfully won a GE on the back off just a year before. Cameron stood down as an MP because May was about to put him in the difficult position where he was going to either have to go back on his previous convictions or openly disagree with her on a issues like Grammar schools. Again, May and her team really didn't think through throwing her own Government's manifesto out along with so many Ministers who had previously backed it.
Considering the way that May and her team behaved, they really didn't deserve it when Cameron then decided to put the party first and go quickly and quietly.
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She was clearly lukewarm on the value of the referendum, but if you read her speech it is much less on the fence than the coverage it got suggests. Reading between the lines the strongest message is that she would be a better PM than Cameron, not that she has any real doubts that our national interest lies in being a member of the EU.
I guess she could see, in the words of Sir Humphrey. "arguments on both sides"...
indecision as a strength. Its a view.
Given her yuge lead in the polls, it's an outstanding view, with 24-hr porterage, a Norman Foster dome, and sea glimpses of Lothlórien if you lean out.
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
Absolutely. All very reminiscent of the last unelected prime minister. Hopeful but not confident it won't end the same way, but all the warning signs are there....inertia, micro management, indecision, poor timing of policy announcements, waffle etc etc.
Its 100 times more serious now because the alternatives are Corbyn or Farron rather than Cameron and Clegg.
Liberation is exactly what it is. Tell me, where would you prefer to live all things being equal, rebel held Syria or Government held Syria?
If I were Christian or Yazidi, definitely Government.
If I were a Muslim I'd still want to live in Government controlled Syria - unless I wanted to live in a Sharia-run basket case. Frankly, anyone who says otherwise here is a liar. So why do they support the attempted takeover of a country that was tolerable by forces who would create a country they themselves would find intolerable?
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
Absolutely. All very reminiscent of the last unelected prime minister. Hopeful but not confident it won't end the same way, but all the warning signs are there....inertia, micro management, indecision, poor timing of policy announcements, waffle etc etc.
Its 100 times more serious now because the alternatives are Corbyn or Farron rather than Cameron and Clegg.
May will likely be there until 2025, had Brown not faced Cameron in 2010 and there been no crash in 2008 he could have been there until 2015
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
sigh as a floating voter that has most often vote conservative
- wouldnt vote for cameron in 2015 on civil liberties grounds even though I wanted a referendum. Definitely wont vote conservative with May in charge as she hate civil liberties even more
- rather drink a bucket of vomit before I voted for Corbyn
- Farron well neither liberal nor democratic
- Ukip not a chance
my take...monster raving looney party win the next election as the only semi sane people to vote for
Farron because no one cares. Sturgeon because she's doing fine for the Nats.
May because she'd none of the above.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather turf.
I'm not sure about that. Her sacking of Osborne it probably why the hard-core nutters are willing to cut her a lot of slack. I wouldn't be surprised if she encouraged him to ham it up for the press.
It is not the 'hard-core nutters' that May needs to keep on side if she wants to win her own GE mandate. Its the loyal moderates like me she is losing and should be concerned about if she wants to reach out across the country and win a majority.
The 'loyal moderates' you are talking about are pretty happy with May overall which is why she has a far bigger poll lead now than Cameron did when he left
Liberation is exactly what it is. Tell me, where would you prefer to live all things being equal, rebel held Syria or Government held Syria?
All things aren't equal. For instance, the war started as a direct result of the repressive brutality of the Assad regime... and a very large proportion indeed of the Syrian population have decided they don't want to make that choice, and have left Syria entirely.
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
sigh as a floating voter that has most often vote conservative
- wouldnt vote for cameron in 2015 on civil liberties grounds even though I wanted a referendum. Definitely wont vote conservative with May in charge as she hate civil liberties even more
- rather drink a bucket of vomit before I voted for Corbyn
- Farron well neither liberal nor democratic
- Ukip not a chance
my take...monster raving looney party win the next election as the only semi sane people to vote for
It sounds like your ideal leader was Nick Clegg, just a pity about 95% of the UK population disagreed with you!
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
That's if as JJ suggested they want to be influential in local and national politics. If they want ideological purity, then (as I've argued on here before) a viable strategy is going for the ultra-Remain areas in London, Oxbridge, Edinburgh etc. and writing off the West Country, North and so on.
As I've said several times before, it's not about being influential; it's not about ideological purity; it's about getting enough seats (20+) to be viewed as a serious political party once again.
It doesn't matter whether those seats are in the the traditional Liberal areas of the south-west or the Highlands, or if they're in Cambridge, Richmond Park, Witney, Cheadle or wherever. Farron needs to get the party back in contention and that means winning seats wherever they're found. Happily he does actually appear to realise that.
What is this vision? The country does not know what it wants either, it wants single market access but control of free movement and immigration too and that is not possible. At least May has a chance of getting something close to that vision if not exactly so, Boris is the other contendor who would back it but EU leaders hate him so much for his role in the Leave campaign he would have no chance of delivering it
The country desperately needs a leader: someone with vision who can get many people to slightly bend their current leave or remain preferences towards that vision. Someone who can sell their vision.
Is May that person?
No, the country does not need a leader with 'vision', that was what the referendum was for. If they wanted a leader with 'vision' to keep us in the EU then the voters would have voted Remain and we would have kept Cameron, if they wanted a leader with 'vision' to get us out of the EU and the single market Leave would have won a landslide and we would have ended up with Leadsom as PM. Instead they voted Leave by a narrow margin but want to keep some single market access and what we need is a tough negotiator who can try and get that deal and has little baggage from the referendum dragging her back ie May
Rubbish.
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
Six years as Home Secretary is a good start
What did she accomplish in those 6 years?
Not being sacked
The point of being Home Secretary is for nothing bad to happen. No mass prison breakouts; no terrorism incidents at the Olympics etc.
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
sigh as a floating voter that has most often vote conservative
- wouldnt vote for cameron in 2015 on civil liberties grounds even though I wanted a referendum. Definitely wont vote conservative with May in charge as she hate civil liberties even more
- rather drink a bucket of vomit before I voted for Corbyn
- Farron well neither liberal nor democratic
- Ukip not a chance
my take...monster raving looney party win the next election as the only semi sane people to vote for
There was an interesting "In our time" on the Radio 4 podcast (presumably on the radio too) about the Teutonic crusades. They mentioned the pagan kingdom of Lithuania, and the persistence of paganism up till the 18th, even 19th centuries. Most interesting.
(I don't know if you actually claim to be a pagan, but thought it might be of interest to someone )
The final list of candidates for the primary is supposed to be announced on Friday or Saturday. The candidates have until Thursday to submit their candidacy (with the name of the required number of supporters among MPs, councillors and national executive members, only for membrs of the socialist party PS).
The field is not yet totally clear but it's getting there : - 4 Socialist candidates are already sure to run and have the required support : Valls, Montebourg, Hamon, Peillon - 1 socialist candidate unsure to get the required suopport: Filoche - 1 has already withdrawn: Lienemann - despite many rumors, no other socialist candidates seems likely so close to the limit.
But then you have the (very small) allied parties, united with the socialists in the "Beautiful Popular Alliance" (sic) - 2 candidates from allied parties are already confirmed: Benhamias (UDE) and de Rugy (Ecologistes!) - 2 have been rejected by the socialists but are currently appealing: Larrouturou (Nouvelle Donne) and Faudot (MRC) - 1 had announced she would skip the primary but will probably announce tomorrow that she has changed her mind: Pinel (Left Radicals) - It seems totally impossible that either Melenchon or Macron agrfees to take part to the primary, despite repeated requests from the socialists.
So the probable field would look like this: 8 candidates, 7 men 1woman 5 former Ministers Under hollande (3 sacked, 2 who resigned voluntarily) 3 from the left-wing of the PS Montebourg, Hamon, Filoche 1 from the centre wing Peillon 1 from the right-wing Valls 3 no-hopers from allied parties taking part to negotiate parliamentary constituencies for the June election.
Someone once rather cattily remarked about David Frost: "Is there no beginning to his talents?"
I rather feel like that about Mrs May. Perhaps she will surprise us all. Perhaps.
May is well received in the country (OK, there's some evidence from the polls that the honeymoon is ending in Scotland, but the Tories were unlikely to make major electoral advances there anyway; in England, where the vast bulk of the voters are, she's still doing rather well.) If she manages not to make a total hash of Brexit then she ought to win the next election, whenever it comes, and more likely than not by a landslide.
Cameron was up against Corbyn too, and he didn't perform as strongly. May inspires confidence in an awful lot of voters - especially the old, who grant her enormous leads - which must be counted as an achievement in itself. Would George Osborne have performed as well, for example? Discuss.
Change that question to 'Would a May premiership that included Osborne in a key post working closely with No10 be providing a far more cohesive Cabinet performance.... And the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather turf.
I'm not sure about that. Her sacking of Osborne it probably why the hard-core nutters are willing to cut her a lot of slack. I wouldn't be surprised if she encouraged him to ham it up for the press.
It is not the 'hard-core nutters' that May needs to keep on side if she wants to win her own GE mandate. Its the loyal moderates like me she is losing and should be concerned about if she wants to reach out across the country and win a majority.
The 'loyal moderates' you are talking about are pretty happy with May overall which is why she has a far bigger poll lead now than Cameron did when he left
Worth remembering Gordon Brown's initial honeymoon poll ratings when he became PM, what ever happened to those Labour 'loyal moderates'? Lets compare Theresa May's record to Cameron when she has entrenched her position in No10 via a GE.
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
I 've just put a few quid on Corbyn to go in 2017 as the odds were pretty good. Although I agree with the analysis that he is secure with membership, the Party's weak performance to date on BREXIT, plus potential defeat in local elections in 2017 and a possible snap Gen election (not that I think it is likely) means 2017 is a tough year for him, he will have done 2 years in post next Summer and may decide its time to call it a day......not bad odds so worth a punt.
“The European Commission legal service was of the view that a political declaration on the rights of EU citizens in the U.K. would not be enough and that EU law must be available to EU citizens after Brexit, under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.”
The final list of candidates for the primary is supposed to be announced on Friday or Saturday. The candidates have until Thursday to submit their candidacy (with the name of the required number of supporters among MPs, councillors and national executive members, only for membrs of the socialist party PS).
The field is not yet totally clear but it's getting there : - 4 Socialist candidates are already sure to run and have the required support : Valls, Montebourg, Hamon, Peillon - 1 socialist candidate unsure to get the required suopport: Filoche - 1 has already withdrawn: Lienemann - despite many rumors, no other socialist candidates seems likely so close to the limit.
But then you have the (very small) allied parties, united with the socialists in the "Beautiful Popular Alliance" (sic) - 2 candidates from allied parties are already confirmed: Benhamias (UDE) and de Rugy (Ecologistes!) - 2 have been rejected by the socialists but are currently appealing: Larrouturou (Nouvelle Donne) and Faudot (MRC) - 1 had announced she would skip the primary but will probably announce tomorrow that she has changed her mind: Pinel (Left Radicals) - It seems totally impossible that either Melenchon or Macron agrfees to take part to the primary, despite repeated requests from the socialists.
So the probable field would look like this: 8 candidates, 7 men 1woman 5 former Ministers Under hollande (3 sacked, 2 who resigned voluntarily) 3 from the left-wing of the PS Montebourg, Hamon, Filoche 1 from the centre wing Peillon 1 from the right-wing Valls 3 no-hopers from allied parties taking part to negotiate parliamentary constituencies for the June election.
It is worth remembering that none of these candidates are currently expected to do better than fifth in the first round of the main Presidential event. Truly, it is bald men squabbling over a coam.
The final list of candidates for the primary is supposed to be announced on Friday or Saturday. The candidates have until Thursday to submit their candidacy (with the name of the required number of supporters among MPs, councillors and national executive members, only for membrs of the socialist party PS).
The field is not yet totally clear but it's getting there : - 4 Socialist candidates are already sure to run and have the required support : Valls, Montebourg, Hamon, Peillon - 1 socialist candidate unsure to get the required suopport: Filoche - 1 has already withdrawn: Lienemann - despite many rumors, no other socialist candidates seems likely so close to the limit.
But then you have the (very small) allied parties, united with the socialists in the "Beautiful Popular Alliance" (sic) - 2 candidates from allied parties are already confirmed: Benhamias (UDE) and de Rugy (Ecologistes!) - 2 have been rejected by the socialists but are currently appealing: Larrouturou (Nouvelle Donne) and Faudot (MRC) - 1 had announced she would skip the primary but will probably announce tomorrow that she has changed her mind: Pinel (Left Radicals) - It seems totally impossible that either Melenchon or Macron agrfees to take part to the primary, despite repeated requests from the socialists.
So the probable field would look like this: 8 candidates, 7 men 1woman 5 former Ministers Under hollande (3 sacked, 2 who resigned voluntarily) 3 from the left-wing of the PS Montebourg, Hamon, Filoche 1 from the centre wing Peillon 1 from the right-wing Valls 3 no-hopers from allied parties taking part to negotiate parliamentary constituencies for the June election.
It is worth remembering that none of these candidates are currently expected to do better than fifth in the first round of the main Presidential event. Truly, it is bald men squabbling over a coam.
Indeed, but the large media exposure in January, especially the three TV debates, could help one of them to climb back to the third spot (fter all, Fillon polling numbers for the first round have risen strongly after the primary).
It is also their last chance: if the primary winner is still behind Mélenchon and Macron in early February, the game will be over for them before the campaign really starts.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
“The European Commission legal service was of the view that a political declaration on the rights of EU citizens in the U.K. would not be enough and that EU law must be available to EU citizens after Brexit, under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.”
The criticisms of May on here are I feel are a bit unfair. My take: Theresa May essentially has an impossible job, all she is doing is keeping her head above water, and she is doing admirably well at that.
The big problem she has is that, up to now, Brexit is a blank slate onto which any hopes, dreams and fantasies could be projected. At some point the alternate universes will collapse and it'll be apparent that we're facing years of bureaucratic slog, dealing with truculent arseholes to end up slightly poorer but with less foreigners.
"A fifth of the population is responsible for four fifths of crime, two fifths of obesity, three quarters of fatherless families and for claiming two thirds of benefits. What’s more, scientists say, you can identify this troublesome group at the age of three. A 45-minute test rating children on IQ and self-control, combined with information about deprivation and maltreatment, allowed researchers to predict “with considerable accuracy” which would go on to be the greatest burden on the state. The 38-year study may be useful in designing ways to help such children before it is too late."
The scientists missed out "future guests on Jeremy Kyle"
This seems to me to smack of the over-authoritarian declarations by Chief Constables from time to time. I recall one within the last decade saying that they could start dealing with them in the early years at primary school, and it wasn't James Anderton.
They can study it as a statistical phenomenon, but *if* and when anyone wants to start to police children on the basis of things they may do in x years time, then we have a problem. Ditto "race", "class" etc.
“The European Commission legal service was of the view that a political declaration on the rights of EU citizens in the U.K. would not be enough and that EU law must be available to EU citizens after Brexit, under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.”
wasnt all this the underpinning behind "Sure start" in that early support to parents and families in certain circumstances had a significant knock on positive effect 5, 10 and 15 plus years down the line........IIRC it was scrapped as part of austerity - correct me if I am wrong but this is a case of old wine in new bottles.......
The criticisms of May on here are I feel are a bit unfair. My take: Theresa May essentially has an impossible job, all she is doing is keeping her head above water, and she is doing admirably well at that.
The big problem she has is that, up to now, Brexit is a blank slate onto which any hopes, dreams and fantasies could be projected. At some point the alternate universes will collapse and it'll be apparent that we're facing years of bureaucratic slog, dealing with truculent arseholes to end up slightly poorer but with less foreigners.
I think someone has already called it 'Schroedinger's Brexit'.
Liberation is exactly what it is. Tell me, where would you prefer to live all things being equal, rebel held Syria or Government held Syria?
All things aren't equal. For instance, the war started as a direct result of the repressive brutality of the Assad regime... and a very large proportion indeed of the Syrian population have decided they don't want to make that choice, and have left Syria entirely.
It's a false choice. If you believe in democracy, human rights, free speech and all sorts of issues, then the answer is neither rebel-held areas or government-held areas. You'd have to weigh your love of your country with your love of those concepts, and probably leave the country.
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
It is the same sort of thinking that thinks it is ok for Parliamentarians to seek to stop Brexit. Democracy is ok as long as the right team wins and the people do what they are told. Trump won the election comfortably according to the rules on which it was fought and will be President. No one is asking these electors to exercise any judgment. They simply reflect the votes of the people.
Ten Electoral College members have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, a week before the group is scheduled to formally certify the results.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
Comments
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/completed-wisconsin-recount-widens-donald-trump-s-lead-by-votes/article_3f61c6ac-5b18-5c27-bf38-e537146bbcdd.html
The main thing this has done is given Stein a huge cash reserve.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-wisconsin-election-recount-20161212-story.html
And what is behind your belief that May is a 'tough negotiator' ?
The fact that TM was either a closet leaver or a lukewarm remainer, means she was a bit 50/50 - making her very much 'in tune' with how the country voted.
She became leader of the Conservatives because, with the pro-Leave Tories going AWOL in the days after the vote, and the dawning horror of the rancorous mess the Referendum had stirred up, everyone (not just the Tories) desperately needed someone who looked and acted like a grown-up to calm everything down and sort the mess out. TM fitted the bill then, and she still fits the bill now.
Which is why the Tories have such a lead in the polls, and why there won't be a GE anytime soon.
Can you see May being able to control David Davis, IDS, and Boris (I would include Fox, but he's a lightweight).
Exactly the same was said of the LDs total opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. Remember Blair was backed almost totally by the supine Tories led by the hopeless IDS. For a time being against "our boys" was a very dangerous position to hold but one that proved to be totally right.
"May would be a far more rigorous negotiator than Boris would ever be"
I think you're right, but that's a very, very low comparator.
To a certain extent I'm playing devil's advocate here: I quite like May, but she's not impressed me so far from what we publicly know. But she may be doing good things that we haven't really seen at the moment, and which will come to light when things have settled down.
P'haps.
That's if as JJ suggested they want to be influential in local and national politics. If they want ideological purity, then (as I've argued on here before) a viable strategy is going for the ultra-Remain areas in London, Oxbridge, Edinburgh etc. and writing off the West Country, North and so on.
What should we spend the £350m per week dividend on for example...
Also, I like her choice of presents for Angela Merkel.
"Ms May handed her counterpart - who turned 62 on Sunday - a new edition of Coast To Coast With Wainwright, a classic photographic book from 1973 on beauty spots between the Irish and North seas. She also presented a copy of Great Mountain Days In Snowdonia, which includes a guide to walks in the National Park.”
Both superb books.
I have actually seen the Mays walking in Snowdonia while she was Home Secretary.
Although probably now she is PM, she has to walk Snowdonia with an entourage of security guards.
They tried to do what was asked of them.
The very first major strategic political mistake that May made was to vindictively sack Osborne from his role as Chancellor, thus undermining the very economic record of her own party in Government just a year after they won a GE. And then to immediately brief that they had sacked Osborne rather than allow him the honourable course of being allowed to resign so May didn't have to acknowledge or thank him for his service was just bl**dy petty. That neither May or her team could see beyond settling some old scores certainly gave me real cause for concern when it came to her style of government. And so it has proved, May and her team are still acting like they are barricaded in the Home Office acting like an individual little fiefdom protecting its own turf.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/11/theresa-may-is-plotting-against-boris-johnson-to-replace-him-with-george-osborne-6316183/
Osborne had no credibility left after the Kneecapper's Budget. Even if Cameron had stayed, he would have had to sacrifice Osborne.
Here's the YouGov poll from Dec 9: CON 42%, LAB 25%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, GRN 4% (YouGov Dec 9)
The longer Brexit drags out, the more people will lose interest. A significant number of pre-leave voters will stick with the Tories, as they will deliver Brexit 'eventually'. Remainers will line up behind the LibDems (if they don't overplay the 'second referendum' calls, and come up with a sound soft Brexit plan). Under a competent leader UKIP might reach 15% (the 'market top' for protest parties) and enough core Labour voters returning out of loyalty/habit - it just won't be enough.
Generating ennui might just be a masterstroke political strategy...
"War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
indecision is strength."
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/18/is-george-osborne-the-answer-to-brexit/
Considering the way that May and her team behaved, they really didn't deserve it when Cameron then decided to put the party first and go quickly and quietly.
The bipartisan group made their case to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in an open letter Monday, arguing that the information is essential to their duties as electors who are tasked to “elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
Citing Alexander Hamilton’s writing in The Federalist Papers, the electors argue Russian interference in the election must factor into their decision. In Federalist #68, Hamilton charged the Electoral College with preventing a “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/electoral-college-intelligence-briefing-russia-election_us_584ee466e4b0e05aded4da1b?section=politics
Its 100 times more serious now because the alternatives are Corbyn or Farron rather than Cameron and Clegg.
- wouldnt vote for cameron in 2015 on civil liberties grounds even though I wanted a referendum. Definitely wont vote conservative with May in charge as she hate civil liberties even more
- rather drink a bucket of vomit before I voted for Corbyn
- Farron well neither liberal nor democratic
- Ukip not a chance
my take...monster raving looney party win the next election as the only semi sane people to vote for
For instance, the war started as a direct result of the repressive brutality of the Assad regime... and a very large proportion indeed of the Syrian population have decided they don't want to make that choice, and have left Syria entirely.
It doesn't matter whether those seats are in the the traditional Liberal areas of the south-west or the Highlands, or if they're in Cambridge, Richmond Park, Witney, Cheadle or wherever. Farron needs to get the party back in contention and that means winning seats wherever they're found. Happily he does actually appear to realise that.
No mass prison breakouts; no terrorism incidents at the Olympics etc.
(I don't know if you actually claim to be a pagan, but thought it might be of interest to someone
The final list of candidates for the primary is supposed to be announced on Friday or Saturday. The candidates have until Thursday to submit their candidacy (with the name of the required number of supporters among MPs, councillors and national executive members, only for membrs of the socialist party PS).
The field is not yet totally clear but it's getting there :
- 4 Socialist candidates are already sure to run and have the required support : Valls, Montebourg, Hamon, Peillon
- 1 socialist candidate unsure to get the required suopport: Filoche
- 1 has already withdrawn: Lienemann
- despite many rumors, no other socialist candidates seems likely so close to the limit.
But then you have the (very small) allied parties, united with the socialists in the "Beautiful Popular Alliance" (sic)
- 2 candidates from allied parties are already confirmed: Benhamias (UDE) and de Rugy (Ecologistes!)
- 2 have been rejected by the socialists but are currently appealing: Larrouturou (Nouvelle Donne) and Faudot (MRC)
- 1 had announced she would skip the primary but will probably announce tomorrow that she has changed her mind: Pinel (Left Radicals)
- It seems totally impossible that either Melenchon or Macron agrfees to take part to the primary, despite repeated requests from the socialists.
So the probable field would look like this:
8 candidates,
7 men 1woman
5 former Ministers Under hollande (3 sacked, 2 who resigned voluntarily)
3 from the left-wing of the PS Montebourg, Hamon, Filoche
1 from the centre wing Peillon
1 from the right-wing Valls
3 no-hopers from allied parties taking part to negotiate parliamentary constituencies for the June election.
Aiming to elect Madame President, the peoples choice.
the only clouds on the horizon are over the SNP’s running of health/education and other Scottish public services.
In other words 'her job'!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4026912/Former-Tory-minister-Jim-Prior-served-Ted-Heath-Margaret-Thatcher-dies-aged-89.html
The electors wrote an open letter to US Director of National Intelligence James clapper calling for the information prior to their vote"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/electoral-college-members-russia-intelligence-briefing-vote-donald-trump-russia-a7470311.html
“The European Commission legal service was of the view that a political declaration on the rights of EU citizens in the U.K. would not be enough and that EU law must be available to EU citizens after Brexit, under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.”
http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-citizens-in-post-brexit-britain-should-be-covered-by-european-law-report/
Strikes me as a little ambitious on the part of the 27......
It is also their last chance: if the primary winner is still behind Mélenchon and Macron in early February, the game will be over for them before the campaign really starts.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/
They can study it as a statistical phenomenon, but *if* and when anyone wants to start to police children on the basis of things they may do in x years time, then we have a problem. Ditto "race", "class" etc.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/assad-war-crimes-syria-torture-caesar-hospital
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/12/electoral-college-voters-ask-james-clapper-how-much-was-russia-involved-in-the-elections/
However, it would be completely fine under the US constitution if the electors chose someone other than Trump.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38297353