May was probably right to send him packing out the back door.
Of course she was. He destroyed himself with Project Fear... A period rehabilitation was what was needed... Unfortunately true to type, instead of going to the backbenches and working hard to rebuild the reputation he himself shattered he's gone down the "revenge" route.
Still at least his disloyalty means he'll never be able to return as an MP... And sooner of later he'll destroy himself at the Standard... Because that's what arrogant people do and there comes no more arrogant than George Osborne.
His fate is in the hands of May et al. If Brexit is a success he probably won't make a comeback, so he probably will.
Yes. George getting his revenge, and burning his bridges with the Tory Party at the same time.
He might be great as leader of a new "Progressive Party" though.
It looks to me that George (like Blair) really just used a party for his own political ambitions. This might be true for many people at the political centre actually.
It gives me no pleasure to say it but Theresa May is like a golfer who needs a short putt to win the Masters, then gets out a driver and smashes the ball into the lake.
Thankfully for her, her nearest opponent is nine shots back on the 16th.
I thought the comment on the doorstep that TM was like Devon Lock was funny
Not true though will still win easily.
Yes indeed, although the PB Tory bedwetting this past week has been very entertaining. A classic of the genre among several episodes over the years!
Yes. George getting his revenge, and burning his bridges with the Tory Party at the same time.
He might be great as leader of a new "Progressive Party" though.
It looks to me that George (like Blair) really just used a party for his own political ambitions. This might be true for many people at the political centre actually.
"There is, though, another difference between the April 2015 poll and the most recent set of figures from YouGov that we have to take on board before coming to the conclusion that the SNP is at greater risk of losing seats from tactical voting this time around. Two years ago, no less than 69% of those who said they were inclined to vote tactically indicated that they were doing so in order to defeat the SNP. This time around, only 46% are stating that this is their purpose, while as many as 39% say they want to stop the Conservatives winning locally.
So we may see more anti-Conservative tactical voting at this election rather than just attempts to deny the SNP success. Ms Davidson’s stout defence of the Union may have won her many new friends, but it has seemingly also stimulated others into trying to stop the advance of a party that, according to YouGov, no less than 46% still say they dislike the most."
Thanks, Carlotta, for putting this up.
Interesting. And as I suggested at the weekend, expecting Labour supporters to vote tactical Tory in a national GE was always pushing credibility.
The Conservatives have risen from 15% in 2015 to about 28% now, though, which would alter the figures somewhat.
Labour not being challenged on their own u turn today, something the blues might want to point out. You can't just magically wave off 8 billion to secure the youth vote and get away with it Scott free.
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well etc.
I feel sorry for all those Tory candidates who have been selling this policy on the doorstep for the past few days and now look like chumps at best.
Nick Timothy's reputation is now lower than crocodile piss, which means Mrs May's government won't function well post election. She might have to sack him.
Who is her Willie? Who's going to sit her down, and explain that she can't run a government the way she ran the Home Office? So that she listens?
Can't think of anyone, tbh. That's troubling.
As an aside, though, is anyone else feeling nostalgic for The Thick of It right now? One can just imagine Malcolm Tucker on current events...
Hague would be ideal but he's writing books in deepest mid Wales.
Still much more of this and it will be irrelevant two weeks Friday.
Actually, I did wonder whether Hague leaving in 2015 was to do with the promise of a referendum. He, better than anyone else, would have been a fantastic reserve PM in case of anything happening to the Tory party.
But then he took a peerage - damn.
He could still serve as her Willie. Indeed, Whitelaw took a peerage during his time in government. Time to return the Lord Chancellor to the Lords?
I don't think Whitelaw was ever Lord Chancellor.
Curse Blair for his constitutional vandalism, it was worse than his Iraq mistake.
But his lack of knowledge of the law isn't surprising considering he did Jurisprudence at Oxford
He wasn't. That seat was taken by Thatcher's other older man
It gives me no pleasure to say it but Theresa May is like a golfer who needs a short putt to win the Masters, then gets out a driver and smashes the ball into the lake.
Thankfully for her, her nearest opponent is nine shots back on the 16th.
I thought the comment on the doorstep that TM was like Devon Lock was funny
Not true though will still win easily.
Yes indeed, although the PB Tory bedwetting this past week has been very entertaining. A classic of the genre among several episodes over the years!
What has been even more entertaining has been Labour pretending to care about rich peoples' inheritances.
Yes. George getting his revenge, and burning his bridges with the Tory Party at the same time.
He might be great as leader of a new "Progressive Party" though.
It looks to me that George (like Blair) really just used a party for his own political ambitions. This might be true for many people at the political centre actually.
He'll be back.
You seriously think his behaviour is going un-noticed with Con members on the campaign trail and his ex colleagues at Westminster?
TM may well turn out to be a disaster but it'll do Osborne no good at all...
May buckled when the Tories had a big opinion poll lead and at a time when Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party. And she seriously expects us to believe she can negotiate a good Brexit deal for the UK.
Yes. George getting his revenge, and burning his bridges with the Tory Party at the same time.
He might be great as leader of a new "Progressive Party" though.
It looks to me that George (like Blair) really just used a party for his own political ambitions. This might be true for many people at the political centre actually.
He'll be back.
You seriously think his behaviour is going un-noticed with Con members on the campaign trail and his ex colleagues at Westminster?
TM may well turn out to be a disaster but it'll do Osborne no good at all...
There's plenty of Cameroons and Osbornes still in the PCP.
Just seen ICM. To think only 4 hours ago during peak 'u-turn' there was ludicrous talk about no majority or a Corbyn led government.
ICM is giving some of the best Conservative results. Nonetheless, the Tories would have been very happy with leads of 9-14% in previous election campaigns.
Yes. George getting his revenge, and burning his bridges with the Tory Party at the same time.
He might be great as leader of a new "Progressive Party" though.
It looks to me that George (like Blair) really just used a party for his own political ambitions. This might be true for many people at the political centre actually.
Osborne isn't even a fourth or firth rate Tony Blair...
Labour not being challenged on their own u turn today, something the blues might want to point out. You can't just magically wave off 8 billion to secure the youth vote and get away with it Scott free.
May buckled when the Tories had a big opinion poll lead and at a time when Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party. And she seriously expects us to believe she can negotiate a good Brexit deal for the UK.
But she buckled to the British. Isn't that the point?
It gives me no pleasure to say it but Theresa May is like a golfer who needs a short putt to win the Masters, then gets out a driver and smashes the ball into the lake.
Thankfully for her, her nearest opponent is nine shots back on the 16th.
I thought the comment on the doorstep that TM was like Devon Lock was funny
Not true though will still win easily.
Yes indeed, although the PB Tory bedwetting this past week has been very entertaining. A classic of the genre among several episodes over the years!
What has been even more entertaining has been Labour pretending to care about rich peoples' inheritances.
For the many not the few, eh?
A real classic that one!
Labour - For those who hate the Tories, not the many
Just seen ICM. To think only 4 hours ago during peak 'u-turn' there was ludicrous talk about no majority or a Corbyn led government.
ICM is giving some of the best Conservative results. Nonetheless, the Tories would have been very happy with leads of 9-14% in previous election campaigns.
This is what makes May's U-turn so ridiculous. It was entirely needless. All it does is show her to be weak.
I'm not sticking up for May here (I'm no fan) but what is the actual u-turn?
I heard her say earlier that the £100k cut-off still stands?
I don't know but I assume there will be a maximum amount that any one person has to pay for care, in addition to the £100k cut-off. For instance if you have a house worth £600k you won't have to pay the whole £500k difference.
It gives me no pleasure to say it but Theresa May is like a golfer who needs a short putt to win the Masters, then gets out a driver and smashes the ball into the lake.
Thankfully for her, her nearest opponent is nine shots back on the 16th.
I thought the comment on the doorstep that TM was like Devon Lock was funny
Not true though will still win easily.
Yes indeed, although the PB Tory bedwetting this past week has been very entertaining. A classic of the genre among several episodes over the years!
What has been even more entertaining has been Labour pretending to care about rich peoples' inheritances.
For the many not the few, eh?
A real classic that one!
Yes, Corbynite Labour are a total joke, but we already knew that. Your point is?
I'm not sticking up for May here (I'm no fan) but what is the actual u-turn?
I heard her say earlier that the £100k cut-off still stands?
It's not a U-turn on the main proposal, but a U-turn on the previous statement that they wouldn't be capping the maximum amount payable, i.e. it potentially benefits the heirs of someone with a house worth (say) £700K whose care ends up costing £200K. I suspect that the number of cases where the cap will apply will be very small, depending on what cap is eventually chosen.
Luckily for TMay, all the battles have already been won. It's something they managed fairly early in the 2010 parliament and again after 2015. Corbyn could have the best idea ever, no-one will care.
I'm not sticking up for May here (I'm no fan) but what is the actual u-turn?
I heard her say earlier that the £100k cut-off still stands?
I don't know but I assume there will be a maximum amount that any one person has to pay for care, in addition to the £100k cut-off. For instance if you have a house worth £600k you won't have to pay the whole £500k difference.
Yeah, my guess is that they are intending to resurrect the cap from Dilnot, probably at a higher level than he proposed, shunt it off as many years into the future as they think they can get away with, and then endeavour to dodge all questions about how much it would cost or where the money is coming from by saying 'wait for the Green Paper'.
May buckled when the Tories had a big opinion poll lead and at a time when Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party. And she seriously expects us to believe she can negotiate a good Brexit deal for the UK.
Despite her reputation, Thatcher swerved all the time, and this one was performed at top speed and with maximum impact - most of the hoohah will have settled down by election day, eliminating the Tories' biggest negative and letting the focus return to Corbyn.
May's probably lost 25 potential gains, but saved a solid win.
Agreed.
I hoped she'd still go for the 'Arnie Vinick' 50 state strategy...
Vinick had to swerve a nuclear accident so let's hope Sellafield is okay....
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
May buckled when the Tories had a big opinion poll lead and at a time when Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party. And she seriously expects us to believe she can negotiate a good Brexit deal for the UK.
I live in hope.
Pandora's Pox - she should have slammed the lid shut and kept "Hope" in there and we would all probably be wiser and less delusional as a result.
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
I'm not sticking up for May here (I'm no fan) but what is the actual u-turn?
I heard her say earlier that the £100k cut-off still stands?
I don't know but I assume there will be a maximum amount that any one person has to pay for care, in addition to the £100k cut-off. For instance if you have a house worth £600k you won't have to pay the whole £500k difference.
Yeah, my guess is that they are intending to resurrect the cap from Dilnot, probably at a higher level than he proposed, shunt it off as many years into the future as they think they can get away with, and then endeavour to dodge all questions about how much it would cost or where the money is coming from by saying 'wait for the Green Paper'.
Which, after all, is the same kicking of the can down the road that the Coalition did, and Dave & George did and New Labour did,
I suspect only when the social care system has completely collapsed will the public realiser that it needs some more money to run it.
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
It's a stealth ditching of the pledge to seek a total ban in the 2015 manifesto. Potayto potarto.
If you enter 47/33/9/4/2 and also tick the Scottish box and put in 43/29/19
the majority is 92. Tories 371, Labour 204, SNP 49, LD 5, PC 3, NI 18
Yes, I thought there was something a bit wrong there - not quite Abbotesque but not exactly Carol Vorderman either.
Fisher had Labour on 178 before the recent run of better polls for them so you would have expected some uplift since. Of course I'm aware that now there has been a U-Turn it's as if nothing ever happened and we all need to calibrate our estimates back to the time before the unfortunate manifesto error happened, but to Baxter on current polling numbers rather than those which will appear soon now that normality has been restored must produce something like your figures above, surely?
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
Yep,if this policy gets a full blown media showing ,she will lose thousands more voters.
I'm not sticking up for May here (I'm no fan) but what is the actual u-turn?
I heard her say earlier that the £100k cut-off still stands?
It's not a U-turn on the main proposal, but a U-turn on the previous statement that they wouldn't be capping the maximum amount payable, i.e. it potentially benefits the heirs of someone with a house worth (say) £700K whose care ends up costing £200K. I suspect that the number of cases where the cap will apply will be very small, depending on what cap is eventually chosen.
Thank you Richard.
The irony of all this is that it has actually done the country - and future political leaders - a great deal of good. It's brought an enormous problem out into the open.
It gives me no pleasure to say it but Theresa May is like a golfer who needs a short putt to win the Masters, then gets out a driver and smashes the ball into the lake.
Thankfully for her, her nearest opponent is nine shots back on the 16th.
I thought the comment on the doorstep that TM was like Devon Lock was funny
Not true though will still win easily.
Yes indeed, although the PB Tory bedwetting this past week has been very entertaining. A classic of the genre among several episodes over the years!
What has been even more entertaining has been Labour pretending to care about rich peoples' inheritances.
For the many not the few, eh?
A real classic that one!
Although funny, it really does make you weep at the rank hypocrisy. I was a fan of the proposals because they had the attraction of being a sensible stab at solving a near-intractable problem and showed some degree of leadership. Now? Not so much.
If you enter 47/33/9/4/2 and also tick the Scottish box and put in 43/29/19
the majority is 92. Tories 371, Labour 204, SNP 49, LD 5, PC 3, NI 18
Yes, I thought there was something a bit wrong there - not quite Abbotesque but not exactly Carol Vorderman either.
Fisher had Labour on 178 before the recent run of better polls for them so you would have expected some uplift since. Of course I'm aware that now there has been a U-Turn it's as if nothing ever happened and we all need to calibrate our estimates back to the time before the unfortunate manifesto error happened, but to Baxter on current polling numbers rather than those which will appear soon now that normality has been restored must produce something like your figures above, surely?
ICM are probably factoring differential swings in marginal seats.
A lead of 14% probably would generate a majority that was well into three figures.
"There is, though, another difference between the April 2015 poll and the most recent set of figures from YouGov that we have to take on board before coming to the conclusion that the SNP is at greater risk of losing seats from tactical voting this time around. Two years ago, no less than 69% of those who said they were inclined to vote tactically indicated that they were doing so in order to defeat the SNP. This time around, only 46% are stating that this is their purpose, while as many as 39% say they want to stop the Conservatives winning locally.
So we may see more anti-Conservative tactical voting at this election rather than just attempts to deny the SNP success. Ms Davidson’s stout defence of the Union may have won her many new friends, but it has seemingly also stimulated others into trying to stop the advance of a party that, according to YouGov, no less than 46% still say they dislike the most."
Thanks, Carlotta, for putting this up.
Though less people are apparently voting anti-SNP the will be doing it with far better information this time round.
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
I've never understood why governments cant harvest the ivory. If you could tranquilize the elephants and cut off most of the tusks you could increase supply so the value of what was left on the elephant wasnt worth poaching.
I'm sure I must be missing something though else it would be happening.
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
I'm not sticking up for May here (I'm no fan) but what is the actual u-turn?
I heard her say earlier that the £100k cut-off still stands?
I don't know but I assume there will be a maximum amount that any one person has to pay for care, in addition to the £100k cut-off. For instance if you have a house worth £600k you won't have to pay the whole £500k difference.
Yeah, my guess is that they are intending to resurrect the cap from Dilnot, probably at a higher level than he proposed, shunt it off as many years into the future as they think they can get away with, and then endeavour to dodge all questions about how much it would cost or where the money is coming from by saying 'wait for the Green Paper'.
Which, after all, is the same kicking of the can down the road that the Coalition did, and Dave & George did and New Labour did,
I suspect only when the social care system has completely collapsed will the public realiser that it needs some more money to run it.
So why, for such an important policy, did they not properly cost it, think through its presentation, work out how it might be attacked, and agree the cabinet line in defending it in the media - as opposed to doing none of the above, and sending out a poorly prepared Damian Green.... and then witter on about having to work out the "fine details" ?
If you enter 47/33/9/4/2 and also tick the Scottish box and put in 43/29/19
the majority is 92. Tories 371, Labour 204, SNP 49, LD 5, PC 3, NI 18
Yes, I thought there was something a bit wrong there - not quite Abbotesque but not exactly Carol Vorderman either.
Fisher had Labour on 178 before the recent run of better polls for them so you would have expected some uplift since. Of course I'm aware that now there has been a U-Turn it's as if nothing ever happened and we all need to calibrate our estimates back to the time before the unfortunate manifesto error happened, but to Baxter on current polling numbers rather than those which will appear soon now that normality has been restored must produce something like your figures above, surely?
ICM are probably factoring differential swings in marginal seats.
A lead of 14% probably would generate a majority that was well into three figures.
Sorry Sean F but isn't there an uncharacteristic non sequitur there?
If differential swing is already factored in, shouldn't the crude UNS model work a bit better?
It gives me no pleasure to say it but Theresa May is like a golfer who needs a short putt to win the Masters, then gets out a driver and smashes the ball into the lake.
She is in danger of Pulling a Spieth here
Scrapheap can confirm but I believe the term is 'Spursy'
I reckon that your George is deliberately swerving any involvement in Brexit. He can carp from the side lines and, if he seems an opportunity, re-enter Parliament in 2022 to lead a triumphant charge for #10...
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
This poll was conducted during/after Leanne Wood was on the telly.
Given the fact a majority of PBers wanted to get into her knickers just so they could hear her "silky valleys lilt" I dare say she has got the male political anorak vote sewn up.
The repeal of the ivory ban is another completely ludicrous entry in the Tory hamifesto. Now May has a high-profile anti-ivory campaigner in the form of Kevin Pietersen on her ass. It looks like a joke, but it could actually cause her some more problems (and the policy is clearly morally wrong – why FFS?)
There is no repeal of the ivory ban in the Tory manifesto...
Comments
He might be great as leader of a new "Progressive Party" though.
It looks to me that George (like Blair) really just used a party for his own political ambitions. This might be true for many people at the political centre actually.
https://twitter.com/KP24/status/866632618112151552
She's no Picard, Wesley Crusher maybe.
"Praise the policy, then praise the U Turn"
For the many not the few, eh?
A real classic that one!
TM may well turn out to be a disaster but it'll do Osborne no good at all...
But she buckled to the British. Isn't that the point?
I mean how many times did she send just one Borg cube to invade Earth, but left hundreds of cubes in the Delta Quadrant.
I heard her say earlier that the £100k cut-off still stands?
Which explains why we ditch our leaders with such ease and élan.
TM needs to manufacture another row with Germany or Juncker to get the media focus back to Brexit...
She said that if he “wanted to be PM in future” after her, he should get to know the party.
He seems to much more in tune with the Country than she is right now...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-ivory-trade-ban-2017-manifesto-scrap-pledge-illegal-poaching-a7748581.html
I suspect only when the social care system has completely collapsed will the public realiser that it needs some more money to run it.
Potayto potarto.
Fisher had Labour on 178 before the recent run of better polls for them so you would have expected some uplift since. Of course I'm aware that now there has been a U-Turn it's as if nothing ever happened and we all need to calibrate our estimates back to the time before the unfortunate manifesto error happened, but to Baxter on current polling numbers rather than those which will appear soon now that normality has been restored must produce something like your figures above, surely?
The irony of all this is that it has actually done the country - and future political leaders - a great deal of good. It's brought an enormous problem out into the open.
https://twitter.com/jamieoliver/status/866656397827727360
Gordon Brown put more thought into his 2007 manifesto than Theresa May did with her 2017 manifesto.
A lead of 14% probably would generate a majority that was well into three figures.
I'm sure I must be missing something though else it would be happening.
This poll was conducted during/after Leanne Wood was on the telly.
This was back of a fag packet stuff.
Even level pegging would be a swing of 5% from 2015.
If differential swing is already factored in, shouldn't the crude UNS model work a bit better?
Or am I missing something?
Bootle for instance.