For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
...pound shop Cameron?
He doesn't stand for anything, he simply has naked ambition and wants to win. And you know what we need that right now. Unlike May he actually is able to win over labour voters. In the mayoral contests a huge 8% of GE Labour voters switched to Boris, and he out preformed the Tories by a massive 10%. He also had a great EURef campaign probably winning it for LEAVE. He beat a populist labour socialist in a left wing city. Twice.
He knows how to campaign, he has been tried and tested in the heat of the short campaign unlike Hammond. We need a populist like him against an insurgent Corbyn.
This is about stopping the hard left from getiing the keys of Downing Street now.
(also knife crime actually fell under him whereas it is rising now, so he wasn't too bad in actually governing either).
I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.
"an overt left-wing campaigning site"? Are sure you are on the right website?
He isn't interested in any secret agenda, whether to seize total power in the Labour Party (he doesn't even try seriously to get left-wing candidates into by-elecitons), to support Hamas or the IRA, to foment street riots or whatever. He simply thinks his duty is to argue a case for the losers in the world that we live in, irrespective of personal comfort. If that gets a majority, that's great. If it doesn't, one must simply keep trying. Getting old or tired is not relevant and he'll keep going as long as he can. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.
One question. If he is so concerned about the poor and vulnerable, why did he do nothing to protect the children being molested by members of the Labour Party in Islington's children's homes? I realise that you will not like that question but it seems to me an extremely valid question for a number of other reasons that are contemporary.
Merely because he has a personal charm does not make him a nice person. If you want a list of mass murderers who were personally popular, you may have one, and Corbyn is certainly no mass murderer.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
...pound shop Cameron?
He doesn't stand for anything, he simply has naked ambition and wants to win. And you know what we need that right now. Unlike May he actually is able to win over labour voters. In the mayoral contests a huge 8% of GE Labour voters switched to Boris, and he out preformed the Tories by a massive 10%. He also had a great EURef campaign probably winning it for LEAVE. He beat a populist labour socialist in a left wing city. Twice.
He knows how to campaign, he has been tried and tested in the heat of the short campaign unlike Hammond. We need a populist like him against an insurgent Corbyn.
This is about stopping the hard left from getiing the keys of Downing Street now.
(also knife crime actually fell under him whereas it is rising now, so he wasn't too bad in actually governing either).
Don't get carried away. That was in London. And up against Ken Livingstone. And in what is essentially a local government election.
Everyone saying May-lificant MUST go needs to reflect on the recent example of JC. I can't remember exactly how many times people on here said he MUST go after his various disasters but he didn't, he just gutted it out.
If May doesn't go, passes her QS and gets C&S from the DUP nutters then what? It doesn't matter how shit the polls get because there isn't going to be a GE until 2022.
May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.
Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.
I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
To be fair to Corbyn, he argues that it is Labour policy to renew Trident. Not his own personal view. He will no doubt seek to amend the policy at whichever conference it comes up again (iirc there has to be a gap of two years before it can be debated again).
His first act in Number 10 is to write to the submarine commanders. There is nothing and nobody that could stop him saying return to port, immediately and indefinitely.
Everyone saying May-lificant MUST go needs to reflect on the recent example of JC. I can't remember exactly how many times people on here said he MUST go after his various disasters but he didn't, he just gutted it out.
If May doesn't go, passes her QS and gets C&S from the DUP nutters then what? It doesn't matter how shit the polls get because there isn't going to be a GE until 2022.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
Does anyone?
Apart from Boris?
Shortly after May became PM I asked what her ethos was, as I just couldn't tell. Some Conservatives on here took umbrage at that, but couldn't answer the question.
I see exactly the same with Boris: say what you like about Corbyn, but you know what he stands for.
It's a shame that at the least leadership election they had a terrible candidate - Leadsom - and a mediocre one - May.
Whoever runs the next leadership election should ask each candidate for their ethos and their vision for country. And anyone answering with 'strong and stable' should be used as a test article for the USS Gerald R. Ford's EMALS system.
Now there are obvious counter-arguments to this, e.g. to suggest that his proposals won't work. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.
Except that's not true.
He wants unilateral nuclear disarmament. Campaigned for it all his life. CND, Stop The War. The whole nine yards.
Now he is within a sniff of power, when asked the question, does he argue the case without obfuscation?
No, he says renew Trident.
It is entirely reasonable for people to suspect that he is a calculating careerist who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power, and to further assume that if in power he would abandon his new found position in a heartbeat to return the electorally unpalatable position he previously held.
No, he says he's not changed his views but he's been outvoted, so be it for this Parliament. Straightforward democratic position. No doubt he'll renew his argument for future Parliaments.
How is Corbyn suposed to govern without a majority on any issue?
That's his problem. But he believes he has a mandate and the Tories would need to tactically abstain on certain policies to avoid bringing Labour down prematurely.
Why on earth should any MP vote for a policy or a Government they disagree with.
This is the equivalent of saying that Theresa May won the election and therefore all Labour MPs are duty bound to support for and vote for her policies even if they are opposed to them. Both are ludicrous suggestions and this is genuinely one of the most idiotic suggestions I have ever read in a thread header.
Yes I think May should go. But the only two sensible choices after that are a minority Government with a new PM and no official DUP deal or a new General Election.
Artificially propping up Corbyn whilst he goes about his reign of chaos is just plain stupid.
This witch-hunt against Theresa May, is now becoming cruel and nasty. Anyone with any sense, should know there are "dark forces" at work here. Those conservative MP's who are "making noises off" should grow a pair and start fighting back.
The media should also take care because it won't be just "luxury flats" that Corbyn and his mob will confiscate!
May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.
Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.
I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
Now there are obvious counter-arguments to this, e.g. to suggest that his proposals won't work. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.
Except that's not true.
He wants unilateral nuclear disarmament. Campaigned for it all his life. CND, Stop The War. The whole nine yards.
Now he is within a sniff of power, when asked the question, does he argue the case without obfuscation?
No, he says renew Trident.
It is entirely reasonable for people to suspect that he is a calculating careerist who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power, and to further assume that if in power he would abandon his new found position in a heartbeat to return the electorally unpalatable position he previously held.
No, he says he's not changed his views but he's been outvoted, so be it for this Parliament. Straightforward democratic position. No doubt he'll renew his argument for future Parliaments.
The problem you have I think is precisely because you like Corbyn personally you are extremely reluctant to accept that his political positioning is both loathsome and indefensible. You can condemn Israeli actions in Palestine. That's perfectly legitimate and often very necessary. You don't have to work with mass murderers and Holocaust deniers and call them your friends to do so. You can believe the best solution in Northern Ireland is for it to reunite with the South. Again, fair enough. It clearly is one option that must be considered. At the right moment it may well be the best one That doesn't require you to meet with murderers and even riot in support of them while freezing out members of your own party (well, the SDLP) who are committed to the democratic process and ultimately helped deliver peace (can I also point out it was the poor of Northern Ireland and the Nationalists who suffered most in the Troubles). You can think that the Conservatives are an unpleasant lot without cheering on people who are threatening to rape them. All of which Corbyn has done. That is why he is poison. And that is why it is really worrying that more people voted for him than for Le Pen (and not far short of Trump).
I actually agree with your other point. Corbyn looks pretty fit to me, he eats well (as in, has a good diet) exercises a lot and he has had an easy life not doing a lot. He's never been unemployed and had to apply for work, for example. There is no reason why he cannot go on for several years yet and he now has the opportunity to do so.
I am not a Conservative. I have voted for four political parties (all except UKIP) a string of independents and voted Labour in 2015. You have twice accused me of lying and falsified information to back your claims. You and your kind are in fact the key problem with Labour and the reason why I cannot see circumstances where I will vote for them again. And until you face down these sort of questions I see no reason to put up with your abuse. While I admire you for engaging directly with people here, I will not engage with you personally again until you have rethought your approach somewhat. I wish you well in doing that.
To be fair to Corbyn, he argues that it is Labour policy to renew Trident. Not his own personal view. He will no doubt seek to amend the policy at whichever conference it comes up again (iirc there has to be a gap of two years before it can be debated again).
His first act in Number 10 is to write to the submarine commanders. There is nothing and nobody that could stop him saying return to port, immediately and indefinitely.
People seem to forget that Corbyn ignores Labour policy that he doesn't agree with.
Sorry, I don't buy David's argument. Better to keep Corbyn away from Government, if only for a few more months, and hope that those swing voters come to their senses.
More to the point the Tories need to do something to promote the merits of their own policies as well as to carry out a rigorous deconstruction of Labour's populist shopping list. Stupidly, these were entirely missing from their campaign.
May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.
Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.
I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
Wasn't the QS delayed after 2010 too?
Only for a few days, not for three months
There isn't going to be a QS for three months?
The suggestion up thread was that the Tories have a leadership election before QS. From the party's point of view this is logical, but I don't think suspending Plt for that long would fly.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
His ethos is that Boris Johnson has been destined from birth for the highest office, thanks to his ready wit, his ability to wing it, and an amusing joke to be brought out whenever he gets into a tight corner.
I like Boris. I really do. I don't find him distasteful or annoying. I laugh at, and with, him.
But politically he is an empty vessel. There are plenty of people I like but would not want in certain roles. His time as London mayor (and especially the Garden Bridge mess) has sadly shown he is unsuitable for power.
The problem you have I think is precisely because you like Corbyn personally you are extremely reluctant to accept that his political positioning is both loathsome and indefensible. You can condemn Israeli actions in Palestine. That's perfectly legitimate and often very necessary. You don't have to work with mass murderers and Holocaust deniers and call them your friends to do so. You can believe the best solution in Northern Ireland is for it to reunite with the South. Again, fair enough. It clearly is one option that must be considered. At the right moment it may well be the best one That doesn't require you to meet with murderers and even riot in support of them while freezing out members of your own party (well, the SDLP) who are committed to the democratic process and ultimately helped deliver peace (can I also point out it was the poor of Northern Ireland and the Nationalists who suffered most in the Troubles). You can think that the Conservatives are an unpleasant lot without cheering on people who are threatening to rape them. All of which Corbyn has done. That is why he is poison. And that is why it is really worrying that more people voted for him than for Le Pen (and not far short of Trump).
I actually agree with your other point. Corbyn looks pretty fit to me, he eats well (as in, has a good diet) exercises a lot and he has had an easy life not doing a lot. He's never been unemployed and had to apply for work, for example. There is no reason why he cannot go on for several years yet and he now has the opportunity to do so.
I am not a Conservative. I have voted for four political parties (all except UKIP) a string of independents and voted Labour in 2015. You have twice accused me of lying and falsified information to back your claims. You and your kind are in fact the key problem with Labour and the reason why I cannot see circumstances where I will vote for them again. And until you face down these sort of questions I see no reason to put up with your abuse. While I admire you for engaging directly with people here, I will not engage with you personally again until you have rethought your approach somewhat. I wish you well in doing that.
I wouldn't normally get involved in other people's spats but I think Nick made a general comment here that you have interpreted personally.
< One difficulty that the Tories and anti-Corbyn people generally have is that they don't get him at all. They project on to him every left-wing idea and some more, and think he has subtle unspoken objectives ("his real goal", etc.).
I've known him personally on and off for 50 years. He's the original WYSIWYG politician - genuinely worried about the poor and the oppressed, anti-imperialist and anti-Western dominance, and at a personal level a nice man who dislikes making politics about trading insults. He has no interest in personal wealth and fame, though of course he's pleased that his ideas are proving popular.
I'm glad to read this. I felt many of his opponents were misunderstanding him and ascribing strange motivations to his actions. But I've never met Corbyn and hadn't even heard of him until he ran for the leadership.
So I was worried when some on here, who know much more about the Labour party and politics than me said he was plotting to expel dissenters, deselect MPs and take over the Labour party and turn it into a communist cult/revive Militant. He doesn't seem to be doing any of this.
May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.
Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.
I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
Wasn't the QS delayed after 2010 too?
Only for a few days, not for three months
There isn't going to be a QS for three months?
The suggestion up thread was that the Tories have a leadership election before QS. From the party's point of view this is logical, but I don't think suspending Plt for that long would fly.
To be fair to Corbyn, he argues that it is Labour policy to renew Trident. Not his own personal view. He will no doubt seek to amend the policy at whichever conference it comes up again (iirc there has to be a gap of two years before it can be debated again).
His first act in Number 10 is to write to the submarine commanders. There is nothing and nobody that could stop him saying return to port, immediately and indefinitely.
He could order them back to Faslane and tell them to shut the boats down. I don't think it would be too long (certainly within a year or two) before the RN would lack the expertise, will and budget to relight the magic lanterns and that would be the end of the Trident force.
Interesting piece by David, but like others I don't see that it is a viable strategy even in pure party-political terms. It would very high-risk in normal circumstances, and David might be making the same mistake that Theresa May just made of underestimating Labour under Corbyn: what if he managed to blame all the difficulties of his no doubt disastrous minority government on the Tories?
Worse, these are far from normal circumstances: the Article 50 clock is ticking. If the DUP has to be bought off, well, it has to be bought off; that's the hand which the electorate dealt us. In the national interest, we just have to 'keep buggering on', as Churchill put it.
I think you'll find Nabbers that the DUP aren't awfully keen on "buggering" of any sort.
This witch-hunt against Theresa May, is now becoming cruel and nasty. Anyone with any sense, should know there are "dark forces" at work here. Those conservative MP's who are "making noises off" should grow a pair and start fighting back.
The media should also take care because it won't be just "luxury flats" that Corbyn and his mob will confiscate!
I don't like it either, I was advocating keeping her on for a while but if every day or week we are going to see her bashed for everything it is better if she goes, put her out of her misery so to speak. Actual bullying going on.
May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.
Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.
I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
Until the 1850s it usually only met for the autumn - September to December. I think that changed for the Crimean War but I'm not certain.
Now there's a policy that both saves money and might attract wide support!
He isn't interested in any secret agenda, whether to seize total power in the Labour Party (he doesn't even try seriously to get left-wing candidates into by-elecitons), to support Hamas or the IRA, to foment street riots or whatever. He simply thinks his duty is to argue a case for the losers in the world that we live in, irrespective of personal comfort. If that gets a majority, that's great. If it doesn't, one must simply keep trying. Getting old or tired is not relevant and he'll keep going as long as he can. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.
One question. If he is so concerned about the poor and vulnerable, why did he do nothing to protect the children being molested by members of the Labour Party in Islington's children's homes? I realise that you will not like that question but it seems to me an extremely valid question for a number of other reasons that are contemporary.
Merely because he has a personal charm does not make him a nice person. If you want a list of mass murderers who were personally popular, you may have one, and Corbyn is certainly no mass murderer.
The issues in Islington were complex, disturbing and not something I know much about. Quite possibly a lot of people involved should have acted differently or would act differently in hindsight - I genuinely don't know. I doubt if anyone in politics or any other profession can last 50 years without errors of judgment.
As for niceness, we'll have to agree to differ, but unless you've also known him personally for decades, your view may carry less weight. I wouldn't say he does have tremendous personal charm, actually - just that he's a decent man. Doesn't mean he'd be a wonderful PM or is always right, but I call things as I see them seperately from political agreement. I also think Oliver Letwin is exceptionally nice, for instance, but we don't often agree.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
...pound shop Cameron?
He doesn't stand for anything, he simply has naked ambition and wants to win. And you know what we need that right now. Unlike May he actually is able to win over labour voters. In the mayoral contests a huge 8% of GE Labour voters switched to Boris, and he out preformed the Tories by a massive 10%. He also had a great EURef campaign probably winning it for LEAVE. He beat a populist labour socialist in a left wing city. Twice.
He knows how to campaign, he has been tried and tested in the heat of the short campaign unlike Hammond. We need a populist like him against an insurgent Corbyn.
This is about stopping the hard left from getiing the keys of Downing Street now.
(also knife crime actually fell under him whereas it is rising now, so he wasn't too bad in actually governing either).
Don't get carried away. That was in London. And up against Ken Livingstone. And in what is essentially a local government election.
The EuRef was a national campaign, and London is more left wing then the country so his election as a Tory is even greater.
Although he is a posh git the wwc seen to like him for his straight talking. Anyway I don't see anyone else beating Corbyn at this rate.
Sorry, I don't buy David's argument. Better to keep Corbyn away from Government, if only for a few more months, and hope that those swing voters come to their senses.
More to the point the Tories need to do something to promote the merits of their own policies as well as to carry out a rigorous deconstruction of Labour's populist shopping list. Stupidly, these were entirely missing from their campaign.
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
Everyone saying May-lificant MUST go needs to reflect on the recent example of JC. I can't remember exactly how many times people on here said he MUST go after his various disasters but he didn't, he just gutted it out.
If May doesn't go, passes her QS and gets C&S from the DUP nutters then what? It doesn't matter how shit the polls get because there isn't going to be a GE until 2022.
Yes, get through to Wednesday and she is safe for the time being. There will be other issues on the horizon like a potential Thanet by election but that seems small fry compared to her troubles this week.
Ultimately if the Tories rally behind May and do the same with whoever replaces her then 5 years is possible. Labour are split and have rather different ideas to the SNP and Libs which makes opposition to her slightly more fragmented than it could be. After the QS Corbyn might realise his one chance is gone and will potentially revert to the protest leader on the streets which might diminish his standing as a serious leader in the eyes of the voters that matter.
The risk is that he ends up looking hubristic or he does something totally crazy like announce he's always been in favour of shooting 50 British soldiers a week to apologise for the Arab-Israeli War (he's never done anything like that in the past but having spent two months industriously abandoning his old principles that may change). But even if he doesn't remember the fundamentals are still against him.
One difficulty that the Tories and anti-Corbyn people generally have is that they don't get him at all. They project on to him every left-wing idea and some more, and think he has subtle unspoken objectives ("his real goal", etc.).
I've known him personally on and off for 50 years. He's the original WYSIWYG politician - genuinely worried about the poor and the oppressed, anti-imperialist and anti-Western dominance, and at a personal level a nice man who dislikes making politics about trading insults. He has no interest in personal wealth and fame, though of course he's pleased that his ideas are proving popular.
He isn't interested in any secret agenda, whether to seize total power in the Labour Party (he doesn't even try seriously to get left-wing candidates into by-elecitons), to support Hamas or the IRA, to foment street riots or whatever. He simply thinks his duty is to argue a case for the losers in the world that we live in, irrespective of personal comfort. If that gets a majority, that's great. If it doesn't, one must simply keep trying. Getting old or tired is not relevant and he'll keep going as long as he can.
Now there are obvious counter-arguments to this, e.g. to suggest that his proposals won't work. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.
But the fundamental issue from my earlier post remains the key. The Tories are tired. They don't know why they want to govern, who they want to lead them or what they want to do. Labour does, rightly or wrongly, and in the end an idea beats a vacuum, one way or another.
Corbyn's biggest asset is that he seems mostly harmless.
But aren't we over-stating his personal contribution? The bottom line is that many people are discontented, and have been since the 08/09 crisis, and Rule 1 of any election nowadays is that there has to be an 'everything must change' candidate. It doesn't much matter what they are like, cf. Trump.
I wish this had been longer but it's a beautifully written piece on the Irish Question (northern sub section), and nails the DUP's entitled mindset that believes they should be accomodated in every situation.
'Britain’s future depends on a party made in the destructive image of Ian Paisley'
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
His ethos is that Boris Johnson has been destined from birth for the highest office, thanks to his ready wit, his ability to wing it, and an amusing joke to be brought out whenever he gets into a tight corner.
I like Boris. I really do. I don't find him distasteful or annoying. I laugh at, and with, him.
But politically he is an empty vessel. There are plenty of people I like but would not want in certain roles. His time as London mayor (and especially the Garden Bridge mess) has sadly shown he is unsuitable for power.
I admit I am impervious to his charm *, which means he has nothing going for him as far as I am concerned. It clearly works for other people.
* Funnily enough, I am warming to George Osborne. Which is strange, but be had to leave government first. Sadly, I don't think there's a place for a sense of humour in a successful politician.
I am not a Conservative. I have voted for four political parties (all except UKIP) a string of independents and voted Labour in 2015. You have twice accused me of lying and falsified information to back your claims. You and your kind are in fact the key problem with Labour and the reason why I cannot see circumstances where I will vote for them again. And until you face down these sort of questions I see no reason to put up with your abuse. While I admire you for engaging directly with people here, I will not engage with you personally again until you have rethought your approach somewhat. I wish you well in doing that.
I don't remember accusing you of lying, but I'm sorry if I've seemed to abuse you personally. I don't know who you are and how you reach your conclusions is of course a matter for you. I reserve the right to disagree, but you shouldn't take it personally if I do.
As for niceness, we'll have to agree to differ, but unless you've also known him personally for decades, your view may carry less weight. I wouldn't say he does have tremendous personal charm, actually - just that he's a decent man. Doesn't mean he'd be a wonderful PM or is always right, but I call things as I see them seperately from political agreement. I also think Oliver Letwin is exceptionally nice, for instance, but we don't often agree.
Knowing someone personally and liking them can make you blind to their obvious deficiencies and nastiness. "He's nice to me: of course he's a nice bloke"
I haven't been as anti-Corbyn as some on here: ever since the last leadership election (and perhaps before) I'd been commenting on his stickability and warned people not to underestimate him.
On another note: Corbyn doesn't appear to have changed any of his views during nearly thirty-five years in parliament. Do you think this view is valid, and if so, do you think it is realistic in a very different world?
That was when she had Nick and Fiona alongside. That's the point: since her aides were forced out to save the reputation of Sir Lynton Crosby, Theresa May has no disinterested advisors.
Somewhat off the mark.
Crosby completely disagreed on calling the early election but was overruled. Until the final week or so he was marginalized and had advised that attacking the core vote and not offering more vision was a disaster in the making.
The weekend before polling day his meta data put them on 302 seats. It would appear in the final days his greater involvement saved the Tories 16 seats and Jezza walking into Downing Street at some time.
Are you sure? The messaging had Crosby written all over it. It was Zak Mk2. Different subject same style. Political advertising needed to move on with a more nuanced electorate but that seems to have passed Crosby by. A simple message oft repeated doesn't cut it anymore.
I'm sure.
May + Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill ran the show until the final weekend. Crosby and other experienced campaigners together with the Cabinet were almost entirely sidelined. Most of the Cabinet had no idea about the manifesto until the last minute and the social care passage was finalized the weekend before the launch and with almost zero input form relevant ministers.
Apart from Rudd, the cabinet were effectively blocked from making major appearances. Hammond was AWOL for the whole time. This was a mess entirely made by May and her two most trusted, and now departed SpAD's.
Precisely.
For those who haven't read it, here is the link to the Evening Standard's article with all the gory details...
That's an interesting read - but I take it as evidence of the post-GE battle being fought within the Tories to attribute blame for the defeat, rather than an accurate summary of what was going on.
Since June 8th there seems to be a striking number of people emerging to claim that they saw the loss of majority coming - now including CCHQ, it would seem. Mmm.
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
He isn't interested in any secret agenda, whether to seize total power in the Labour Party (he doesn't even try seriously to get left-wing candidates into by-elecitons), to support Hamas or the IRA, to foment street riots or whatever. He simply thinks his duty is to argue a case for the losers in the world that we live in, irrespective of personal comfort. If that gets a majority, that's great. If it doesn't, one must simply keep trying. Getting old or tired is not relevant and he'll keep going as long as he can. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.
One question. If he is so concerned about the poor and vulnerable, why did he do nothing to protect the children being molested by members of the Labour Party in Islington's children's homes? I realise that you will not like that question but it seems to me an extremely valid question for a number of other reasons that are contemporary.
Merely because he has a personal charm does not make him a nice person. If you want a list of mass murderers who were personally popular, you may have one, and Corbyn is certainly no mass murderer.
The issues in Islington were complex, disturbing and not something I know much about. Quite possibly a lot of people involved should have acted differently or would act differently in hindsight - I genuinely don't know. I doubt if anyone in politics or any other profession can last 50 years without errors of judgment.
As for niceness, we'll have to agree to differ, but unless you've also known him personally for decades, your view may carry less weight. I wouldn't say he does have tremendous personal charm, actually - just that he's a decent man. Doesn't mean he'd be a wonderful PM or is always right, but I call things as I see them seperately from political agreement. I also think Oliver Letwin is exceptionally nice, for instance, but we don't often agree.
Oh yes Nick. Corbyn is so nice he chose to divorce his wife because she wanted their son to go to a Grammar School rather than the failing local comprehensive.
I mean kind of f*cked up twat do you have to be to divorce your wife and break up your family simply because she wants what is best for your child.
That tells me a great deal about what sort of person Corbyn is and it is not someone who should be anywhere near power.
The PB consensus is May must go soon. Opinion is divided on whether we get a coronation or a contested leadership election.
The Tories in parliament ought to know whether one of their number has the skills to lead the country at this difficult time. Ordinarily it should be one of the senior figures from this or a previous government.
If she is replaced soon my expected short list would be
What's this thing about politicians needing to be strong (see picture)?
"Strong and stable leadership' , Tories. "Stronger for Scotland', SNP. "Stand strong' DUP.
Why would voters want strong politicians.? Competent ones, ones that do what they are told, would seem better.
I think rather than a belief in the virtue of being 'strong', it's more an over compensation by pols who have an absolute horror of being portrayed as weak.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
...pound shop Cameron?
He doesn't stand for anything, he simply has naked ambition and wants to win. And you know what we need that right now. Unlike May he actually is able to win over labour voters. In the mayoral contests a huge 8% of GE Labour voters switched to Boris, and he out preformed the Tories by a massive 10%. He also had a great EURef campaign probably winning it for LEAVE. He beat a populist labour socialist in a left wing city. Twice.
He knows how to campaign, he has been tried and tested in the heat of the short campaign unlike Hammond. We need a populist like him against an insurgent Corbyn.
This is about stopping the hard left from getiing the keys of Downing Street now.
(also knife crime actually fell under him whereas it is rising now, so he wasn't too bad in actually governing either).
Don't get carried away. That was in London. And up against Ken Livingstone. And in what is essentially a local government election.
The EuRef was a national campaign, and London is more left wing then the country so his election as a Tory is even greater.
Although he is a posh git the wwc seen to like him for his straight talking. Anyway I don't see anyone else beating Corbyn at this rate.
At the very best, going for Boris would be the 'double or quits' option.
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
That One Nation Tory was supposed to be May. And then the Maybot did a system upgrade.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
His ethos is that Boris Johnson has been destined from birth for the highest office, thanks to his ready wit, his ability to wing it, and an amusing joke to be brought out whenever he gets into a tight corner.
I like Boris. I really do. I don't find him distasteful or annoying. I laugh at, and with, him.
But politically he is an empty vessel. There are plenty of people I like but would not want in certain roles. His time as London mayor (and especially the Garden Bridge mess) has sadly shown he is unsuitable for power.
I admit I am impervious to his charm *, which means he has nothing going for him as far as I am concerned. It clearly works for other people.
* Funnily enough, I am warming to George Osborne. Which is strange, but be had to leave government first. Sadly, I don't think there's a place for a sense of humour in a successful politician.
Osborne is just the latest politician, after the likes of Portillo and Balls, to have proven a great deal more interesting, human and likeable after putting the Westminster game behind them.
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
The Conservatives will have to do a lot better than "Prosperity For All".
Ed couldn't manage a win with "Owls For All" so Tories better up the ante :
"Unicorns For All" with a Scottish Conservative sub set pledge of "Loch Ness Monsters For The Masses".
The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:
"Justice for Grenfell we want the truth" "Justice 4 Grenfell" "Time to go Theresa Tory cuts cost lives"
Questions need asking of the wielders of all of these placards. In your mind, what shape does justice take? Would you accept the truth even if it does not match what you believe? What the **** does the third have to do with the Grenfell tragedy?
I fear this is going to turn nasty.
It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.
Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.
I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.
You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.
Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.
And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.
Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.
Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.
There is no end to it.
Maybe it is time to create a list.
It's absolutely shocking that you've had a look on the Internet and found two things that aren't true, one thing that's unfair, and a statement by a politician that you disagree with.
I would say it is shocking that you find rumour-mongering acceptable in these circumstances,
You see. You really shouldn't be so surprised. In the course of our microscopically short exchange, you've already made up something about me!
A reasonable inference from your avoidance of the question.
You know full well (if you have not been asleep for two months) that Skwawkbox is one of two or three key bits of Corbynite onlin infrastructure, rather than "something on the internet". The fake D-Notice story has had 10k+ shares on Facebook, and they have now admitted that the story is untrue.
Nonetheless Corbyn's conspiracy theorists have been successfully fed once again with another false story.
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
The DUP having confirmed they'll vote for the Queen's Speech gives any Tories thinking of replacing Theresa May right now a fresh problem. That would constitute a material change in circumstances entitling them to reconsider, making an immediate replacement riskier relative to sticking with Mrs May than previously.
Since an authorityless Prime Minister suits the DUP well, I wonder whether that was why they confirmed their position now.
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
The Conservatives will have to do a lot better than "Prosperity For All".
Ed couldn't manage a win with "Owls For All" so Tories better up the ante :
"Unicorns For All" with a Scottish Conservative sub set pledge of "Loch Ness Monsters For The Masses".
Heh. I'm no spin doctor. But the basic idea that Corbyn's flawed rhetoric needs to be countered is a sound one IMO.
The DUP having confirmed they'll vote for the Queen's Speech gives any Tories thinking of replacing Theresa May right now a fresh problem. That would constitute a material change in circumstances entitling them to reconsider, making an immediate replacement riskier relative to sticking with Mrs May than previously.
Since an authorityless Prime Minister suits the DUP well, I wonder whether that was why they confirmed their position now.
Will be interested to see what the DUP position turns out to be, and whether there will be anything in it for their critics to latch on to.
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
The Conservatives will have to do a lot better than "Prosperity For All".
Ed couldn't manage a win with "Owls For All" so Tories better up the ante :
"Unicorns For All" with a Scottish Conservative sub set pledge of "Loch Ness Monsters For The Masses".
The unicorn is the Scottish pledge, surely? Lions for the English.
Ruth hates Boris, enough for her to try and split or separate the ties slightly between the party south of the border and the north? Remains to be seen.
I would imagine if Ruth says it can't be Boris then people will take notice in the party.
What a bunch of douches Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill are. It speaks volumes about their boss.
A Pber did warn about how awful Mrs May and her team were to the little people working for them.
It must have seemed at the time like an innocent enough sentiment.
As the former shadow chancellor Ed Balls left Strictly Come Dancing last November a press officer working in Downing Street tweeted: “Alas it’s over. Well done Ed Balls for getting this far & entertaining us.”
Robin Gordon-Farleigh knew he was being followed by Theresa May’s chief of staff Nick Timothy. What he could not have predicted was his reaction.
Mr Timothy called aside the prime minister’s principal private secretary, Simon Case, and demanded that Mr Gordon-Farleigh be reprimanded for breaking the rules on civil service neutrality. By the time the reprimand reached Mr Gordon-Farleigh it was more of a warning: “Be careful, they’re watching everything you do.” A few months later Mr Gordon-Farleigh decided to leave government.
He was one of the lucky ones. In their time in government, The Times has been told, Mr Timothy and his fellow chief of staff Fiona Hill forced out or sidelined supposedly independent civil servants — some after a period of alleged bullying — in direct contravention of Whitehall codes of conduct.
Sorry, I don't buy David's argument. Better to keep Corbyn away from Government, if only for a few more months, and hope that those swing voters come to their senses.
More to the point the Tories need to do something to promote the merits of their own policies as well as to carry out a rigorous deconstruction of Labour's populist shopping list. Stupidly, these were entirely missing from their campaign.
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
I certainly expect the Tories to run a much better campaign next time and probably a far more traditional one, with press conferences and posters of tax bombshells.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
Being a buffoon by saying something silly and hoping people laugh with him?
He's had a proper go at Khan and his naked politicking this morning, and rightly so.
Khan is slagging off everyone regarding lack of support and information, he is the Mayor of London and this is happening in his city. Why doesn't he organise the support and information structure, he could galvanise and run the effort if he desired, instead of strutting around slagging everyone off.
It might not suit the Conservatives - but I simply can't countenance the idea of passing the reins over to Corbyn. No, the Tories will have to put country before party and get on with the job of governing. Historically passing the job of government over to the opposition has not worked out too well in the medium term for the party doing the passing. And the medium term is very very critical right now.
Vote Tory, get McDonnell the marxist running the nation's finances. Dealing with the DUP is the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
Theresa May's last matched at 1.19 to be Prime Minister after the election (Queen's Speech) on Betfair. Given that it's on Wednesday, the betting public evidently think a coup is potentially imminent.
Absolutely not. A Corbyn government now with Brexit coming up would be a disaster for the country, socialism and out of the single market not to mention it would set a disastrous precedent for the Tories to refuse to serve when they got 60 seats more than Labour. If the Tories cannot be bothered to try and govern then the voters may well rightly conclude why should they be worth voting for again?
No the Tories and DUP have a majority between them and should be allowed to get on with governing. In any case the LDs may well vote with the government and against Corbyn on some issues too. What the Tories need to do is to learn the lessons of the election, ease off on austerity, end the dementia tax and create a proper commission to look at social care and pursue a more balanced Brexit. As for May she will go before the next general election but she can stay for now, she won 13.6 million votes after all last week and the Grenfell Fire is not something she can be blamed for, she has correctly ordered an inquiry and indeed has now visited victims as well as the emergency services
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
I simply cannot let that stand. No party is 'fck the people'. No one gets into politics (it is seriously badly remunerated) for that.
The last manifesto was the most left wing Tory manifesto in my life time.
It secured more votes for it than any has done for decades.
The wing of the party that was sidelined last June was the neo-liberal 'lets cut middle class taxes whilst we cut disability benefit'.
The reason the Tories didn't secure a majority last week is because they've been deserted by self interested young professionals. Young professionals who should be owner-occupiers by now. To be fair, whilst many young professionals need to look to themselves (including my mates who have 5* holidays in the caribbean yet moan about not having money for a deposit), a lot of them are not because of continual stoking of the housing bubble by the neo-liberal wing of the Tory party, and before that the neo-liberal wing of the Labour party. Both of whom supported mass immigration, prioritised growth of the GDP rather than growth of GDP/capita, and did nothing to tackle the nimbyism and corporate builder complex that prevent mass housing projects
What a bunch of douches Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill are. It speaks volumes about their boss.
A Pber did warn about how awful Mrs May and her team were to the little people working for them.
It must have seemed at the time like an innocent enough sentiment.
As the former shadow chancellor Ed Balls left Strictly Come Dancing last November a press officer working in Downing Street tweeted: “Alas it’s over. Well done Ed Balls for getting this far & entertaining us.”
Robin Gordon-Farleigh knew he was being followed by Theresa May’s chief of staff Nick Timothy. What he could not have predicted was his reaction.
Mr Timothy called aside the prime minister’s principal private secretary, Simon Case, and demanded that Mr Gordon-Farleigh be reprimanded for breaking the rules on civil service neutrality. By the time the reprimand reached Mr Gordon-Farleigh it was more of a warning: “Be careful, they’re watching everything you do.” A few months later Mr Gordon-Farleigh decided to leave government.
He was one of the lucky ones. In their time in government, The Times has been told, Mr Timothy and his fellow chief of staff Fiona Hill forced out or sidelined supposedly independent civil servants — some after a period of alleged bullying — in direct contravention of Whitehall codes of conduct.
I've heard similar tales from a friend who used to be in the cabinet office. Absolutely scathing about those two.
I mean it is really weird in a sense that a PM has to give up her advisers because they are so disliked. Interesting people asking questions of Jeremy Hayward also...
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
Beg Dave to come back?
He's just a PR man. And eventually PR gets found out.
Sorry, I don't buy David's argument. Better to keep Corbyn away from Government, if only for a few more months, and hope that those swing voters come to their senses.
More to the point the Tories need to do something to promote the merits of their own policies as well as to carry out a rigorous deconstruction of Labour's populist shopping list. Stupidly, these were entirely missing from their campaign.
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
I certainly expect the Tories to run a much better campaign next time and probably a far more traditional one, with press conferences and posters of tax bombshells.
If the facts coming out about the campaign are correct, it really does seem astonishing.
All decisions were seemingly taken by a tight-knit group of 3 people (May plus 2 SPADs).
Can that really be right?
I do wonder whether there is some re-writing of history going on here. Maybe people nodded through decisions taken by May, lulled by the false sense of the huge opinion poll lead, but surely more people must have been consulted about the manifesto.
< One difficulty that the Tories and anti-Corbyn people generally have is that they don't get him at all. They project on to him every left-wing idea and some more, and think he has subtle unspoken objectives ("his real goal", etc.).
I've known him personally on and off for 50 years. He's the original WYSIWYG politician - genuinely worried about the poor and the oppressed, anti-imperialist and anti-Western dominance, and at a personal level a nice man who dislikes making politics about trading insults. He has no interest in personal wealth and fame, though of course he's pleased that his ideas are proving popular.
I'm glad to read this. I felt many of his opponents were misunderstanding him and ascribing strange motivations to his actions. But I've never met Corbyn and hadn't even heard of him until he ran for the leadership.
So I was worried when some on here, who know much more about the Labour party and politics than me said he was plotting to expel dissenters, deselect MPs and take over the Labour party and turn it into a communist cult/revive Militant. He doesn't seem to be doing any of this.
No, but then his lack of interest in running his party and the nuts and bolts of, for example, passing legislation, is one reason why he'd be such a crap PM. He is, essentially, a campaigner. He has never been seriously interested in wielding power, just influencing those that do. This would probably make for a very loose government, where ministers were given a lot of leeway (which as a general principle is a good thing, though it depends on the quality of the minister). It would also likely prove highly ineffective as the whips couldn't exercise control and all sorts of contradictory ideas clashed.
The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:
"Justice for Grenfell we want the truth" "Justice 4 Grenfell" "Time to go Theresa Tory cuts cost lives"
Questions need asking of the wielders of all of these placards. In your mind, what shape does justice take? Would you accept the truth even if it does not match what you believe? What the **** does the third have to do with the Grenfell tragedy?
I fear this is going to turn nasty.
It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.
Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.
I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.
You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.
Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.
And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.
Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.
Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.
There is no end to it.
Maybe it is time to create a list.
It's absolutely shocking that you've had a look on the Internet and found two things that aren't true, one thing that's unfair, and a statement by a politician that you disagree with.
I would say it is shocking that you find rumour-mongering acceptable in these circumstances,
You see. You really shouldn't be so surprised. In the course of our microscopically short exchange, you've already made up something about me!
A reasonable inference from your avoidance of the question.
You're only making my point by saying that. This kind of dishonest stuff is the norm in online discussions. Why should anyone be surprised by it, whether it comes from right, left or centre?
The PB consensus is May must go soon. Opinion is divided on whether we get a coronation or a contested leadership election.
The Tories in parliament ought to know whether one of their number has the skills to lead the country at this difficult time. Ordinarily it should be one of the senior figures from this or a previous government.
If she is replaced soon my expected short list would be
Boris Davis Rudd Hammond Gove Fallon Hunt
Two questions.
1. Does it have to be a leaver?
2. Is one of the above the next PM?
1 No
2 I am coming to the view it will be either Davis or Hammond with MPs putting those 2 to the membership to decide between them
TSE - they may well be 'douches' as you put it. But you need to ditch the fantasy of the Cameroons being the future. 1980s nostalgists who were who fixated on Tony Blair are not the future.
It might not suit the Conservatives - but I simply can't countenance the idea of passing the reins over to Corbyn. No, the Tories will have to put country before party and get on with the job of governing. Historically passing the job of government over to the opposition has not worked out too well in the medium term for the party doing the passing. And the medium term is very very critical right now.
Vote Tory, get McDonnell the marxist running the nation's finances. Dealing with the DUP is the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
What a slap in the face for all those who voted Conservative it would be if their party handed over power to a party who finished so far behind them. I reckon there is a chance it could destroy the Conservatives if they did so. Don't play games w democracy!
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
I simply cannot let that stand. No party is 'fck the people'. No one gets into politics (it is seriously badly remunerated) for that.
The last manifesto was the most left wing Tory manifesto in my life time.
It secured more votes for it than any has done for decades.
The wing of the party that was sidelined last June was the neo-liberal 'lets cut middle class taxes whilst we cut disability benefit'.
The reason the Tories didn't secure a majority last week is because they've been deserted by self interested young professionals. Young professionals who should be owner-occupiers by now. To be fair, whilst many young professionals need to look to themselves (including my mates who have 5* holidays in the caribbean yet moan about not having money for a deposit), a lot of them are not because of continual stoking of the housing bubble by the neo-liberal wing of the Tory party, and before that the neo-liberal wing of the Labour party. Both of whom supported mass immigration, prioritised growth of the GDP rather than growth of GDP/capita, and did nothing to tackle the nimbyism and corporate builder complex that prevent mass housing projects
I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.
it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.
There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
Being a buffoon by saying something silly and hoping people laugh with him?
He's had a proper go at Khan and his naked politicking this morning, and rightly so.
Khan is slagging off everyone regarding lack of support and information, he is the Mayor of London and this is happening in his city. Why doesn't he organise the support and information structure, he could galvanise and run the effort if he desired, instead of strutting around slagging everyone off.
It is Khan's city but his scope for immediate action is much more limited. The local council and national government have the essential levers at their disposal.
Where are local council officials and elected officials - Mostly AWOL apart from, as ITV news reported yesterday, hand delivering letters in the Grenfell area about dog fouling.
From day one the national government should have called in armed forces specialists to co-ordinate the relief operations as they have done many time overseas and as we witnessed with the floods in recent years. Instead the government left the local community to manfully struggle on.
Everything has been too little, if at all, or too late, too often. Past indifference matched by present cock-ups are the order of the day. It has often been said that Conservatives lack a heart but not competence.
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
Beg Dave to come back?
He's just a PR man. And eventually PR gets found out.
His final plea to vote Remain has aged better than most things said during the campaign:
Sorry, I don't buy David's argument. Better to keep Corbyn away from Government, if only for a few more months, and hope that those swing voters come to their senses.
More to the point the Tories need to do something to promote the merits of their own policies as well as to carry out a rigorous deconstruction of Labour's populist shopping list. Stupidly, these were entirely missing from their campaign.
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
I certainly expect the Tories to run a much better campaign next time and probably a far more traditional one, with press conferences and posters of tax bombshells.
If the facts coming out about the campaign are correct, it really does seem astonishing.
All decisions were seemingly taken by a tight-knit group of 3 people (May plus 2 SPADs).
Can that really be right?
I do wonder whether there is some re-writing of history going on here. Maybe people nodded through decisions taken by May, lulled by the false sense of the huge opinion poll lead, but surely more people must have been consulted about the manifesto.
Cabinet office minister Ben Gummer was heavily involved in the manifesto iirc.
The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:
"Justice for Grenfell we want the truth" "Justice 4 Grenfell" "Time to go Theresa Tory cuts cost lives"
Questions need asking of the wielders of all of these placards. In your mind, what shape does justice take? Would you accept the truth even if it does not match what you believe? What the **** does the third have to do with the Grenfell tragedy?
I fear this is going to turn nasty.
It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.
Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.
I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.
You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.
Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.
And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.
Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.
Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.
There is no end to it.
Maybe it is time to create a list.
It's absolutely shocking that you've had a look on the Internet and found two things that aren't true, one thing that's unfair, and a statement by a politician that you disagree with.
I would say it is shocking that you find rumour-mongering acceptable in these circumstances,
You see. You really shouldn't be so surprised. In the course of our microscopically short exchange, you've already made up something about me!
A reasonable inference from your avoidance of the question.
You're only making my point by saying that. This kind of dishonest stuff is the norm in online discussions. Why should anyone be surprised by it, whether it comes from right, left or centre?
Question still not addressed by you, Chris.
I'm not doing a mudwrestle this morning - things to do.
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
I simply cannot let that stand. No party is 'fck the people'. No one gets into politics (it is seriously badly remunerated) for that.
The last manifesto was the most left wing Tory manifesto in my life time.
It secured more votes for it than any has done for decades.
The wing of the party that was sidelined last June was the neo-liberal 'lets cut middle class taxes whilst we cut disability benefit'.
The reason the Tories didn't secure a majority last week is because they've been deserted by self interested young professionals. Young professionals who should be owner-occupiers by now. To be fair, whilst many young professionals need to look to themselves (including my mates who have 5* holidays in the caribbean yet moan about not having money for a deposit), a lot of them are not because of continual stoking of the housing bubble by the neo-liberal wing of the Tory party, and before that the neo-liberal wing of the Labour party. Both of whom supported mass immigration, prioritised growth of the GDP rather than growth of GDP/capita, and did nothing to tackle the nimbyism and corporate builder complex that prevent mass housing projects
I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.
it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.
There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.
I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?
Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.
How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
I simply cannot let that stand. No party is 'fck the people'. No one gets into politics (it is seriously badly remunerated) for that.
The last manifesto was the most left wing Tory manifesto in my life time.
It secured more votes for it than any has done for decades.
The wing of the party that was sidelined last June was the neo-liberal 'lets cut middle class taxes whilst we cut disability benefit'.
The reason the Tories didn't secure a majority last week is because they've been deserted by self interested young professionals. Young professionals who should be owner-occupiers by now. To be fair, whilst many young professionals need to look to themselves (including my mates who have 5* holidays in the caribbean yet moan about not having money for a deposit), a lot of them are not because of continual stoking of the housing bubble by the neo-liberal wing of the Tory party, and before that the neo-liberal wing of the Labour party. Both of whom supported mass immigration, prioritised growth of the GDP rather than growth of GDP/capita, and did nothing to tackle the nimbyism and corporate builder complex that prevent mass housing projects
I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.
it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.
There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.
A plurality of voters support a few new grammars, there were many unpopular policies in the manifesto but new grammars was not one of them
The Conservatives need to take the sting out of Labour's 'for the many, not the few' message.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
The Conservatives will have to do a lot better than "Prosperity For All".
Ed couldn't manage a win with "Owls For All" so Tories better up the ante :
"Unicorns For All" with a Scottish Conservative sub set pledge of "Loch Ness Monsters For The Masses".
The unicorn is the Scottish pledge, surely? Lions for the English.
TSE - they may well be 'douches' as you put it. But you need to ditch the fantasy of the Cameroons being the future. 1980s nostalgists who were who fixated on Tony Blair are not the future.
There's no harm in being nice and polite to people.
Theresa May's last matched at 1.19 to be Prime Minister after the election (Queen's Speech) on Betfair. Given that it's on Wednesday, the betting public evidently think a coup is potentially imminent.
Monday? After a weekend taking soundings in constituencies.
I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?
Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.
How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.
My last paragraph covered that. Society has been turned to be nasty, ignorant and selfish over the decades. To the point now where people have supported these things. Doesn't make it right. And as for votes, its not the people voting Tory getting fucked over.
Most Tories aren't nasty. A few people of all parties are nasty. But there has been at best a good set of blinkers worn by decent Tories as sadists like Duncan Smith destroy people's lives.
It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.
Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.
I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.
You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.
Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.
And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.
Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.
Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.
There is no end to it.
Maybe it is time to create a list.
It's absolutely shocking that you've had a look on the Internet and found two things that aren't true, one thing that's unfair, and a statement by a politician that you disagree with.
I would say it is shocking that you find rumour-mongering acceptable in these circumstances,
You see. You really shouldn't be so surprised. In the course of our microscopically short exchange, you've already made up something about me!
A reasonable inference from your avoidance of the question.
You're only making my point by saying that. This kind of dishonest stuff is the norm in online discussions. Why should anyone be surprised by it, whether it comes from right, left or centre?
Theresa May's last matched at 1.19 to be Prime Minister after the election (Queen's Speech) on Betfair. Given that it's on Wednesday, the betting public evidently think a coup is potentially imminent.
Monday? After a weekend taking soundings in constituencies.
I doubt it's going to happen now. But who knows.
No, probably not going to happen but it's a cheap punt.
@isam Aye - I reckon ALOT voted Tory solely this election to keep Corbyn & McDonnell out, given how awful the manifesto was. I think you're right, the voters that did that would be lost for decades if the reins were passed to Corbyn & McDonnell.
If mails investigation is correct, Struggling to see how this had anything to do as the Mob were claiming yesterday anything to do with Tory cuts. The claim a contractor used alternative cladding to the ones in the plans.
An interesting if somewhat surprising thread from David Herdson. Surely the key to political success over the next 5, probably 10 years, is if for the winner of the present tussle between the two major parties to win the follow-up General Election now necessary and to be held over the next 4-9 months with a clear, although probably not large overall majority and somehow to make a sufficiently good fist of it to win the following GE five years later in 2022 or 2023.
Certainly TMay is incapable of doing so for the Tories and so I believe is Boris as well as most of the other more fancied candidates. To have any real prospect of success, the Tories desperately need a new star, preferably someone who is capable of presenting hope and thereby enthusing a good proportion of those hundreds of thousands of newly determined young voters. No one obviously springs to mind, but that's always the problem when on tries to skip a generation ..... I wondered whether Greg Clark might fit the bill, which is why (own-up time) I backed him at 100/1.
One thing's for sure when the Tory leadership election comes, as come it must within the next three months, there must be seen to be a full choice of candidates from all strands of the party and absolutely no suggestion of a shoo in stitch-up arrangement. Let the notorious Eddie Mair vs Boris Johnson interview be shouted from the rooftops .... it simply must be heard to enable voters to get a measure of the man.
Theresa May's last matched at 1.19 to be Prime Minister after the election (Queen's Speech) on Betfair. Given that it's on Wednesday, the betting public evidently think a coup is potentially imminent.
IDS all over again, like then will David Davis be persuaded not to stand for the leadership ?
I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.
it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.
There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.
I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?
Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.
How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.
42.5% to 40% isn't overwhelmingly.
I think it is fair to say that there is a nasty streak among the Tory votership. The idea that if people are feckless they should be allowed to starve to death is implied by Tory policy and supported by quite a few Tory voters of my acquaintance. We really aren't so poor that we need to let this happen.
I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?
Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.
How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.
My last paragraph covered that. Society has been turned to be nasty, ignorant and selfish over the decades. To the point now where people have supported these things. Doesn't make it right. And as for votes, its not the people voting Tory getting fucked over.
Most Tories aren't nasty. A few people of all parties are nasty. But there has been at best a good set of blinkers worn by decent Tories as sadists like Duncan Smith destroy people's lives.
Have you met Iain?
I think you'd get on really well. He is a tremendously warm, charming man who cares deeply for the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged.
For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
Being a buffoon by saying something silly and hoping people laugh with him?
He's had a proper go at Khan and his naked politicking this morning, and rightly so.
Khan is slagging off everyone regarding lack of support and information, he is the Mayor of London and this is happening in his city. Why doesn't he organise the support and information structure, he could galvanise and run the effort if he desired, instead of strutting around slagging everyone off.
It is Khan's city but his scope for immediate action is much more limited. The local council and national government have the essential levers at their disposal.
Where are local council officials and elected officials - Mostly AWOL apart from, as ITV news reported yesterday, hand delivering letters in the Grenfell area about dog fouling.
From day one the national government should have called in armed forces specialists to co-ordinate the relief operations as they have done many time overseas and as we witnessed with the floods in recent years. Instead the government left the local community to manfully struggle on.
Everything has been too little, if at all, or too late, too often. Past indifference matched by present cock-ups are the order of the day. It has often been said that Conservatives lack a heart but not competence.
Oh for some competence.
Point taken and thanks for the reply Jack.
I do however think that Khan could do more instead of strutting about, why hasn't he called for the armed forces to get involved.
Also if his scope for action is limited, what is the point of a mayor anyway?
A good old-fashioned One Nation Tory leader is what the Tories need right now. Someone who gets people and is seen to give a shit. A pity that this wing of the party has been so marginalised and replaced with the amoral "fuck the people" wing so ably represented by the May zombie
I simply cannot let that stand. No party is 'fck the people'. No one gets into politics (it is seriously badly remunerated) for that.
The last manifesto was the most left wing Tory manifesto in my life time.
It secured more votes for it than any has done for decades.
The wing of the party that was sidelined last June was the neo-liberal 'lets cut middle class taxes whilst we cut disability benefit'.
The reason the Tories didn't secure a majority last week is because they've been deserted by self interested young professionals. Young professionals who should be owner-occupiers by now. To be fair, whilst many young professionals need to look to themselves (including my mates who have 5* holidays in the caribbean yet moan about not having money for a deposit), a lot of them are not because of continual stoking of the housing bubble by the neo-liberal wing of the Tory party, and before that the neo-liberal wing of the Labour party. Both of whom supported mass immigration, prioritised growth of the GDP rather than growth of GDP/capita, and did nothing to tackle the nimbyism and corporate builder complex that prevent mass housing projects
Err, so we're no longer the party of helping people help themselves.
Sorry Mortimer, you've completely lost it right now and your blaming the voters for not voting for us. We can't create a winning platform like that, we just had a complete unattractive proposition to too many people and a shite leader.
I hear that. But the people who voted to leave the disabled to lie in their own shit are these Tory MPs. The people who voted repeatedly for a system leaving terminal cancer patients to die penniless are these Tory MPs. Voted for the massive cut to death benefits. Voted against making homes fit for human habitation. Voted for cutting council funding by 100%. Cutting the police. Cutting Fire provision. These Tories.
it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.
There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.
I understand your concerns. But you're obsessed with suggesting the people you disagree with are nasty. Why couldn't you see them as misguided, or focused on the wrong issue?
Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.
How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.
42.5% to 40% isn't overwhelmingly.
I think it is fair to say that there is a nasty streak among the Tory votership. The idea that if people are feckless they should be allowed to starve to death is implied by Tory policy and supported by quite a few Tory voters of my acquaintance. We really aren't so poor that we need to let this happen.
If the Tories genuinely wanted the poor to starve to death they would have ended the welfare state, scrapped the NHS and banned foodbanks. It is absurdly partisan posts like this which show lefteingers at their most absurd, of all the Tories I know I have yet to meet one who wanted to stave people to death, McDonnell's hero Mao on the other hand....
The PB consensus is May must go soon. Opinion is divided on whether we get a coronation or a contested leadership election.
The Tories in parliament ought to know whether one of their number has the skills to lead the country at this difficult time. Ordinarily it should be one of the senior figures from this or a previous government.
If she is replaced soon my expected short list would be
Boris Davis Rudd Hammond Gove Fallon Hunt
Two questions.
1. Does it have to be a leaver?
2. Is one of the above the next PM?
I'm on Crouch, Mercer and Rory!
But then I was on a Tory winning a NI seat in the GE too and that was a genius bet....
Tbh, Labour's advance in London was partly down to having such an awful leader and us allowing Labour to become the default party of remain. I don't think any future campaign will make those mistakes again. Plus we won't be attacking our base like Theresa May did.
Comments
https://twitter.com/COLRICHARDKEMP/status/875847521238700032
He knows how to campaign, he has been tried and tested in the heat of the short campaign unlike Hammond. We need a populist like him against an insurgent Corbyn.
This is about stopping the hard left from getiing the keys of Downing Street now.
(also knife crime actually fell under him whereas it is rising now, so he wasn't too bad in actually governing either).
https://www.ft.com/content/33a32fec-52b3-11e7-bfb8-997009366969
Merely because he has a personal charm does not make him a nice person. If you want a list of mass murderers who were personally popular, you may have one, and Corbyn is certainly no mass murderer.
If May doesn't go, passes her QS and gets C&S from the DUP nutters then what? It doesn't matter how shit the polls get because there isn't going to be a GE until 2022.
I see exactly the same with Boris: say what you like about Corbyn, but you know what he stands for.
It's a shame that at the least leadership election they had a terrible candidate - Leadsom - and a mediocre one - May.
Whoever runs the next leadership election should ask each candidate for their ethos and their vision for country. And anyone answering with 'strong and stable' should be used as a test article for the USS Gerald R. Ford's EMALS system.
This is the equivalent of saying that Theresa May won the election and therefore all Labour MPs are duty bound to support for and vote for her policies even if they are opposed to them. Both are ludicrous suggestions and this is genuinely one of the most idiotic suggestions I have ever read in a thread header.
Yes I think May should go. But the only two sensible choices after that are a minority Government with a new PM and no official DUP deal or a new General Election.
Artificially propping up Corbyn whilst he goes about his reign of chaos is just plain stupid.
The media should also take care because it won't be just "luxury flats" that Corbyn and his mob will confiscate!
"Strong and stable leadership' , Tories. "Stronger for Scotland', SNP. "Stand strong' DUP.
Why would voters want strong politicians.? Competent ones, ones that do what they are told, would seem better.
The problem you have I think is precisely because you like Corbyn personally you are extremely reluctant to accept that his political positioning is both loathsome and indefensible. You can condemn Israeli actions in Palestine. That's perfectly legitimate and often very necessary. You don't have to work with mass murderers and Holocaust deniers and call them your friends to do so. You can believe the best solution in Northern Ireland is for it to reunite with the South. Again, fair enough. It clearly is one option that must be considered. At the right moment it may well be the best one That doesn't require you to meet with murderers and even riot in support of them while freezing out members of your own party (well, the SDLP) who are committed to the democratic process and ultimately helped deliver peace (can I also point out it was the poor of Northern Ireland and the Nationalists who suffered most in the Troubles). You can think that the Conservatives are an unpleasant lot without cheering on people who are threatening to rape them. All of which Corbyn has done. That is why he is poison. And that is why it is really worrying that more people voted for him than for Le Pen (and not far short of Trump).
I actually agree with your other point. Corbyn looks pretty fit to me, he eats well (as in, has a good diet) exercises a lot and he has had an easy life not doing a lot. He's never been unemployed and had to apply for work, for example. There is no reason why he cannot go on for several years yet and he now has the opportunity to do so.
I am not a Conservative. I have voted for four political parties (all except UKIP) a string of independents and voted Labour in 2015. You have twice accused me of lying and falsified information to back your claims. You and your kind are in fact the key problem with Labour and the reason why I cannot see circumstances where I will vote for them again. And until you face down these sort of questions I see no reason to put up with your abuse. While I admire you for engaging directly with people here, I will not engage with you personally again until you have rethought your approach somewhat. I wish you well in doing that.
But politically he is an empty vessel. There are plenty of people I like but would not want in certain roles. His time as London mayor (and especially the Garden Bridge mess) has sadly shown he is unsuitable for power.
So I was worried when some on here, who know much more about the Labour party and politics than me said he was plotting to expel dissenters, deselect MPs and take over the Labour party and turn it into a communist cult/revive Militant. He doesn't seem to be doing any of this.
As for niceness, we'll have to agree to differ, but unless you've also known him personally for decades, your view may carry less weight. I wouldn't say he does have tremendous personal charm, actually - just that he's a decent man. Doesn't mean he'd be a wonderful PM or is always right, but I call things as I see them seperately from political agreement. I also think Oliver Letwin is exceptionally nice, for instance, but we don't often agree.
Although he is a posh git the wwc seen to like him for his straight talking. Anyway I don't see anyone else beating Corbyn at this rate.
"Prosperity for all" would be a Conservative message I could get behind. Make it clear that Corbyn's Labour is divisive and, despite his rhetoric, is only interested in helping the few: his cronies and union members. Everyone else can have their property stolen and be taxed massively.
Ultimately if the Tories rally behind May and do the same with whoever replaces her then 5 years is possible. Labour are split and have rather different ideas to the SNP and Libs which makes opposition to her slightly more fragmented than it could be. After the QS Corbyn might realise his one chance is gone and will potentially revert to the protest leader on the streets which might diminish his standing as a serious leader in the eyes of the voters that matter.
But aren't we over-stating his personal contribution? The bottom line is that many people are discontented, and have been since the 08/09 crisis, and Rule 1 of any election nowadays is that there has to be an 'everything must change' candidate. It doesn't much matter what they are like, cf. Trump.
'Britain’s future depends on a party made in the destructive image of Ian Paisley'
https://tinyurl.com/yb6owajp
* Funnily enough, I am warming to George Osborne. Which is strange, but be had to leave government first. Sadly, I don't think there's a place for a sense of humour in a successful politician.
I haven't been as anti-Corbyn as some on here: ever since the last leadership election (and perhaps before) I'd been commenting on his stickability and warned people not to underestimate him.
On another note: Corbyn doesn't appear to have changed any of his views during nearly thirty-five years in parliament. Do you think this view is valid, and if so, do you think it is realistic in a very different world?
Since June 8th there seems to be a striking number of people emerging to claim that they saw the loss of majority coming - now including CCHQ, it would seem. Mmm.
I mean kind of f*cked up twat do you have to be to divorce your wife and break up your family simply because she wants what is best for your child.
That tells me a great deal about what sort of person Corbyn is and it is not someone who should be anywhere near power.
The Tories in parliament ought to know whether one of their number has the skills to lead the country at this difficult time. Ordinarily it should be one of the senior figures from this or a previous government.
If she is replaced soon my expected short list would be
Boris
Davis
Rudd
Hammond
Gove
Fallon
Hunt
Two questions.
1. Does it have to be a leaver?
2. Is one of the above the next PM?
Ed couldn't manage a win with "Owls For All" so Tories better up the ante :
"Unicorns For All" with a Scottish Conservative sub set pledge of "Loch Ness Monsters For The Masses".
You know full well (if you have not been asleep for two months) that Skwawkbox is one of two or three key bits of Corbynite onlin infrastructure, rather than "something on the internet". The fake D-Notice story has had 10k+ shares on Facebook, and they have now admitted that the story is untrue.
Nonetheless Corbyn's conspiracy theorists have been successfully fed once again with another false story.
Since an authorityless Prime Minister suits the DUP well, I wonder whether that was why they confirmed their position now.
I would imagine if Ruth says it can't be Boris then people will take notice in the party.
A Pber did warn about how awful Mrs May and her team were to the little people working for them.
It must have seemed at the time like an innocent enough sentiment.
As the former shadow chancellor Ed Balls left Strictly Come Dancing last November a press officer working in Downing Street tweeted: “Alas it’s over. Well done Ed Balls for getting this far & entertaining us.”
Robin Gordon-Farleigh knew he was being followed by Theresa May’s chief of staff Nick Timothy. What he could not have predicted was his reaction.
Mr Timothy called aside the prime minister’s principal private secretary, Simon Case, and demanded that Mr Gordon-Farleigh be reprimanded for breaking the rules on civil service neutrality. By the time the reprimand reached Mr Gordon-Farleigh it was more of a warning: “Be careful, they’re watching everything you do.” A few months later Mr Gordon-Farleigh decided to leave government.
He was one of the lucky ones. In their time in government, The Times has been told, Mr Timothy and his fellow chief of staff Fiona Hill forced out or sidelined supposedly independent civil servants — some after a period of alleged bullying — in direct contravention of Whitehall codes of conduct.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-civil-servants-lived-in-fearof-the-terrible-twins-at-no-10-8smxqj6jw
Khan is slagging off everyone regarding lack of support and information, he is the Mayor of London and this is happening in his city. Why doesn't he organise the support and information structure, he could galvanise and run the effort if he desired, instead of strutting around slagging everyone off.
No, the Tories will have to put country before party and get on with the job of governing.
Historically passing the job of government over to the opposition has not worked out too well in the medium term for the party doing the passing. And the medium term is very very critical right now.
Vote Tory, get McDonnell the marxist running the nation's finances. Dealing with the DUP is the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
No the Tories and DUP have a majority between them and should be allowed to get on with governing. In any case the LDs may well vote with the government and against Corbyn on some issues too. What the Tories need to do is to learn the lessons of the election, ease off on austerity, end the dementia tax and create a proper commission to look at social care and pursue a more balanced Brexit. As for May she will go before the next general election but she can stay for now, she won 13.6 million votes after all last week and the Grenfell Fire is not something she can be blamed for, she has correctly ordered an inquiry and indeed has now visited victims as well as the emergency services
The last manifesto was the most left wing Tory manifesto in my life time.
It secured more votes for it than any has done for decades.
The wing of the party that was sidelined last June was the neo-liberal 'lets cut middle class taxes whilst we cut disability benefit'.
The reason the Tories didn't secure a majority last week is because they've been deserted by self interested young professionals. Young professionals who should be owner-occupiers by now. To be fair, whilst many young professionals need to look to themselves (including my mates who have 5* holidays in the caribbean yet moan about not having money for a deposit), a lot of them are not because of continual stoking of the housing bubble by the neo-liberal wing of the Tory party, and before that the neo-liberal wing of the Labour party. Both of whom supported mass immigration, prioritised growth of the GDP rather than growth of GDP/capita, and did nothing to tackle the nimbyism and corporate builder complex that prevent mass housing projects
Absolutely scathing about those two.
I mean it is really weird in a sense that a PM has to give up her advisers because they are so disliked. Interesting people asking questions of Jeremy Hayward also...
All decisions were seemingly taken by a tight-knit group of 3 people (May plus 2 SPADs).
Can that really be right?
I do wonder whether there is some re-writing of history going on here. Maybe people nodded through decisions taken by May, lulled by the false sense of the huge opinion poll lead, but surely more people must have been consulted about the manifesto.
2 I am coming to the view it will be either Davis or Hammond with MPs putting those 2 to the membership to decide between them
it is fuck the people, they have fucked people. And then sneered at the people they fucked. And this manifesto said lets take food from malnourished children and give it to posh kids as we fund Grammar schools. And take the home of anyone who dies confused and in fear with dementia.
There is no reason - none at all - for a Conservative government to do these things. We disagree on social policy and economics and other things. But as a society we appear to have lost our grip on basic human decency and compassion. For profit.
Where are local council officials and elected officials - Mostly AWOL apart from, as ITV news reported yesterday, hand delivering letters in the Grenfell area about dog fouling.
From day one the national government should have called in armed forces specialists to co-ordinate the relief operations as they have done many time overseas and as we witnessed with the floods in recent years. Instead the government left the local community to manfully struggle on.
Everything has been too little, if at all, or too late, too often. Past indifference matched by present cock-ups are the order of the day. It has often been said that Conservatives lack a heart but not competence.
Oh for some competence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_zN3vNr-Y&t=9s
He lost his seat.
I'm not doing a mudwrestle this morning - things to do.
Let me just remind you - 'the people' overwhelmingly prefered Mrs May to Jeremy Corbyn.
How can that be 'fck the people'. Respectfully, get a grip.
I doubt it's going to happen now. But who knows.
Most Tories aren't nasty. A few people of all parties are nasty. But there has been at best a good set of blinkers worn by decent Tories as sadists like Duncan Smith destroy people's lives.
If mails investigation is correct, Struggling to see how this had anything to do as the Mob were claiming yesterday anything to do with Tory cuts. The claim a contractor used alternative cladding to the ones in the plans.
Certainly TMay is incapable of doing so for the Tories and so I believe is Boris as well as most of the other more fancied candidates. To have any real prospect of success, the Tories desperately need a new star, preferably someone who is capable of presenting hope and thereby enthusing a good proportion of those hundreds of thousands of newly determined young voters.
No one obviously springs to mind, but that's always the problem when on tries to skip a generation ..... I wondered whether Greg Clark might fit the bill, which is why (own-up time) I backed him at 100/1.
One thing's for sure when the Tory leadership election comes, as come it must within the next three months, there must be seen to be a full choice of candidates from all strands of the party and absolutely no suggestion of a shoo in stitch-up arrangement. Let the notorious Eddie Mair vs Boris Johnson interview be shouted from the rooftops .... it simply must be heard to enable voters to get a measure of the man.
I think it is fair to say that there is a nasty streak among the Tory votership. The idea that if people are feckless they should be allowed to starve to death is implied by Tory policy and supported by quite a few Tory voters of my acquaintance. We really aren't so poor that we need to let this happen.
I think you'd get on really well. He is a tremendously warm, charming man who cares deeply for the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged.
I do however think that Khan could do more instead of strutting about, why hasn't he called for the armed forces to get involved.
Also if his scope for action is limited, what is the point of a mayor anyway?
https://twitter.com/thejeremyvine/status/876016540998672385
Sorry Mortimer, you've completely lost it right now and your blaming the voters for not voting for us. We can't create a winning platform like that, we just had a complete unattractive proposition to too many people and a shite leader.
https://twitter.com/iainaitch/status/875993859062472705
But then I was on a Tory winning a NI seat in the GE too and that was a genius bet....