Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This makes me glad I’m laying Boris in the race to be next Tor
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This makes me glad I’m laying Boris in the race to be next Tory leader
Gosh. Look how far Boris Johnson is down the ranking for Tory activists pic.twitter.com/ZpaDVZvczP
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Feels harsh that Phil is so low down. I also thought Boris was popular with activists... Perhaps not. Or perhaps there are a decent bunch that won't vote for him.
Any of Fallon, Patel or Fox would be a total disaster IMO... Hopefully there is a difference between approval and backing them for PM. Really we need a poll of their preferred choice.
It's pretty likely that party members will pick the next PM!
Yep. Preserving a 300 year old Union - with plenty of life left in it yet - is by far the most important political project the country faces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqz6H0Crbm8
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/07/our-survey-party-members-message-to-may-is-go-but-not-yet-stay-for-the-time-being.html
May should:
Go now: 15%
Before GE 2022: 56%
Stay: 27%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40485724
The "They should give us the houses we want" attitude is ridiculous, as are demands for permanent homes immediately.
Have we ever been seen together in the same room I wonder?
The BBC drama doc on the last Tory leadership did Boris no favours.
I am no fan, but i think Boris will charm enough Tories to support him, as he will remind them he was a popular London Mayor and the Tories need to do better in London if they want to win a future majority. Also he has the energy and skills to negotiate Brexit with the EU, on a basis that a majority of the British people will accept.
The outcome of the 2017 general election – a hung parliament - defied predictions. In this article, we draw on aggregate-level data to conduct an initial exploration of the vote. What was the impact of Brexit on the 2017 general election result? What difference did the collapse of Ukip make? And what was the relative importance of factors such as turnout, education, age, and ethnic diversity on support for the two main parties? First, we find that turnout was generally higher in more pro-Remain areas, and places with high concentrations of young people, ethnic minorities, and university graduates. Second, we find that the Conservatives made gains in the sort of places that had previously backed Brexit and previously voted for Ukip. But, third, we find that the gains the Conservatives made from the electoral decline of Ukip were off-set by losses in the sort of places that had previously supported the Conservatives, particularly areas in southern England with larger numbers of graduates. The implication of these findings is that while a Brexit effect contributed to a ‘realignment on the right’, with the Conservative strategy appealing to people in places that had previously voted for Ukip, this strategy was not without an electoral cost, and appears to have hurt the party in more middle class areas.
http://www.matthewjgoodwin.org/uploads/6/4/0/2/64026337/goodwin-heath-26-06-17.pdf
But he is lazy and arrogant and it shows whenever he is interviewed and relies on jokes and bluster to cover up ignorance of his brief. Cameron was sometimes as bad, like the bright student who floats effortlessly by on last-minute revision, but with Boris it is every single time. And buy clothes that fit -- spend some of the book royalties in Savile Row -- if Jeremy Corbyn can do it, so can Boris.
That would be a false conclusion. He might be doing a very good job of managing an NHS that has an unsustainable thirst for money; someone else might do a much worse job even with more money.
Although goodness knows why anyone would trust the NHS to a Labour party that puts the reputation of the NHS above patient care.
Juncker sums up one of the many reasons why I voted to Leave
Labour's campaign was utterly unprofessional, perhaps more so than the Conservatives. But Corbyn's Labour were not selling competence and professionalism: they were selling dreams.
The 2017 general election was called by Theresa May in the hope of securing a strong mandate both for her premiership and her vision of Brexit. The election was a gamble, with May and her team essentially placing the opposite bet to that which had been placed by Tony Blair and New Labour more than twenty years earlier. Whereas Blair and Co. had gambled that they could retain support from their traditional blue-collar and socially conservative workers while reaching into the more liberal, urban and university-educated middle-classes, May and her team gambled that they could retain support from the more middle-class and pro-Remain wing of the Conservative Party while reaching into the more pro-Brexit, left behind and Labour areas of the country.
Our analysis of the results, at the aggregate-level, has revealed the factors that combined to ensure that this gamble would – ultimately - lose.
May’s strategy and a retro manifesto, which had included calls to restore fox hunting alongside strong support for a hard Brexit and grammar schools, did win considerable support from the key social groups they had been directed toward. Our analysis provides evidence that the Conservatives gained in more economically left behind, heavily white and older areas that had previously given disproportionately strong support to Nigel Farage and UKIP. But this narrow strategy also came with costs and was much less popular in more high skilled areas that in 2015 had given lower support to UKIP but had still turned out for the Conservatives.
Which is fair enough. The Tory party's historic roll is to provide this country with as competent government as the political class are capable of in a pragmatic kind of way adopting slowly to the ethos of the times. It is really when the Tories start getting ideological either about the economy or the EU that they run into problems. There is enough of that sort of nonsense in the Labour party for when the country thinks a change is required.
The problem the Tories have at the moment, and it is indeed a serious one, is that there are very few, if any, perceived winners in Westminster. Hence Ruth's popularity. Boris used to have that reputation because he twice won "Labour" London and he also won the Leave vote but at the moment the sheen is off. But if another perceived winner in Westminster does not emerge his star will rise again.
Not because he is a puffed up self-important person who was upset no one was interested in what he had to say
Ruth D has not been tested at a high enough level and I am not sure she is the solution. Scots Tories (Rifkind for example) have always been seen as a bit exotic - like Pandas, and the patrician nature of the tories means I think she is a leader who is a bit too "modern" for most Tory members. So I am looking to back an unknown but there are so many of them, a new face I reckon
The development of the same sort of deep pool of talent that we see in financial services seems to me more important than ultimate ownership.
Good spot, Mr. Eagles, although this does make me a bit glum about Hammond's prospects. That said, starting from a low base can mean you're underestimated by your hubris-ridden opponents who simply assume you'll fail.
But I'm sure the Conservatives would never make that mistake.
If it's any consolation, PE firms have messed up the US economy worse than the UK one. (Although there's still time.)
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/07/next-tory-leader-davis-leads-our-survey-but-is-outscored-by-none-of-the-above.html
No appetite for urgent change....
Also....
there was no big write-in for Ruth Davidson, a development we were keeping an eye open for.
The first is that Mrs May navigates the way through Brexit with the economy continuing on an even keel. If this happens, then 2019 is the earliest leadership election date, and she probably has the choice of when to step down. (Which could well mean 2020 or 2021 or not before the next election at all.) In which case, none of the current front runners will likely be in with a chance. (Davis and Hammond will be too old. Boris or Rudd are still a possibility I guess.)
The second is that we have a Brexit car crash, by which I mean either the economy falls over or Mrs May has a deal that she cannot get through the House of Commons. In either of these cases, the government falls and - like in 1979 - there is no time to change horses mid-apocalypse. In which case, the next leader will likely be picked from opposition, and will be someone untainted by the 2017 parliament.
I would simply lay all the favourites as time will cause their stars to fade.
And a Unionist who is opposing an exhausted Nat government.
I suspect Davidson would rather struggle if she had to put forward constructive policies of her own and explain how they were to be paid for.
A lot could change.
The turn-outs for MEPs elections were always poor.
And I speak as a die-hard Remainer.
Edit: And no, I don't consider Grantham is the North.
Gove best placed in my opinion. Has the infinite ambition, he is always likely to stand and Tories like people they perceive to be a bit of a shit.
Personally I think Jo Johnson is an interesting outside choice. The Ed Milliband of the Tory party?
I was one of those campaigning to leave the EU long before immigration was a major issue and certainly before spurious claims about the NHS were bandied about.
"human rights, environmental protection and international development" are way down the list of the electorate's priorities.
And she's effective at it.
But if she became a Conservative MP and even more so a government minister (or for that matter was ever likely to become Scotland's FM) she would then have to advocate constructive policies and how they are to be paid for.
And as we've seen repeatedly over the last decade its when politicians have to promote their own policies rather than merely oppose that they hit real problems.
More likely they thought it all a waste of time and just another hothouse full of over-paid stuffed shirts. Over the years there has been an appalling failure to explain what the EU does and its benefits.
Mobile roaming charges anyone?