Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
Yet the Tories still won the general election 2 years after Suez as Labour won the general election 2 years after the Iraq invasion
The 1959 election was 3 years after Suez!
Oh big difference!
Indeed so - 50% bigger!
It makes zero difference to the point I made in fact it reinforces it and of course technically Israel did not leave the Sinai until mid 1957
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
"14 years on, where’s Iraq’s democracy? The invasion failed to introduce the democracy, freedom and liberty."
And from that article, "In the first three years after the invasion, a British medical publication, the Lancet, recorded that 654,965 Iraqis had lost their lives by June 2006 as a direct consequence of the invasion." High price for a couple of rigged elections.
However I recall that the figure was contested at the time. And I think debunked.
Not that I want to defend the Iraq war, but that is my hazy recollection.
Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
Yet the Tories still won the general election 2 years after Suez as Labour won the general election 2 years after the Iraq invasion
The 1959 election was 3 years after Suez!
It was also the “You’ve never had it so good election’. And, to be fair there was an economic feelgood atmosphere. Among those who already had it good, anyway!
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see Syria
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
"14 years on, where’s Iraq’s democracy? The invasion failed to introduce the democracy, freedom and liberty."
And from that article, "In the first three years after the invasion, a British medical publication, the Lancet, recorded that 654,965 Iraqis had lost their lives by June 2006 as a direct consequence of the invasion." High price for a couple of rigged elections.
Iraq now has a democratically elected government not a dictator and Saddam killed hundreds of thousands himself
North Korea has elections every five years, and so "tit for tat" is never a great argument.
I think what links Eden and Blair, but not Cameron, was their dishonesty over their respective fiascos. I think Blair was a good prime minister apart from Iraq and possibly Eden was good apart from Suez. But it is irrelevant. Those PMs are defined by Iraq and Suez.
Although Suez was a shock, perhaps something like that was almost inevitable for a country that hadn't come to terms with the loss of its empire and worldwide influence. Arguably the UK did better than France with its tottering Fourth Republic and intractable wars in North Africa and Indochina.
I suspect Brexit will have a greater long term impact than either Suez or Iraq. Not because it will be a clear disaster but because it won't resolve anything. The UK doesn't have any problems to which Brexit is the answer. It's going to be a huge distraction.
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see Syria
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.
Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
What is the source for the 7 % figure?
The UK Universities were huge gainers from the EU. They were very successful in extracting research & development monies (one of the consequences of tuition fees, in fact, the UK universities are much better resourced than stay the French).
So, I suspect that will have skewed the figure for 2017.
If they were grateful for tuition fees, they would have voted Tory (unless of course they realised it was a Labour policy the Coalition adopted, which most of them probably didn't).
In fact they hate them because it makes the students much more demanding and often quite unreasonably so (I had a really nasty argument in my last year of lecturing with a student who couldn't accept a dreadful result merely because his essay was awful, and it was awful because he had done no work including turning up for no seminars or lectures - he got very aggressive demanding a first, which I wasn't going to give).
But I think they were predisposed to love the EU because they associated Euroscepticism with the Tories, as much as for any other reason. They shifted with Labour at the end of the 80s.
The UK doesn't have any problems to which Brexit is the answer.
Except one: a segment of the political class that was never reconciled to membership of the EU and regarded it as illegitimate.
The starting assumption was that Brexit resolves this by letting them have their way, but alternatively this could all just be a process of giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
I think what links Eden and Blair, but not Cameron, was their dishonesty over their respective fiascos. I think Blair was a good prime minister apart from Iraq and possibly Eden was good apart from Suez. But it is irrelevant. Those PMs are defined by Iraq and Suez.
Although Suez was a shock, perhaps something like that was almost inevitable for a country that hadn't come to terms with the loss of its empire and worldwide influence. Arguably the UK did better than France with its tottering Fourth Republic and intractable wars in North Africa and Indochina.
I suspect Brexit will have a greater long term impact than either Suez or Iraq. Not because it will be a clear disaster but because it won't resolve anything. The UK doesn't have any problems to which Brexit is the answer. It's going to be a huge distraction.
Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
What is the source for the 7 % figure?
The UK Universities were huge gainers from the EU. They were very successful in extracting research & development monies (one of the consequences of tuition fees, in fact, the UK universities are much better resourced than stay the French).
So, I suspect that will have skewed the figure for 2017.
If they were grateful for tuition fees, they would have voted Tory (unless of course they realised it was a Labour policy the Coalition adopted, which most of them probably didn't).
In fact they hate them because it makes the students much more demanding and often quite unreasonably so (I had a really nasty argument in my last year of lecturing with a student who couldn't accept a dreadful result merely because his essay was awful, and it was awful because he had done no work including turning up for no seminars or lectures - he got very aggressive demanding a first, which I wasn't going to give).
But I think they were predisposed to love the EU because they associated Euroscepticism with the Tories, as much as for any other reason. They shifted with Labour at the end of the 80s.
What happened to the guy who thought he deserved at First and sued Oxford Uni because he said that the teaching was so poor he didn’t get one?
According to the same poll 89% of workers in tertiary education voted Remain. They are voting for their wallets; nothing unreasonable about that!
Have figures ever been published about the loss to the taxpayer from EU students borrowing from the SLC, returning to their home countries and never repaying?
Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
What is the source for the 7 % figure?
The UK Universities were huge gainers from the EU. They were very successful in extracting research & development monies (one of the consequences of tuition fees, in fact, the UK universities are much better resourced than stay the French).
So, I suspect that will have skewed the figure for 2017.
If they were grateful for tuition fees, they would have voted Tory (unless of course they realised it was a Labour policy the Coalition adopted, which most of them probably didn't).
In fact they hate them because it makes the students much more demanding and often quite unreasonably so (I had a really nasty argument in my last year of lecturing with a student who couldn't accept a dreadful result merely because his essay was awful, and it was awful because he had done no work including turning up for no seminars or lectures - he got very aggressive demanding a first, which I wasn't going to give).
But I think they were predisposed to love the EU because they associated Euroscepticism with the Tories, as much as for any other reason. They shifted with Labour at the end of the 80s.
What happened to the guy who thought he deserved at First and sued Oxford Uni because he said that the teaching was so poor he didn’t get one?
If the judge was at Cambridge, he was doubtless asked, 'well, what the hell did you expect from Oxford?'
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
May won 42% at the last general election, your heroine Sturgeon 37%. Cameron got 48% in his referendum, Salmond 45% in his
Now now, you know what the Nats are like with numbers...
Ha Ha Ha , Tories desperation is palpable.
'Stoopid Natz, they wun more seats than all the Yoonionist parties put together and think they be the winners. Madness!'
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
That's a moot point - you appear to judge him purely on the Suez fiasco. Eden had been a very substantial figure for 20 years or more prior to that. Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Nah its either Cameron or Eden that claim that special ignominy . Both forced to resign after total collapse of foreign policy.
Blair must be the least popular of current living politicians?
Don't see a constituency he wins, which is quite something.
It's current fashion. Thatcher was similarly unpopular after leaving office. The British have a weird relationship with successful pols. Losers receive more affection.
Blair is condemed by people because they beieve he lied about WMD not for the actual war. If WMD had been found I afraid the majority would not be too worried by the civilian casualties
It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
The Conservative government needs to fool just enough people for long enough about Brexit to carry them through the next election. I suspect they will struggle, but we will see.
According to the same poll 89% of workers in tertiary education voted Remain. They are voting for their wallets; nothing unreasonable about that!
Have figures ever been published about the loss to the taxpayer from EU students borrowing from the SLC, returning to their home countries and never repaying?
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
"14 years on, where’s Iraq’s democracy? The invasion failed to introduce the democracy, freedom and liberty."
And from that article, "In the first three years after the invasion, a British medical publication, the Lancet, recorded that 654,965 Iraqis had lost their lives by June 2006 as a direct consequence of the invasion." High price for a couple of rigged elections.
Iraq now has a democratically elected government not a dictator and Saddam killed hundreds of thousands himself
North Korea has elections every five years, and so "tit for tat" is never a great argument.
Even Saddam held elections where he and his Baath Party won 99% of the vote and the other 1% were shot, rather different from the multiparty Iraqi democracy there is today as you well know
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see Syria
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initially
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
Was it revealed who was spinning against Boris the last few days?
It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see Syria
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initially
You implied that Iraq was more dangerous for visitors under Saddam than now. I disagreed. And still do. Anyway it’s not the government that poses a threat to tourists or academics; it’s the prevailaing lawlessness and sectarian violence which is the problem. And IIRC ISIS arose in Iraq, in the chaos after the invasion, and migrated to Syria after the rising against Assad.
No doubt someone has pointed out the Blair scenario when a fixed departure date resulted in the loss of power and respect. I really doubt she wants to fight an election again but she clearly does not want to be a powerless figurehead either.
She may not be a quitter but she is absolutely useless as a campaigning politician, truly spectacularly bad. I do not believe that the Tory party would want to risk another zombie campaign with May dodging debates, dodging the public, dodging questions and interviews and saying as little as possible. It may have worked in the Home Office but it does not work for a PM.
Playinf devil's advocate here (no I'm not saying Mrs May is a devil), I suppose she would say that it was an agreed strategy - avoid contact to (a) prevent the risk of casual errors spoiling the Tory competence lead at the time and (b) maximise exposure of Corbyn, who would no doubt be a terrible campaigner and alienate most voters. She'd argue that in a new election they would have a new strategy, and she'd be happy to engage, debate, etc.
I do think its true that the wildly inaccurate polling and general narrative meant that the Tories went for a no risk election campaign (although it is hard to reconcile this with a radical manifesto) where they wanted as little as possible to happen. I also think it is fair to say that this may not have been all May's fault. But when May was in the Home Office the BBC pretty much stopped interviewing her because she was very skilled at saying nothing at all. Worked there, disaster as leader.
The attacks on Corbyn were also very badly directed. He was attacked for sucking up to the IRA 30+ years ago rather than having a completely ridiculous fantasy platform in 2017. It turns out for all the sound and fury on here and in the press people were not much interested in the former and he got pretty much a free pass for the latter. This was greatly aided by May's reluctance to let her Chancellor campaign or have any kind of profile.
BTW when we are training for the bar in Scotland we are called Devils and I had the delights of a devil mistress helping me. She was great if not quite as exciting as that might sound!
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
The race to succeed May will almost certainly come down to Boris v Davis with those 2 being sent to the membership, pre March 2019 Davis would likely win but post March 2019 Boris has an excellent chance of winning
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
I don't think the situation has changed.
Theresa is there until March 2019 but virtue of nobody else wanting to do the job during Brexit negotiations.
After Brexit is signed the men in grey suits will call... Theresa will have the choice to stand down on her own terms in the Summer of 2019 or she'll face a bloody leadership coup in the Autumn.
One way or another she won't be leading the party into the 2022 election.
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see Syria
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initially
You implied that Iraq was more dangerous for visitors under Saddam than now. I disagreed. And still do. Anyway it’s not the government that poses a threat to tourists or academics; it’s the prevailaing lawlessness and sectarian violence which is the problem. And IIRC ISIS arose in Iraq, in the chaos after the invasion, and migrated to Syria after the rising against Assad.
It was failure to intervene in Syria which arguably really allowed ISIS to take off
It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.
Michael Howard was being interviewed this am by Peter Hennessy & was asked about this very moment. He said he told her that he'd die in a ditch with her but that she was likely to lose a second vote.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.
I agree, but on the other hand Iraq was behaving as if it had such weapons, it had used them in the past against its own civilians and another country (Iran), and had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait). Its treatment of the weapons inspectors was also highly suggestive.
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
If Theresa May goes for "Sack me or back me" it will be on the basis that she is bad but the others are even worse. It would be a desperate and likely humiliating throw of the dice for her. But if she doesn't care, she might just carry the argument.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.
Not, legend, but fact. See the autobiographies of both Thatcher and Ken Clarke himself.
Clarke said Thatcher running in the second round was like the charge of the light brigade, C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre, c'est de la folie.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?
She won the most votes, but didn't win by the 15% margin the rules demanded, so that's why there was the need for a second round.
She intended to stand for the second round, but met her cabinet individually on the Wednesda night, and announced her resignation the next morning.
It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.
I agree, but on the other hand Iraq was behaving as if it had such weapons, it had used them in the past against its own civilians and another country (Iran), and had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait). Its treatment of the weapons inspectors was also highly suggestive.
But the point of Blix was that we didn't have to do anything on the basis of "highly suggestive" behaviour on the part of Iraq. It was like a doctor deciding to operate on the basis of patient-described symptoms and not bothering with perfectly good MRI and CT scanners which were at his disposal.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
Shapps is a daft sod. Either take a leader down or line up behind them. I said this when there was endless muttering about Brown. If you badmouth a leader without removing them you weaken both the leader and your own party. It's stupid.
Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
I don't think Suez has much relevance to the troubles of today's Conservative Party.
It is truer to say that totemic military defeats for the UK tend to have big strategic implications - Saratoga, Yorktown, retreat from Kabul, Singapore and Suez - because whilst we have a modest global strike capability we've never really had the mass, resources, or resilience in depth to fire the bolt more than once.
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
Shapps is a daft sod. Either take a leader down or line up behind them. I said this when there was endless muttering about Brown. If you badmouth a leader without removing them you weaken both the leader and your own party. It's stupid.
Grant Shapps is the only Tory Chairman* to have overseen a Tory majority in the last 25 years, he knows his stuff, he's not stupid.
*Well he was Co-Chairman, alongside Andrew Feldman, but my point still stands.
"In none of these scenarios – none – is the Tory party (its senior ministers, MPs and leading activists) going to risk going through the “strong and stable” experience again. It was a Wizard of Oz gets the curtain pulled back moment. It was just horrible for them, and anyone with human feelings, to watch. The Tory tribe will not be risking that again."
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
"In none of these scenarios – none – is the Tory party (its senior ministers, MPs and leading activists) going to risk going through the “strong and stable” experience again.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?
That's right - she saw the writing on the wall. But she didn't have to. Corbyn also faced down his MPs with notable success.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...
Wasn't he (probbaly) in the early stages of Dementia when he resigned though? One wonders how "willingly" he gave up over the realization that something wasn't "right" with his mind?
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.
As a conservative party member I am content for her to see through Brexit but the strengths she does have are compromised by her awkward way at communicating.
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.
I agree, but on the other hand Iraq was behaving as if it had such weapons, it had used them in the past against its own civilians and another country (Iran), and had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait). Its treatment of the weapons inspectors was also highly suggestive.
But the point of Blix was that we didn't have to do anything on the basis of "highly suggestive" behaviour on the part of Iraq. It was like a doctor deciding to operate on the basis of patient-described symptoms and not bothering with perfectly good MRI and CT scanners which were at his disposal.
This is key. It wasn't sufficient that Iraq needed dealing with. Tony Blair had to make the case that we had no choice but to invade Iraq NOW. Blix and Chirac wanted more time for inspections; Bush who wasn't bothered about niceties of international law was going to go ahead regardless. Blair was stuck in the middle without a UN resolution or any legal cover, so he fabricated it.
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.
Not, legend, but fact. See the autobiographies of both Thatcher and Ken Clarke himself.
Clarke said Thatcher running in the second round was like the charge of the light brigade, C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre, c'est de la folie.
I think Ken had said that he would have resigned and publicly opposed her if she had stood in Round II.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.
No I mean nobody believes the Tories will let her fight another general election.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.
No I mean nobody believes the Tories will let her fight another general election.
Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
I don't think Suez has much relevance to the troubles of today's Conservative Party.
It is truer to say that totemic military defeats for the UK tend to have big strategic implications - Saratoga, Yorktown, retreat from Kabul, Singapore and Suez - because whilst we have a modest global strike capability we've never really had the mass, resources, or resilience in depth to fire the bolt more than once.
The reason Suez is so much more emblematic of the collapse of British prestige was (like Iraq) the mendacity of the whole affair. On both occasions there were significant division in the country, and hence the parallels with Brexit.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.
As a conservative party member I am content for her to see through Brexit but the strengths she does have are compromised by her awkward way at communicating.
She will not take us into the next election
If she does, regardless of success or failure in Brexit negotiations, the Tory party will not form the subsequent government.
I don't imagine he was happy with the circumstances of his departure but it looked like Cameron was genuinely intending to stand down some time after winning the EU referendum, presumably hoping that his friend George Osborne would take over.
Wasn't he (probbaly) in the early stages of Dementia when he resigned though? One wonders how "willingly" he gave up over the realization that something wasn't "right" with his mind?
At least he had the sense to realise it. Or maybe Mary told him.
Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.
The worst PM ever was Anthony Eden
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMs
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the country
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see Syria
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initially
You implied that Iraq was more dangerous for visitors under Saddam than now. I disagreed. And still do. Anyway it’s not the government that poses a threat to tourists or academics; it’s the prevailaing lawlessness and sectarian violence which is the problem. And IIRC ISIS arose in Iraq, in the chaos after the invasion, and migrated to Syria after the rising against Assad.
It was failure to intervene in Syria which arguably really allowed ISIS to take off
That’s a different issue and one where I could be persauded to agree with you.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
To be fair you have been consistent in that.
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
I don't imagine he was happy with the circumstances of his departure but it looked like Cameron was genuinely intending to stand down some time after winning the EU referendum, presumably hoping that his friend George Osborne would take over.
Had Dave won the EURef he would have announced his resignation in the summer of 2019, and allowed a new leader to be in place for the Tory conference in 2019.
Wasn't he (probbaly) in the early stages of Dementia when he resigned though? One wonders how "willingly" he gave up over the realization that something wasn't "right" with his mind?
I happen to have been flicking through Wilson's autobiography the last few days. He says in there that he had decided, as soon as Labour were returned to office in March 74, to retire within two years time. Ideally he hoped to go earlier.
Within a few months he had settled on a date around his 60th birthday (11th March 76). He told the Queen his plans in September 75 at Balmoral.
He was worried all through the final week that something would happen that would mean a need to postpone the public announcement (e.g. another Sterling crisis).
He made a statement to Cabinet on resignation - gave 4 reasons. The first being that he had been at the top for a very long time. No indications of whether this was a worry about health.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
You have long been wrong, then. In the recent ICM poll 41% said 10 bn was acceptable, up from 15% in June. That's a massive jump. As was pointed out at the time you can manipulate the answers to these questions quite easily by how you frame the question, and as Jonathan Portes said in last night's very good podcast, he is a professional economist and a sum like 30bn is so big as to be meaningless to him, so what chance do the general public have of assessing it? Everyone who has ever moved house or changed job or got divorced knows that you need a final accounting, and will accept the end result provided it is a final accounting transaction, rather than taking the piss.
Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
I don't think Suez has much relevance to the troubles of today's Conservative Party.
It is truer to say that totemic military defeats for the UK tend to have big strategic implications - Saratoga, Yorktown, retreat from Kabul, Singapore and Suez - because whilst we have a modest global strike capability we've never really had the mass, resources, or resilience in depth to fire the bolt more than once.
The reason Suez is so much more emblematic of the collapse of British prestige was (like Iraq) the mendacity of the whole affair. On both occasions there were significant division in the country, and hence the parallels with Brexit.
I think that, right now, a certain type of Remainer wants to make any and every kind of historical event a parallel with Brexit.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
To be fair you have been consistent in that.
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.
The problem with Blair was that he wanted them to have WMDs. So he only looked for evidence that they did. He wanted to invade and that was the best excuse.
A scientific or logical discussion was never going to be on the table. It's called politics.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
Perhaps naively I disagree.
If the 'Bill' is simply presented as - we are going to carry on paying to be in the EU during the transition phase - because we basically are in the EU during that period, then I think that could be acceptable to the British public. If it's handled well.
Planning for a WTO Brexit is a must and I assume is actually happening behind the scenes.
I don't imagine he was happy with the circumstances of his departure but it looked like Cameron was genuinely intending to stand down some time after winning the EU referendum, presumably hoping that his friend George Osborne would take over.
Had Dave won the EURef he would have announced his resignation in the summer of 2019, and allowed a new leader to be in place for the Tory conference in 2019.
If the Remain win had been as close as the Leave win was in reality, would Boris have tried to seize the crown on a Brexit - one more heave mandate?
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
The default is WTO for a number of reasons.
1 The divorce bill
2 Time allotted to complete the negotiations is probably insufficient
3 It is the logical conclusion from the EU perspective for an ex member not to have access (obvious or immediate) to single market / customs union
4 It is a clear break and unarguable fact that we have left the EU, so politically it fulfills the 'We have followed through your wishes and left as instructed by the referendum' for UK eurosceptics
5 It shows there is a detriment in the outcome of leaving to other nations who may consider abandoning the EU
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have some confidence that we will agree the bill, but it will be very messy. Not agreeing the bill means Brexit failure and I don't think Leavers, or indeed Remainers, want that when it comes to it. But as we are repeating ourselves we will have to wait and see.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
There are two good outcomes from GE2017.
One, it's set back Scottish nationalism by several years and kicked indyref2 into the long grass. Two, it's bought another 2 years (just - but the numbers should be good enough to keep the Tories in office) for Brexit to bed in prior to the next election.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
To be fair you have been consistent in that.
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.
The public will as well and maybe you could review reasonable in the context of Junckers et al
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.
To be fair you have been consistent in that.
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.
From recent press coverage it appears the other way round.
Initially I was skeptical of the UK capabilities.
However it appears that by putting themselves in the position whereby the only acceptable UK response appears to be to agree with the EU position, the EU look and are in a weaker position than at the start of the progress.
The EU have sent facilitators and implementers to a negotiation. That is akin to sending a knife to a gunfight.
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
There are two good outcomes from GE2017.
One, it's set back Scottish nationalism by several years and kicked indyref2 into the long grass. Two, it's bought another 2 years (just - but the numbers should be good enough to keep the Tories in office) for Brexit to bed in prior to the next election.
The second point is not necessarily a good thing from the Tory point of view - two years being enough time to start showing some economic consequences... which is why many seem to expect a snap election post Brexit.
One thing the election apparently didn't do for May was to demonstrate that nemesis is a cure for repeated hubris...
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
There are two good outcomes from GE2017.
One, it's set back Scottish nationalism by several years and kicked indyref2 into the long grass. Two, it's bought another 2 years (just - but the numbers should be good enough to keep the Tories in office) for Brexit to bed in prior to the next election.
Three, it has exposed Corbyn as a political danger. It is so hard to filter out hindsight, but without GE2017 we would still now be laughing our socks off at the thought of a Corbyn government, and TMay and her doorkeepers would still think they had a free GE in the bank which they could deploy when things got tough, and Corbyn might have won it.
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
Comments
Not that I want to defend the Iraq war, but that is my hazy recollection.
Although Suez was a shock, perhaps something like that was almost inevitable for a country that hadn't come to terms with the loss of its empire and worldwide influence. Arguably the UK did better than France with its tottering Fourth Republic and intractable wars in North Africa and Indochina.
I suspect Brexit will have a greater long term impact than either Suez or Iraq. Not because it will be a clear disaster but because it won't resolve anything. The UK doesn't have any problems to which Brexit is the answer. It's going to be a huge distraction.
In fact they hate them because it makes the students much more demanding and often quite unreasonably so (I had a really nasty argument in my last year of lecturing with a student who couldn't accept a dreadful result merely because his essay was awful, and it was awful because he had done no work including turning up for no seminars or lectures - he got very aggressive demanding a first, which I wasn't going to give).
But I think they were predisposed to love the EU because they associated Euroscepticism with the Tories, as much as for any other reason. They shifted with Labour at the end of the 80s.
The starting assumption was that Brexit resolves this by letting them have their way, but alternatively this could all just be a process of giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Also, my suspicion is Labour will slide towards that (retaining membership) as a long-term position.
2017 4/1
2018 5/2
2019 6/4
2020 or later 7/2
Have figures ever been published about the loss to the taxpayer from EU students borrowing from the SLC, returning to their home countries and never repaying?
The Conservative government needs to fool just enough people for long enough about Brexit to carry them through the next election. I suspect they will struggle, but we will see.
Incidentally in the one piece of correspondence I had with him, O'Connor was unaware that July is the month before August. Go figure.
If she wins 160 to 158 then she's like a Turkish conscript.
Although they do have course have to show enjoyment to prove their reluctance...
I have to go. I have a good morning!
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.
And IIRC ISIS arose in Iraq, in the chaos after the invasion, and migrated to Syria after the rising against Assad.
The attacks on Corbyn were also very badly directed. He was attacked for sucking up to the IRA 30+ years ago rather than having a completely ridiculous fantasy platform in 2017. It turns out for all the sound and fury on here and in the press people were not much interested in the former and he got pretty much a free pass for the latter. This was greatly aided by May's reluctance to let her Chancellor campaign or have any kind of profile.
BTW when we are training for the bar in Scotland we are called Devils and I had the delights of a devil mistress helping me. She was great if not quite as exciting as that might sound!
Theresa is there until March 2019 but virtue of nobody else wanting to do the job during Brexit negotiations.
After Brexit is signed the men in grey suits will call... Theresa will have the choice to stand down on her own terms in the Summer of 2019 or she'll face a bloody leadership coup in the Autumn.
One way or another she won't be leading the party into the 2022 election.
The figures I am googling seem much lower.
There also seems to be an anti-government effect perhaps...
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/02/teachers-vote-labour-lead-41/
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/jan/15/teachers-voting-labour-conservatives
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-teachers-vote-shifting-dramatically-towards-labour (not really a poll I think but does show a Labour shift)
Clarke said Thatcher running in the second round was like the charge of the light brigade, C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre, c'est de la folie.
She intended to stand for the second round, but met her cabinet individually on the Wednesda night, and announced her resignation the next morning.
But, perhaps they just keep their mouths shut.
TINA credible Brexiteer...
https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/903188826868338688
It is truer to say that totemic military defeats for the UK tend to have big strategic implications - Saratoga, Yorktown, retreat from Kabul, Singapore and Suez - because whilst we have a modest global strike capability we've never really had the mass, resources, or resilience in depth to fire the bolt more than once.
Michael Green on the other hand...
*Well he was Co-Chairman, alongside Andrew Feldman, but my point still stands.
https://reaction.life/will-theresa-may-fight-next-general-election-tory-leader/
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
Wilson?
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/903169653463285762
As a conservative party member I am content for her to see through Brexit but the strengths she does have are compromised by her awkward way at communicating.
She will not take us into the next election
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
Within a few months he had settled on a date around his 60th birthday (11th March 76). He told the Queen his plans in September 75 at Balmoral.
He was worried all through the final week that something would happen that would mean a need to postpone the public announcement (e.g. another Sterling crisis).
He made a statement to Cabinet on resignation - gave 4 reasons. The first being that he had been at the top for a very long time. No indications of whether this was a worry about health.
A scientific or logical discussion was never going to be on the table. It's called politics.
If the 'Bill' is simply presented as - we are going to carry on paying to be in the EU during the transition phase - because we basically are in the EU during that period, then I think that could be acceptable to the British public. If it's handled well.
Planning for a WTO Brexit is a must and I assume is actually happening behind the scenes.
1 The divorce bill
2 Time allotted to complete the negotiations is probably insufficient
3 It is the logical conclusion from the EU perspective for an ex member not to have access (obvious or immediate) to single market / customs union
4 It is a clear break and unarguable fact that we have left the EU, so politically it fulfills the 'We have followed through your wishes and left as instructed by the referendum' for UK eurosceptics
5 It shows there is a detriment in the outcome of leaving to other nations who may consider abandoning the EU
6 Feel free to add more
One, it's set back Scottish nationalism by several years and kicked indyref2 into the long grass. Two, it's bought another 2 years (just - but the numbers should be good enough to keep the Tories in office) for Brexit to bed in prior to the next election.
Sir Nick Harvey appointed interim CEO of the Liberal Democrats
"the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.."
They will, and the Remain press will blame the UK government. They already are doing so.
Who do you trust most? Anyone in the UK negotiating team, or Juncker? Trebles all round as Private Eye would say
major?
And now I’ve a hospital appointment. So I’m off.
Initially I was skeptical of the UK capabilities.
However it appears that by putting themselves in the position whereby the only acceptable UK response appears to be to agree with the EU position, the EU look and are in a weaker position than at the start of the progress.
The EU have sent facilitators and implementers to a negotiation. That is akin to sending a knife to a gunfight.
One thing the election apparently didn't do for May was to demonstrate that nemesis is a cure for repeated hubris...
And four, change of doorkeepers.