Henry Bolton comes over very well. You can see he is someone who talks with authority and is going to become quite a voice on Brexit. After all he is an ex Lib Dem, ex Army and Police, and has an OBE for services to international security.
I do not think UKIP opponents should dismiss him. He will be a new articulate voice for Brexit.
He may attract some conservatives (not me) but I think labour will lose more, particularly in the North, as he makes his case for Brexit
The vision thing, and the style of delivery is important, but so too is the ability to campaign. Compared to 2015, The Tories seem to have been less competent in 2017 at using Social Media and reaching voters. Labour were outspent and outflanked 2 years ago.
The Conservatives stand for social stability, moderation, credible economics, patriotism, the Union, valuing our shared inheritance, believing in gradual reform rather than radical change, and that strong societies are built from the bottom-up not the top-down.
It is more of an attitude than a philosophy, but it's one rooted in reality that is shared by millions of people.
Almost by definition, to be successful, it has to both gain and stay in power as much as possible.
Almost by definition, Brexit is fundamentally in opposition to almost all of those principles.
The Conservatives stand for social stability, moderation, credible economics, patriotism, the Union, valuing our shared inheritance, believing in gradual reform rather than radical change, and that strong societies are built from the bottom-up not the top-down.
It is more of an attitude than a philosophy, but it's one rooted in reality that is shared by millions of people.
Almost by definition, to be successful, it has to both gain and stay in power as much as possible.
Almost by definition, Brexit is fundamentally in opposition to almost all of those principles.
I *knew* you were going to say that: as I wrote it, as I finished it and before I clicked the "post comment" button.
Henry Bolton comes over very well. You can see he is someone who talks with authority and is going to become quite a voice on Brexit. After all he is an ex Lib Dem, ex Army and Police, and has an OBE for services to international security.
I do not think UKIP opponents should dismiss him. He will be a new articulate voice for Brexit.
He may attract some conservatives (not me) but I think labour will lose more, particularly in the North, as he makes his case for Brexit
He was very good on the radio this morning. He answered all the questions, he didn't waffle, he wasn't trying to push any soundbites, he does not sound like a crank, and has a background that will make it very hard for opponents to attack him.
I will be quite surprised if the Tories don't lose support to UKIP with someone like Bolton in charge. Tories should really be asking themselves why he is a Kipper and not one of them.
The vision thing, and the style of delivery is important, but so too is the ability to campaign. Compared to 2015, The Tories seem to have been less competent in 2017 at using Social Media and reaching voters. Labour were outspent and outflanked 2 years ago.
The DNVs, the UKIP NOTA contingent, and Labour No More voters aren't a rich pool to fish in for the Tories.
It's the Remain Tories who voted for Cameron in GE2015 (but not for May in GE2017) that need to be brought back on board, whilst retaining everyone else.
The really big problem that the Conservatives have to face is: what precisely do they stand for? And the answer is a contradiction.
Mr Herdson talks easily about "One Nation Conservatism" - but that was only an attempt 150 years ago to pass themselves off more or less as Liberals. This discourse sits uncomfortably with the project of real hard-line Tories, both in what they say, what they do, and what they try to do. The real Conservative project is to enhance the wealth and power of those who already have more than enough of these, and to do down everybody else, whom they naturally despise.
Soft words will not be enough to win voters back to the Tory cause. It transpires that the Liberal Democrats have already overtaken the Conservatives in terms of membership. And the Lib Dems not only have the more appealing image, but also a demonstrable record in government, though this has been sabotaged in recent months by Mrs May`s government.
The Conservative Party has come to a crossroads, It is time for it to split. I think I know which wing Mr Herdson belongs to. It is the more Liberal wing. He and others like him should dissociate themselves from the hard-liners. They will, I think, be happier when they do.
I suspect David would belong to the Whiggish part of the party than the Liberal one.
The really big problem that the Conservatives have to face is: what precisely do they stand for? And the answer is a contradiction.
Mr Herdson talks easily about "One Nation Conservatism" - but that was only an attempt 150 years ago to pass themselves off more or less as Liberals. This discourse sits uncomfortably with the project of real hard-line Tories, both in what they say, what they do, and what they try to do. The real Conservative project is to enhance the wealth and power of those who already have more than enough of these, and to do down everybody else, whom they naturally despise.
Soft words will not be enough to win voters back to the Tory cause. It transpires that the Liberal Democrats have already overtaken the Conservatives in terms of membership. And the Lib Dems not only have the more appealing image, but also a demonstrable record in government, though this has been sabotaged in recent months by Mrs May`s government.
The Conservative Party has come to a crossroads, It is time for it to split. I think I know which wing Mr Herdson belongs to. It is the more Liberal wing. He and others like him should dissociate themselves from the hard-liners. They will, I think, be happier when they do.
I suspect David would belong to the Whiggish part of the party than the Liberal one.
Doesn't make any sense. No other nations have global influence other than superpowers?
It's bullshit.
Britain's influence comes from working within multinational structures and agreements, where it can push the debate in directions it wants in alliance with other countries. The prime example of that kind of multinational structure is the EU. So the White Official is right, Brexit will lead to a loss of the large part of the UK's remaining influence. The Article 50 talks demonstrate that already.
Maybe it doesn't matter. Lots of countries are happy places without worrying about not having influence. The danger is that we think we have a lot more influence than we do. Again Brexit demonstrates that.
2 years and millions of pounds and the best they have is they might have interviewed him were he alive? I hope they learned some lessons about other people, institutional and procedural issues.
I note the wrote up says the threshold for reason to suspect is low. It also demonstrate the officers were using the discredited and logically absurd method of referring g to complainant as victims and treating things as true unless something contradicted it, which the excellent report from Sir Richard Henriques tore apart.
Come on - the Tories can be wrong and misguided, without having forgotten human decency. Good people do not all see the world in the same way.
I go on their actions. Let's take the treatment of the disabled as prime example. The policy of persecuting disabled people is directly stripping people of their basic dignity. A system where all the evidence demonstrates that non-medically trained contractors carry out "assessments", Dec Are people fit to hit their quota, the disabled person loses not only money but in many cases their car, wheelchair, carer - leaving many unable to leave the house or even be clean - and then the disabled people win their appeals at absurd rates approaching 90%.
Not only does all of this cost the taxpayer money - as all the withheld monies are returned and the equipment bought again AND the legal fees AND paying the idiots doing the assessments - it seems explicitly designed to treat the disabled as an example to fuel their patron's campaign to demononise everyone of welfare benefits who isn't a pensioner
So yes. Tories have forgotten human dignity. They choose to ignore these outrages. They don't need to, a change of policy to something humane is all that's needed. I used to blame that evil bastard Duncan Smith. Yet the policy continues and he has gone. Must be his party then.
May I suggest, Sir, that you ar somewhat misinformed... quoting from a Guardian article on the Green Paper that initiated what you describe above:
The green paper, A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work, will end rising payments according to time claimed for those on incapacity benefit, which the government calls "perverse".
A unit will be set up to check on people claiming incapacity benefit to make sure they were still ill and new medical evidence will be required.
... from a Labour Government, the same one that shut Remploy factories leading to the formerly active disabled sat at home...
Doesn't make any sense. No other nations have global influence other than superpowers?
It's bullshit.
Britain's influence comes from working within multinational structures and agreements, where it can push the debate in directions it wants in alliance with other countries. The prime example of that kind of multinational structure is the EU. So the White Official is right, Brexit will lead to a loss of the large part of the UK's remaining influence. The Article 50 talks demonstrate that already.
Maybe it doesn't matter. Lots of countries are happy places without worrying about not having influence. The danger is that we think we have a lot more influence than we do. Again Brexit demonstrates that.
Perhaps we do think that, perhaps we don't - frankly I hear a lot more from people saying we think we are more important than we are than I do from people who actually say we are super important.
Regardless, the bullshit was the description of the coffin lid closing. Loss of some influence as a result of leaving the EU (which seems quite probable) is not the same as having none, of being dead, that is a load of piffle, and immediately puts any other statements in question.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
He's certainly begging to be fired. Possibly he doesn't think he can takeover right now, or doesn't want to, so wants to be on the outside during the early periods of the EU negotiations so he can ride to the rescue later saying 'that shambles was nothing to with me guvnor.'
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
Morning all,
Yes, I think you are right. Get rid and see what happens. She has little left to lose.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
Use the cover of a more general Autumn reshuffle in a couple of weeks, both to move Boris out of the way (offer him Party Chairman?) and move up some promising MPs from the younger generation to Ministerial and Cabinet positions.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
Use the cover of a more general Autumn reshuffle in a couple of weeks, both to move Boris out of the way (offer him Party Chairman?) and move up some promising MPs from the younger generation to Ministerial and Cabinet positions.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
2 years and millions of pounds and the best they have is they might have interviewed him were he alive? I hope they learned some lessons about other people, institutional and procedural issues.
I note the wrote up says the threshold for reason to suspect is low. It also demonstrate the officers were using the discredited and logically absurd method of referring g to complainant as victims and treating things as true unless something contradicted it, which the excellent report from Sir Richard Henriques tore apart.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
Does he have enough backbench support though? That is the question.
Come on - the Tories can be wrong and misguided, without having forgotten human decency. Good people do not all see the world in the same way.
I go on their actions. Let's take the treatment of the disabled as prime example. The policy of persecuting disabled people is directly stripping people of their basic dignity. A system where all the evidence demonstrates that non-medically trained contractors carry out "assessments", Dec Are people fit to hit their quota, the disabled person loses not only money but in many cases their car, wheelchair, carer - leaving many unable to leave the house or even be clean - and then the disabled people win their appeals at absurd rates approaching 90%.
Not only does all of this cost the taxpayer money - as all the withheld monies are returned and the equipment bought again AND the legal fees AND paying the idiots doing the assessments - it seems explicitly designed to treat the disabled as an example to fuel their patron's campaign to demononise everyone of welfare benefits who isn't a pensioner
So yes. Tories have forgotten human dignity. They choose to ignore these outrages. They don't need to, a change of policy to something humane is all that's needed. I used to blame that evil bastard Duncan Smith. Yet the policy continues and he has gone. Must be his party then.
If we apply that standard, Labour tolerates a leader who surrounds himself with apologists for Stalinism, Maoism and even North Korea. What is decent about offering decades of support to an organisation that murdered countless innocent people and various regimes that lock up or kill their political opponents?
I'm not Corbynista as you know. But aside from the apples and pears comparison it's an interesting deflection away from the issue - I could throw in Tory support for Pinochet and our current ear in Yemen on the Tories side.
Irrelevant. When the vast majority of disabled people win their appeals and we pay the cost the policy is patently stupid. It's degrading. It's inhuman. Yet they continue it. Why? Unless they are actually amoral all I could think is that they are blinded by ideology - if we are very firm the person with crippling chronic condtions might suddenly become a functioning person who an employer will pay so we dont have to
The underlying philosophy that state support should be limited to those who need it is not inhumane. What you are describing is a problem of implementation (or maybe a failure of imagination in designing a new system) not one of philosophy
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
He may have enough support to trigger a VoNC. Whether he has enough support to trigger a leadership election is a whole different question.
2 years and millions of pounds and the best they have is they might have interviewed him were he alive? I hope they learned some lessons about other people, institutional and procedural issues.
I note the wrote up says the threshold for reason to suspect is low. It also demonstrate the officers were using the discredited and logically absurd method of referring g to complainant as victims and treating things as true unless something contradicted it, which the excellent report from Sir Richard Henriques tore apart.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
Use the cover of a more general Autumn reshuffle in a couple of weeks, both to move Boris out of the way (offer him Party Chairman?) and move up some promising MPs from the younger generation to Ministerial and Cabinet positions.
I think that is coming. Patrick McLoughlin wants to stand down and she needs new blood. To appease the right she could promote Jacob Rees Mogg
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
Use the cover of a more general Autumn reshuffle in a couple of weeks, both to move Boris out of the way (offer him Party Chairman?) and move up some promising MPs from the younger generation to Ministerial and Cabinet positions.
Which other of the old guard to be moved?
That's the more difficult question. I'd imagine there's a couple who'd be happy for a kick upstairs at the next election, in exchange for supporting the PM through Brexit from the backbenches to allow the new blood through.
Thanks as always to David for his thoughtful piece. My initial thought is Conservatives don't have a monopoly on aspiration. You can want better public services, safer communities and the like and Corbyn's rhetoric will give you that.
It's not so much the end but the means that divides. Conservatives, in very simplistic terms, see the advancement of society led by individuals and families and that feeding through to communities and society in general. Labour sees the reverse - the improvement of communities led by the State enriches individuals and families.
Both have merit and both have flaws. The problem at the moment is many feel that, for all their hard work, they are not seeing any improvement either in their personal circumstances or in the wider societal framework. The attractiveness of the Corbyn argument, and to be fair May has not been averse to a bit of old-fashioned corporatism, is that the State is that which empowers and provides and that isn't helpful or sustainable.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
He may have enough support to trigger a VoNC. Whether he has enough support to trigger a leadership election is a whole different question.
From no confidence to leadership election is a very short step given the number of other senior figures who aspire to Number 10 -- how will David Davis, Gove and Hammond advise their supporters?
The really big problem that the Conservatives have to face is: what precisely do they stand for? And the answer is a contradiction.
Mr Herdson talks easily about "One Nation Conservatism" - but that was only an attempt 150 years ago to pass themselves off more or less as Liberals. This discourse sits uncomfortably with the project of real hard-line Tories, both in what they say, what they do, and what they try to do. The real Conservative project is to enhance the wealth and power of those who already have more than enough of these, and to do down everybody else, whom they naturally despise.
Soft words will not be enough to win voters back to the Tory cause. It transpires that the Liberal Democrats have already overtaken the Conservatives in terms of membership. And the Lib Dems not only have the more appealing image, but also a demonstrable record in government, though this has been sabotaged in recent months by Mrs May`s government.
The Conservative Party has come to a crossroads, It is time for it to split. I think I know which wing Mr Herdson belongs to. It is the more Liberal wing. He and others like him should dissociate themselves from the hard-liners. They will, I think, be happier when they do.
I suspect David would belong to the Whiggish part of the party than the Liberal one.
The Conservative Party isn't going to split.
Of course it won't. I was just picking up on the fact that @pclipp doesn't understand the word Liberal
To win next time the Tories need a more charismatic leader, to build more homes but ideally not all in green belt areas and to reduce student loan interest fees, raise the threshold for repayment and reduce fees for subjects with lower earnings premiums and they also need to ensure the dementia tax is scrapped while keeping the IHT cut. Essentially reverse the negatives of June and as David says reward aspiration. However the Tories have only 1 most seats in a 4th consecutive general election, a feat they will have to repeat next time, once in 1992. They did so by destroying Kinnock's tax plans and they will have to do the same to Corbyn's. Parties which have been in power for more than 2 elections do not win on hope or vision they largely win by going negative, see Bush Snr hammering Dukakis on crime in 1988, Labour 2005 hammering Howard as extremist or the New Zealand Nationals reversing a Labour poll lead last Saturday despite being in power for 9 years by hammering their tax plans. The problem last time was the Tories could not go negative on tax when proposing their own disastrous dementia tax and thus ended up on the defensive throughout rather than going on the attack
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
Not if she has Graham Brady's support
Brady's support means nothing -- it is Gove, Hammond, David Davis and any other wannabe PMs with more than half a dozen backbench supporters (which is all of them) the PM needs to worry about. Boris might not win but May will lose.
Police being sent from other parts of Spain to Catalonia are being cheered by crowds, with chants of 'Go get them' and 'I am Spanish'. It's like they're going off to war.
Very sad, but interesting to note that the 2 largest parties, conservative and socialist, agree that the constitution must be upheld.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
Use the cover of a more general Autumn reshuffle in a couple of weeks, both to move Boris out of the way (offer him Party Chairman?) and move up some promising MPs from the younger generation to Ministerial and Cabinet positions.
That's probably the best shot. He's demonstrated he won't work with the government so let's free up a slot
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
He's destabilising things as it is. Possibly it can be managed but at the moment he's in the tent pissing on everyone.
It's not going to end well. Two implacable nationalisms are colliding and feeding off each other. The Spanish government has managed to turn many Catalans who largely accepted a dual identity into firebrand separatists. That's quite an achievement. Meanwhile, I am in Valencia this weekend and Spanish flags hang from balconies across the city. You didn't see that anywhere in Spain even a year ago - let alone Valencia, which is culturally and linguistically very close to Catalonia.
even if the catalans vote fior independence it's hard to see what theyt can do about it
they have no legal basis for the vote, no international support and no means of enforcing it
The ones who bother to participate will overwhelmingly vote for independence. It will be declared. And nothing much will happen, until the Spanish government invokes constitutional powers to run things from Madrid. Then it will really kick off. Either Catalonia gets what the Basques have or, in the end, Catalonia becomrs independent. But it's going to take a while. In the meantime, Spain will not be a happy place. This is a bigger story than Brexit outside the UK.
It's pretty incredible. I still find it hard to believe they will declare if turnout is low, but maybe they will justify it on turnout couldn't be higher due to Spanish interference. Given trying to hold the item has seen figures arrested presumably any local mps who participate in a declaration will be arrested and as you say there will be direct rule, since it's not as though the entire place is so in favour a declaration woukd or even could lead to immediate changes. Madrid has bigger problems than most right now. At leadt they don't have any elections coming up!
If this poll is right, Sí could be close to getting more than 50% of the total electorate which I guess would be the ideal result for the Yessers. Then the argy bargy will continue thus.
Barcelona: More than 50% of Catalonians want indy
Madrid: Ah, but this was nothing like a properly conducted referendum.
Barcelona: Give us a properly conducted referendum then.
To win next time the Tories need a more charismatic leader, to build more homes but ideally not all in green belt areas and to reduce student loan interest fees, raise the threshold for repayment and reduce fees for subjects with lower earnings premiums and they also need to ensure the dementia tax is scrapped while keeping the IHT cut. Essentially reverse the negatives of June and as David says reward aspiration. However the Tories have only 1 most seats in a 4th consecutive general election, a feat they will have to repeat next time, once in 1992. They did so by destroying Kinnock's tax plans and they will have to do the same to Corbyn's. Parties which have been in power for more than 2 elections do not win on hope or vision they largely win by going negative, see Bush Snr hammering Dukakis on crime in 1988, Labour 2005 hammering Howard as extremist or the New Zealand Nationals reversing a Labour poll lead last Saturday despite being in power for 9 years by hammering their tax plans. The problem last time was the Tories could not go negative on tax when proposing their own disastrous dementia tax and thus ended up on the defensive throughout rather than going on the attack
Or most seats in a 4th consecutive general election since WW2 more to the point
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
Not if she has Graham Brady's support
Brady's support means nothing -- it is Gove, Hammond, David Davis and any other wannabe PMs with more than half a dozen backbench supporters (which is all of them) the PM needs to worry about. Boris might not win but May will lose.
Brady's support for May will prevent a leadership contest until he withdraws it
even if the catalans vote fior independence it's hard to see what theyt can do about it
they have no legal basis for the vote, no international support and no means of enforcing it
The ones who bother to participate will overwhelmingly vote for independence. It will be declared. And nothing much will happen, until the Spanish government invokes constitutional powers to run things from Madrid. Then it will really kick off. Either Catalonia gets what the Basques have or, in the end, Catalonia becomrs independent. But it's going to take a while. In the meantime, Spain will not be a happy place. This is a bigger story than Brexit outside the UK.
It's pretty incredible. I still find it hard to believe they will declare if turnout is low, but maybe they will justify it on turnout couldn't be higher due to Spanish interference. Given trying to hold the item has seen figures arrested presumably any local mps who participate in a declaration will be arrested and as you say there will be direct rule, since it's not as though the entire place is so in favour a declaration woukd or even could lead to immediate changes. Madrid has bigger problems than most right now. At leadt they don't have any elections coming up!
If this poll is right, Sí could be close to getting more than 50% of the total electorate which I guess would be the ideal result for the Yessers. Then the argy bargy will continue thus.
Barcelona: More than 50% of Catalonians want indy
Madrid: Ah, but this was nothing like a properly conducted referendum.
Barcelona: Give us a properly conducted referendum then.
I recall an earlier report somewhere that support for Si had been down a bit on highs in previous years and the referendum action was in part to try to achieve something while it was still relatively high, as well as stoke the fires of indy fervour - given the shall we say firm response of Madrid I would not be surprised to see that it worked, not that it makes moving forward much easier.
But if turnout is in fact decent, then it will have been a very effective move from the indys.
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
Not if she has Graham Brady's support
Brady's support means nothing -- it is Gove, Hammond, David Davis and any other wannabe PMs with more than half a dozen backbench supporters (which is all of them) the PM needs to worry about. Boris might not win but May will lose.
Brady's support for May will prevent a leadership contest until he withdraws it
There won't be a leadership contest under current rules it will be a vote of no confidence.
I think she would win such a vote until Brexit talks are completed in 2019 but if she tries to stay on much longer than that she would lose a no confidence vote
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
To win next time the Tories need a more charismatic leader, to build more homes but ideally not all in green belt areas and to reduce student loan interest fees, raise the threshold for repayment and reduce fees for subjects with lower earnings premiums and they also need to ensure the dementia tax is scrapped while keeping the IHT cut. Essentially reverse the negatives of June and as David says reward aspiration. However the Tories have only 1 most seats in a 4th consecutive general election, a feat they will have to repeat next time, once in 1992. They did so by destroying Kinnock's tax plans and they will have to do the same to Corbyn's. Parties which have been in power for more than 2 elections do not win on hope or vision they largely win by going negative, see Bush Snr hammering Dukakis on crime in 1988, Labour 2005 hammering Howard as extremist or the New Zealand Nationals reversing a Labour poll lead last Saturday despite being in power for 9 years by hammering their tax plans. The problem last time was the Tories could not go negative on tax when proposing their own disastrous dementia tax and thus ended up on the defensive throughout rather than going on the attack
So talk about anything and everything rather than your Party's own record in Government ?
There are plenty of doubts as to whether Labour ever led in NZ and given our own issues with polls I'm surprised you are building an argument on polling. On matters NZ it isn't impossible Peters will throw in with Labour and the Greens.
You once again build this fatuous argument about Michael Howard. No one called him an extremist - his task was to shore up the core Conservative vote which had fractured during the tenure of IDS. He did so and laid the ground work for Cameron so for that he deserves credit.
So approximately each percentage of the UK's current account deficit is worth about £20bn.
Now what would happen if instead of all these tens of billions being spent on imported consumer goods and foreign holidays they were spent on British made consumer goods and holidays ?
Well if the UK's current account deficit was only as large as Canada's there would be (5.9-3.3)x20 = about £50bn.
If the UK's current account deficit was only as large as the USA's there would be (5.9-2.6)x20 = about £65bn.
And if the UK's current account deficit was only as large as France's there would be (5.9-0.9)x20 = about £100bn.
So anywhere between £50bn to £100bn more would be available to reduce government borrowing, to build houses, to invest in infrastructure, to fund health and social care, to pay for tuition fees.
And that's while still running a current account deficit, have current account surpluses and the money available goes even higher.
Doesn't make any sense. No other nations have global influence other than superpowers?
It's bullshit.
Britain's influence comes from working within multinational structures and agreements, where it can push the debate in directions it wants in alliance with other countries. The prime example of that kind of multinational structure is the EU. So the White Official is right, Brexit will lead to a loss of the large part of the UK's remaining influence. The Article 50 talks demonstrate that already.
Maybe it doesn't matter. Lots of countries are happy places without worrying about not having influence. The danger is that we think we have a lot more influence than we do. Again Brexit demonstrates that.
Perhaps we do think that, perhaps we don't - frankly I hear a lot more from people saying we think we are more important than we are than I do from people who actually say we are super important.
Regardless, the bullshit was the description of the coffin lid closing. Loss of some influence as a result of leaving the EU (which seems quite probable) is not the same as having none, of being dead, that is a load of piffle, and immediately puts any other statements in question.
The danger is in the expectation of influence and being frustrated when nothing transpires. Yesterday on this forum, people were beating up David Cameron for not dictating to the EU over its future direction and getting a unique arrangement for the UK. We're seeing it in reactions to the Article 50 talks, where the EU is accused of punishing us. The truth is more embarrassing - we're just not that important to them any more.
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
Doesn't make any sense. No other nations have global influence other than superpowers?
It's bullshit.
Britain's influence comes from working within multinational structures and agreements, where it can push the debate in directions it wants in alliance with other countries. The prime example of that kind of multinational structure is the EU. So the White Official is right, Brexit will lead to a loss of the large part of the UK's remaining influence. The Article 50 talks demonstrate that already.
Maybe it doesn't matence. The danger is that we think we have a lot more influence than we do. Again Brexit demonstrates that.
Perhaps we do think that, perhaps we don't - frankly I hear a lot more from people saying we think we are more important than we are than I do from people who actually say we are super important.
Regardless, the bullshit was the description of the coffin lid closing. Loss of some influence as a result of leaving the EU (which seems quite probable) is not the same as having none, of being dead, that is a load of piffle, and immediately puts any other statements in question.
The danger is in the expectation of influence and being frustrated when nothing transpires. Yesterday on this forum, people were beating up David Cameron for not dictating to the EU over its future direction and getting a unique arrangement for the UK. We're seeing it in reactions to the Article 50 talks, where the EU is accused of punishing us. The truth is more embarrassing - we're just not that important to them any more.
That just doesn't make any sense! One of the largest countries in Europe on their doorstep, it is an insult to the intelligence and the reasoning of the EU to suggest we're not important to them anymore - they have no concern about what might go on just off the coast with a nation of 65 million people and an advanced economy? Give me a break.
Your last sentence is why people talk about punishment and the like, because it makes the EU seem irrational, as not caring about the importance of a large, rich and, yes, to some degree powerful nation with which they will have what in international terms will remain a close relationship, would be bloody silly of them. I happen to have more faith in the EU and its leaders than you it seems.
What we will not be anymore is in any way a priority for them, which is not the same as lacking in importance. That's not embarrassing at all, what is embarrassing is when people pretend the UK will be nothing outside the EU, when what they mean is it will be diminished, which is an argument worth making.
It's not going to end well. Two implacable nationalisms are colliding and feeding off each other. The Spanish government has managed to turn many Catalans who largely accepted a dual identity into firebrand separatists. That's quite an achievement. Meanwhile, I am in Valencia this weekend and Spanish flags hang from balconies across the city. You didn't see that anywhere in Spain even a year ago - let alone Valencia, which is culturally and linguistically very close to Catalonia.
even if the catalans vote fior independence it's hard to see what theyt can do about it
they have no legal basis for the vote, no international support and no means of enforcing it
The ones who bother to participate will overwhelmingly vote for independence. It will be declared. And nothing much will happen, until the Spanish government invokes constitutional powers to run things from Madrid. Then it will really kick off. Either Catalonia gets what the Basques have or, in the end, Catalonia becomrs independent. But it's going to take a while. In the meantime, Spain will not be a happy place. This is a bigger story than Brexit outside the UK.
It's pretty incredible. I still find it hard to believe they will declare if turnout is low, but maybe they will justify it on turnout couldn't be higher due to Spanish interference. Given trying to hold the item has seen figures arrested presumably any local mps who participate in a declaration will be arrested and as you say there will be direct rule, since it's not as though the entire place is so in favour a declaration woukd or even could lead to immediate changes. Madrid has bigger problems than most right now. At leadt they don't have any elections coming up!
If this poll is right, Sí could be close to getting more than 50% of the total electorate which I guess would be the ideal result for the Yessers. Then the argy bargy will continue thus.
Barcelona: More than 50% of Catalonians want indy
Madrid: Ah, but this was nothing like a properly conducted referendum.
Barcelona: Give us a properly conducted referendum then.
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
Is this tweet an indirect reference to the sufferings of Therasa May?
The danger is in the expectation of influence and being frustrated when nothing transpires. Yesterday on this forum, people were beating up David Cameron for not dictating to the EU over its future direction and getting a unique arrangement for the UK. We're seeing it in reactions to the Article 50 talks, where the EU is accused of punishing us. The truth is more embarrassing - we're just not that important to them any more.
That just doesn't make any sense! One of the largest countries in Europe on their doorstep, it is an insult to the intelligence and the reasoning of the EU to suggest we're not important to them anymore - they have no concern about what might go on just off the coast with a nation of 65 million people and an advanced economy? Give me a break.
Your last sentence is why people talk about punishment and the like, because it makes the EU seem irrational, as not caring about the importance of a large, rich and, yes, to some degree powerful nation with which they will have what in international terms will remain a close relationship, would be bloody silly of them. I happen to have more faith in the EU and its leaders than you it seems.
What we will not be anymore is in any way a priority for them, which is not the same as lacking in importance. That's not embarrassing at all, what is embarrassing is when people pretend the UK will be nothing outside the EU, when what they mean is it will be diminished, which is an argument worth making.
It matters because people have a false idea of our influence and therefore are likely to make a miscalculation that will lead to a detrimental and, unexpected by them, outcome. It has already happened with Brexit.
In fact I would go further and say Brexit IS that miscalculation.
Aspiration is a powerful message when the economy is moving forwards and living standards are rising. When folk are struggling to make ends meet it is a much less potent clarion call. Opportunity and fairness might work - but Corbyn's got their first and he's offering Cake And Eat It, which as every Tory Brexiteer knows is a heady, alluring brew.
The Tories' best chance is, surely, to secure a Brexit deal that does not do too much harm to the economy and to hope that Labour's fragile unity begins to fall apart. That means four more years before an election. The problem is this does not suit the destructive, disloyal, unpatriotic Boris Johnson, to whom the daily-diminishing May has no choice but to give a free hand to damage not only the government but also the UK's international reputation.
What a mess.
I'm coming round to May having to sack Boris and face the consequences. He's demonstrated that he is only interested in himself - it may be more risky but if Brady is as strongly behind her as was suggested this morning perhaps the risk can be managed
So May sacks Boris who has enough backbench support to trigger a leadership election: what are the odds against Theresa May winning? And they must have moved out another notch after her ludicrous interview with Michael Howard.
He may have enough support to trigger a VoNC. Whether he has enough support to trigger a leadership election is a whole different question.
From no confidence to leadership election is a very short step given the number of other senior figures who aspire to Number 10 -- how will David Davis, Gove and Hammond advise their supporters?
If the challenge is seen to be Boris-inspired, then the incentive is to rally round May. Leaving Boris with an embarrassingly low total could prove fatal to his career, which is in all of their interests, from both a personal and party view.
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
To win next time the Tories need a more charismatic leader, to build more homes but ideally not all in green belt areas and to reduce student loan interest fees, raise the threshold for repayment and reduce fees for subjects with lower earnings premiums and they also need to ensure the dementia tax is scrapped while keeping the IHT cut. Essentially reverse the negatives of June and as David says reward aspiration. However the Tories have only 1 most seats in a 4th consecutive general election, a feat they will have to repeat next time, once in 1992. They did so by destroying Kinnock's tax plans and they will have to do the same to Corbyn's. Parties which have been in power for more than 2 elections do not win on hope or vision they largely win by going negative, see Bush Snr hammering Dukakis on crime in 1988, Labour 2005 hammering Howard as extremist or the New Zealand Nationals reversing a Labour poll lead last Saturday despite being in power for 9 years by hammering their tax plans. The problem last time was the Tories could not go negative on tax when proposing their own disastrous dementia tax and thus ended up on the defensive throughout rather than going on the attack
So talk about anything and everything rather than your Party's own record in Government ?
There are plenty of doubts as to whether Labour ever led in NZ and given our own issues with polls I'm surprised you are building an argument on polling. On matters NZ it isn't impossible Peters will throw in with Labour and the Greens.
You once again build this fatuous argument about Michael Howard. No one called him an extremist - his task was to shore up the core Conservative vote which had fractured during the tenure of IDS. He did so and laid the ground work for Cameron so for that he deserves credit.
In New Zealand Labour led most polls or was tied until the final fortnight when the Nationals hit them hard on their tax raising plans. New Zealand's PR system makes winning majorities more difficult than under FPTP but National would have had no chance of getting Peters support had Labour topped the poll.
I remember the 2005 general election campaign which was filled with Labour negative broadcasts about Howard and his past including one with shots of him and 'if you don't know me by now' by Simply Red given post Iraq they had little to enthuse their own voters with
Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.
I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.
I think the USA is still the only superpower. China may soon be their economic equal, but they don't have the global military infrastructure, the dominance of global financial markets, or the tried-and-tested alliances that the US has. Britain and France are pocket global powers; we can bring something to the table almost everywhere, but with no scale. Germany is significant, particularly due to its influence in the EU, but is a military and intelligence weakling. Russia has regional military capability but little else; India is too poor and insular to influence its neighbours or the wider world.
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, were UK-led and dominated. We also tried the same in Basra, Iraq, and in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Only to discover we weren't quite strong enough, or prepared to pay the price in blood and treasure to do it.
If we were, and, say, more than tripled defence spending to 10% of GDP and had a hard-nosed attitude to causalities, the UK could independently fight a medium-sized conflict in most places in the world.
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
Dr Palmer will be pleased...
Absolutely. And we're hoping for progress on live animal exports in Gove's speech on Monday. So far i think Gove is doing well on my issue, with the single exception of dropping the EU recognition of animals as sentient (which I hope he may yet reconsider).
On the wider issues raised by David, Ashcroft's latest is relevant:
Particularly interesting is that people feel the Tories are most interested in relatively abstract national issues, while Labour is most interested in addressing what concerns them personally. I think that's quite important. Political nerds like us get very involved in things like the relative importance of community or the free market, but a lot of voters, while not against some general approach that looks coherent, want to see a direct connection with their everyday concerns. Political abuse - he's a racist, she's a marxist - also ha less bite than we might feel it ought to have.
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, were UK-led and dominated. We also tried the same in Basra, Iraq, and in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Only to discover we weren't quite strong enough, or prepared to pay the price in blood and treasure to do it.
If we were, and, say, more than tripled defence spending to 10% of GDP and had a hard-nosed attitude to causalities, the UK could independently fight a medium-sized conflict in most places in the world.
Casino! Do you really want to share your innermost fantasies on this website
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
The UK is still a world power, and comfortably within the Top 10 rank of nations and will be for some time, but, it feels much worse, because we are used to being top dog.
So no more British lives and money being wasted in wars for the USA ?
Hopefully...
Although sadly I expect the next time the yanks get themselves involved in some daft "adventure" they'll come calling.
Let's hope we have a PM strong enough to tell them NO!
I tihnk you can absolutely rely on Corbyn for that!
Given the next US election is due in 2020 and the next UK election in 2022 and Sanders has a bigger poll lead over Trump than Corbyn over May if Corbyn does win it is likely on current polling he would be working with a President Sanders or Warren who are more attuned to his worldview anyway
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
Dr Palmer will be pleased...
Indeed. Nick agreeing with Michael Gove, amazing how certain issues can cut across party lines. Some recent animal cruelty cases have been barbaric.
I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.
Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.
And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, were UK-led and dominated. We also tried the same in Basra, Iraq, and in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Only to discover we weren't quite strong enough, or prepared to pay the price in blood and treasure to do it.
If we were, and, say, more than tripled defence spending to 10% of GDP and had a hard-nosed attitude to causalities, the UK could independently fight a medium-sized conflict in most places in the world.
Kosovo was a NATO action not UK alone and in Sierra Leone action was taken through a UN mission and in Afghanistan and Iraq we fought alongside the US. We would have invaded neither nation if the US was not also doing so.
In defence spending we only need to keep spending above that of Argentina and Spain combined as the only wars we would fight alone again now would be over the Falklands and Gibraltar although both now highly unlikely let alone at the same time
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, were UK-led and dominated. We also tried the same in Basra, Iraq, and in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Only to discover we weren't quite strong enough, or prepared to pay the price in blood and treasure to do it.
If we were, and, say, more than tripled defence spending to 10% of GDP and had a hard-nosed attitude to causalities, the UK could independently fight a medium-sized conflict in most places in the world.
Casino! Do you really want to share your innermost fantasies on this website
Nah. I do that with PC games on Steam ;-)
FWIW, if I were "in charge" I'd probably have defence spending at between 3-4% of GDP, about £70bn pa rather than £35bn, and set our global defence and foreign policy objectives accordingly, whilst further privatising aspects of social care and pensions to pay for it.
But, that'd be very much a minority view, and it's not up to me.
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
Jacob Rees Mogg v Jeremy Corbyn v Vince Cable v Henry Bolton v Nicola Sturgeon
Now that would be worth listening to
Well certainly no-one could say that all politicians are the same!
They would, you know. I met people in June who assured me that Corbyn and May were exactly the same.
Wow! They're only the same in that they've dedicated their careers to making their country a better place, I'd say they disagree vehemently on almost everything else - except maybe increasing sentences for animal killers and torturers. Well done for that campaign by the way
What is needed is for a new leader to relaunch the Conservative Party in the same way that Peel and Disraeli did in the 19th Century (both in opposition however). I am not a Conservative. I have supported Labour all my life but believe Corbyn will destroy Labour and is unfit to be PM. To keep him out, and save the Labour party, the Tories will need to save themselves.
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, were UK-led and dominated. We also tried the same in Basra, Iraq, and in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Only to discover we weren't quite strong enough, or prepared to pay the price in blood and treasure to do it.
If we were, and, say, more than tripled defence spending to 10% of GDP and had a hard-nosed attitude to causalities, the UK could independently fight a medium-sized conflict in most places in the world.
Kosovo was a NATO action not UK alone and in Sierra Leone action was taken through UN mission and in Afghanistan and Iraq we fought alongside the US. We would have invaded neither nation if the US was not also doing so.
In defence spending we only need to keep spending above that of Argentina and Spain combined as the only wars we would fight alone again would be over the Falklands and Gibraltar although both now highly unlikely let alone at the same time
Kosovo was led by the UK, and so was Sierra Leone. You are stating the bleeding obvious on Afghanistan and Iraq.
The key point here is whether we led efforts, shaped efforts and had operational independence. In all of those, we did.
You're doing your classic HYUFD thing here of dropping any nuance and stating balance of probabilities as certainties.
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.
I think the USA is still the only superpower. China may soon be their economic equal, but they don't have the global military infrastructure, the dominance of global financial markets, or the tried-and-tested alliances that the US has. Britain and France are pocket global powers; we can bring something to the table almost everywhere, but with no scale. Germany is significant, particularly due to its influence in the EU, but is a military and intelligence weakling. Russia has regional military capability but little else; India is too poor and insular to influence its neighbours or the wider world.
That's a good point. Economic hard power and population size is important, but it's not the only driving factor.
You also need an open engaged attitude to international and global affairs, good skilled diplomats and foreign service, soft power and cultural links, trade, legal and banking networks, intelligence services, hard power assets and a willingness to use them, and some sort of strategy you can advance.
The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.
I think the USA is still the only superpower. China may soon be their economic equal, but they don't have the global military infrastructure, the dominance of global financial markets, or the tried-and-tested alliances that the US has. Britain and France are pocket global powers; we can bring something to the table almost everywhere, but with no scale. Germany is significant, particularly due to its influence in the EU, but is a military and intelligence weakling. Russia has regional military capability but little else; India is too poor and insular to influence its neighbours or the wider world.
It was the Empire which provided the key market for all those goods we produced and for our ships to trade with and defend.
China is the main economic rival to the US, Russia the main military and intelligence and foreign policy rival
Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.
I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.
It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.
Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.
And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.
A VoC, although binary, really has three possible outcomes:
1. May loses and must resign.
2. May wins convincingly and carries on.
3. May scrapes home, and then who knows?
1 sees a Boris premiership odds on.
2 sees Boris finished, but May perhaps more secure than even her supporters would like = perhaps safe until 2022.
3, perhaps the most likely, sees more bickering and uncertainty.
Forcing a VoC is a high stakes gamble, which is why it hasn't happened.
Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.
I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.
It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
That would be Ruth 'stop WFA in England and Wales but keep it in Scotland' Davidson ?
Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.
I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.
It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
Almost 80% of Tory voters now back Leave, they cannot capitulate on that without hitting their core vote.
I agree though if Corbyn did win a dose of Corbyn and McDonnell socialism and strikes would see a quicker Tory revival in opposition than Lazarus
Jacob Rees Mogg v Jeremy Corbyn v Vince Cable v Henry Bolton v Nicola Sturgeon
Now that would be worth listening to
Well certainly no-one could say that all politicians are the same!
They would, you know. I met people in June who assured me that Corbyn and May were exactly the same.
Wow! They're only the same in that they've dedicated their careers to making their country a better place, I'd say they disagree vehemently on almost everything else - except maybe increasing sentences for animal killers and torturers. Well done for that campaign by the way
Thanks, Sandpit! One feature of being in Parliament is to find that people actually agree on much more than they admit in public - as you say, there's a generally similar starting point (make the country/world better) and that gives a common basis which is missing if you meet people who really don't give a toss about that and just want to get rich.
One reason I like Corbyn is that he is scrupulous about acknowledging that in private, in the same way that he doesn't do personal abuse in public, even when it might frankly be justified - there are Tories here who are more abusive about May and Boris than he is. There are MPs who will tell you that the Tories are liars, scum, etc. - Corbyn merely says that they're mistaken on X, but partly right on Y. Although that's partly just a personality trait, it's important in a national leader, since accepting that other people may have a legitimate view is pretty fundamental to democracy. To be fair I think May would be similar on that, though I've never spoken to her.
Comments
I do not think UKIP opponents should dismiss him. He will be a new articulate voice for Brexit.
He may attract some conservatives (not me) but I think labour will lose more, particularly in the North, as he makes his case for Brexit
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/914047090002718720
Try and be less predictable, and less obsessed.
I will be quite surprised if the Tories don't lose support to UKIP with someone like Bolton in charge. Tories should really be asking themselves why he is a Kipper and not one of them.
The DNVs, the UKIP NOTA contingent, and Labour No More voters aren't a rich pool to fish in for the Tories.
It's the Remain Tories who voted for Cameron in GE2015 (but not for May in GE2017) that need to be brought back on board, whilst retaining everyone else.
Maybe it doesn't matter. Lots of countries are happy places without worrying about not having influence. The danger is that we think we have a lot more influence than we do. Again Brexit demonstrates that.
The green paper, A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work, will end rising payments according to time claimed for those on incapacity benefit, which the government calls "perverse".
A unit will be set up to check on people claiming incapacity benefit to make sure they were still ill and new medical evidence will be required.
... from a Labour Government, the same one that shut Remploy factories leading to the formerly active disabled sat at home...
Regardless, the bullshit was the description of the coffin lid closing. Loss of some influence as a result of leaving the EU (which seems quite probable) is not the same as having none, of being dead, that is a load of piffle, and immediately puts any other statements in question.
Yes, I think you are right. Get rid and see what happens. She has little left to lose.
But, it remains to be seen what independent role we play in global bodies in future.
Thanks as always to David for his thoughtful piece. My initial thought is Conservatives don't have a monopoly on aspiration. You can want better public services, safer communities and the like and Corbyn's rhetoric will give you that.
It's not so much the end but the means that divides. Conservatives, in very simplistic terms, see the advancement of society led by individuals and families and that feeding through to communities and society in general. Labour sees the reverse - the improvement of communities led by the State enriches individuals and families.
Both have merit and both have flaws. The problem at the moment is many feel that, for all their hard work, they are not seeing any improvement either in their personal circumstances or in the wider societal framework. The attractiveness of the Corbyn argument, and to be fair May has not been averse to a bit of old-fashioned corporatism, is that the State is that which empowers and provides and that isn't helpful or sustainable.
Jacob Rees Mogg v Jeremy Corbyn v Vince Cable v Henry Bolton v Nicola Sturgeon
Now that would be worth listening to
However the Tories have only 1 most seats in a 4th consecutive general election, a feat they will have to repeat next time, once in 1992. They did so by destroying Kinnock's tax plans and they will have to do the same to Corbyn's. Parties which have been in power for more than 2 elections do not win on hope or vision they largely win by going negative, see Bush Snr hammering Dukakis on crime in 1988, Labour 2005 hammering Howard as extremist or the New Zealand Nationals reversing a Labour poll lead last Saturday despite being in power for 9 years by hammering their tax plans.
The problem last time was the Tories could not go negative on tax when proposing their own disastrous dementia tax and thus ended up on the defensive throughout rather than going on the attack
https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/09/26/videos/1506415900_563573.html
Police being sent from other parts of Spain to Catalonia are being cheered by crowds, with chants of 'Go get them' and 'I am Spanish'. It's like they're going off to war.
Very sad, but interesting to note that the 2 largest parties, conservative and socialist, agree that the constitution must be upheld.
Barcelona: More than 50% of Catalonians want indy
Madrid: Ah, but this was nothing like a properly conducted referendum.
Barcelona: Give us a properly conducted referendum then.
Madrid: No bloody fear, you might win it.
& so on into eternity.
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/914036328903446528
But if turnout is in fact decent, then it will have been a very effective move from the indys.
Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
This is the most recent tweet.
Big issue for some, but is it the most pressing one? Throw some red meat for the audience, tougher jail sentences for animal cruelty but what is the vision?
I think she would win such a vote until Brexit talks are completed in 2019 but if she tries to stay on much longer than that she would lose a no confidence vote
Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.
We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.
We are not nothing.
There are plenty of doubts as to whether Labour ever led in NZ and given our own issues with polls I'm surprised you are building an argument on polling. On matters NZ it isn't impossible Peters will throw in with Labour and the Greens.
You once again build this fatuous argument about Michael Howard. No one called him an extremist - his task was to shore up the core Conservative vote which had fractured during the tenure of IDS. He did so and laid the ground work for Cameron so for that he deserves credit.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/aa6h/ukea
So approximately each percentage of the UK's current account deficit is worth about £20bn.
Now what would happen if instead of all these tens of billions being spent on imported consumer goods and foreign holidays they were spent on British made consumer goods and holidays ?
Well if the UK's current account deficit was only as large as Canada's there would be (5.9-3.3)x20 = about £50bn.
If the UK's current account deficit was only as large as the USA's there would be (5.9-2.6)x20 = about £65bn.
And if the UK's current account deficit was only as large as France's there would be (5.9-0.9)x20 = about £100bn.
So anywhere between £50bn to £100bn more would be available to reduce government borrowing, to build houses, to invest in infrastructure, to fund health and social care, to pay for tuition fees.
And that's while still running a current account deficit, have current account surpluses and the money available goes even higher.
A country's prosperity is only increased by a higher GDP per head and this is achieved by higher productivity.
The Conservative's vision should be to raise productivity.
In particular this applies to the service sector and public sector which are the bulk of activity.
I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire
We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
Your last sentence is why people talk about punishment and the like, because it makes the EU seem irrational, as not caring about the importance of a large, rich and, yes, to some degree powerful nation with which they will have what in international terms will remain a close relationship, would be bloody silly of them. I happen to have more faith in the EU and its leaders than you it seems.
What we will not be anymore is in any way a priority for them, which is not the same as lacking in importance. That's not embarrassing at all, what is embarrassing is when people pretend the UK will be nothing outside the EU, when what they mean is it will be diminished, which is an argument worth making.
They have invented perpetual emotion.
In fact I would go further and say Brexit IS that miscalculation.
Although sadly I expect the next time the yanks get themselves involved in some daft "adventure" they'll come calling.
Let's hope we have a PM strong enough to tell them NO!
Or rather I'm sure they are still charging ...
I remember the 2005 general election campaign which was filled with Labour negative broadcasts about Howard and his past including one with shots of him and 'if you don't know me by now' by Simply Red given post Iraq they had little to enthuse their own voters with
I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
I think the USA is still the only superpower. China may soon be their economic equal, but they don't have the global military infrastructure, the dominance of global financial markets, or the tried-and-tested alliances that the US has. Britain and France are pocket global powers; we can bring something to the table almost everywhere, but with no scale. Germany is significant, particularly due to its influence in the EU, but is a military and intelligence weakling. Russia has regional military capability but little else; India is too poor and insular to influence its neighbours or the wider world.
If we were, and, say, more than tripled defence spending to 10% of GDP and had a hard-nosed attitude to causalities, the UK could independently fight a medium-sized conflict in most places in the world.
On the wider issues raised by David, Ashcroft's latest is relevant:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2017/09/conservative-brand-voters-compare-labour-tory-agendas/
Particularly interesting is that people feel the Tories are most interested in relatively abstract national issues, while Labour is most interested in addressing what concerns them personally. I think that's quite important. Political nerds like us get very involved in things like the relative importance of community or the free market, but a lot of voters, while not against some general approach that looks coherent, want to see a direct connection with their everyday concerns. Political abuse - he's a racist, she's a marxist - also ha less bite than we might feel it ought to have.
Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.
And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.
In defence spending we only need to keep spending above that of Argentina and Spain combined as the only wars we would fight alone again now would be over the Falklands and Gibraltar although both now highly unlikely let alone at the same time
FWIW, if I were "in charge" I'd probably have defence spending at between 3-4% of GDP, about £70bn pa rather than £35bn, and set our global defence and foreign policy objectives accordingly, whilst further privatising aspects of social care and pensions to pay for it.
But, that'd be very much a minority view, and it's not up to me.
The key point here is whether we led efforts, shaped efforts and had operational independence. In all of those, we did.
You're doing your classic HYUFD thing here of dropping any nuance and stating balance of probabilities as certainties.
Don't fall under his spell.
You also need an open engaged attitude to international and global affairs, good skilled diplomats and foreign service, soft power and cultural links, trade, legal and banking networks, intelligence services, hard power assets and a willingness to use them, and some sort of strategy you can advance.
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888
China is the main economic rival to the US, Russia the main military and intelligence and foreign policy rival
It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
1. May loses and must resign.
2. May wins convincingly and carries on.
3. May scrapes home, and then who knows?
1 sees a Boris premiership odds on.
2 sees Boris finished, but May perhaps more secure than even her supporters would like = perhaps safe until 2022.
3, perhaps the most likely, sees more bickering and uncertainty.
Forcing a VoC is a high stakes gamble, which is why it hasn't happened.
I agree though if Corbyn did win a dose of Corbyn and McDonnell socialism and strikes would see a quicker Tory revival in opposition than Lazarus
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
One reason I like Corbyn is that he is scrupulous about acknowledging that in private, in the same way that he doesn't do personal abuse in public, even when it might frankly be justified - there are Tories here who are more abusive about May and Boris than he is. There are MPs who will tell you that the Tories are liars, scum, etc. - Corbyn merely says that they're mistaken on X, but partly right on Y. Although that's partly just a personality trait, it's important in a national leader, since accepting that other people may have a legitimate view is pretty fundamental to democracy. To be fair I think May would be similar on that, though I've never spoken to her.