I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
So, today's revelations. The two most important senior foreign and diplomatic facing ministers have been found to be either utterly crap at their jobs or duplicitous or both.
So, I ask yet again, why the f*** is Rory not in Cabinet?
Rory Stewart and his former assistant (who was supposed to have been asked to do weird stuff) both flatly denied the story, with his assistant saying he was a very good boss.
Sophie Bolsover, who worked as a parliamentary aide to Stewart from September 2015 to February 2016, according to her LinkedIn profile, posted a statement on Twitter denying that Stewart had acted improperly.
"While I recognise the seriousness of the allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour, sexual harassment and worse, I wish to emphasise that nothing of the kind implied by my name being included on this spreadsheet ever took place," Bolsover said.
She added: “During my time working in Parliament, Rory Stewart was never anything other than completely professional and an excellent employer. Moreover, the inclusion of my name on this list, by parties unknown to me and without my permission, has caused deep distress and anxiety.”
Given she doesn't work for him anymore she isn't under any obligation to defend him.
Are you still on about this garbage Ishmael. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance and just making yourself look dumb. Give it up and move on as you do make yourself look like a flat-earther at the moment.
I 'll take that as a C, then.
No you can take it as a sigh of despair that anyone could be so wrong on a basic fact and yet apparently not realise it. I can only assume it is as a result of profound arrogance that will not let you admit you made a mistake and move on. So instead you just keep digging.
look: I know what Wegener said, I know how plate tectonics came along and explained what he said, and I know that these islands are on the same plate as most of europe. If I were as ignorant as you claim, how would I know that the Portugal question was a good one? This isn't about my understanding of science, it's about your failure to understand how scientific advances qualify ordinary language. There are big bits of land which are continents and little bits of land which are islands, and you can't be both, and here's John Donne to confirm that: "No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine". The discovery that islands and continents are connected to one another and move about in sync does not alter the fact that islands are still islands. (And even if it did, the political consequences would still be nil).
I am wary of "ANSWER THE QUESTION, YES OR NO," arguments, but is Portugal part of Europe or not, or is the question unfair, and why?
Yes Portugal is part of Europe. It is also part of the European plate - a fact I suspect you are about to mistakenly deny which is a good sign of why you should not base your supposed scientific knowledge on Wikipedia.
By your criteria Staten Island is not part of the Continental US. Which is of course utter rubbish.
I must confess when I read somebody claiming the Isle of Wight was part of Great Britain my pedant's went down firmly over my ears.
It is of course one of the British Isles. Which happens to include a kingdom formerly known as Great Britain, which it is part of.
So, today's revelations. The two most important senior foreign and diplomatic facing ministers have been found to be either utterly crap at their jobs or duplicitous or both.
So, I ask yet again, why the f*** is Rory not in Cabinet?
That would be surprising given that the supposed victim has said it is complete fiction.
Sophie Bolsover - “During my time working in parliament, Rory Stewart was never anything other than completely professional and an excellent employer.”
Holyrood was evacuated today because the Inverness Courier invited MSPs to an anniversary party, with fake snow in the envelopes
If our politicians are so hopeless they can't even get a security alert over mysterious powders right, it is my considered opinion that we are stuffed.
They obviously took the advice of the security experts.
It's time for the great British public to default on these scammers.
Take Back Control
What if I’m Chinese and own a flat in London but pay my income tax in Beijing? Do I have no rights if I need the help of the law?
Presumably he pays his Council Tax.
Yes indeed it was the more general point I was making. Non taxpayers in our society also get protection from the law ( of course ), and we go down a dangerous route if we say “oh you don’t fit what those in power now morally approve of today so no protection of the law for you”. Good luck explaining that to the Chinese ambassador ( to use that as an example).
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
The opportunity arises in the two weeks after the budget and she must take it - even I will be annoyed with TM if she doesn't. Also it would take us into the Christmas period for things to calm down
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
The opportunity arises in the two weeks after the budget and she must take it - even I will be annoyed with TM if she doesn't. Also it would take us into the Christmas period for things to calm down
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And yet Brown was guilty of stoking an unsustainable boom in order to smooth his path into Downing Street. Even using your definition, he's one of the worst offenders of manipulating the economy for short-term political ends.
It's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition. Only after 2008 has this myth arisen that 'boom and bust' meant just the ordinary business cycle. Whether you're a fan of Brown or not, it matters if we want to know New Labour's motivations, what they thought they'd achieved and the measures they took. Continuing with this myth turns real history into a caricature.
The phrase was actually coined by Ken Clarke. Its subsequent overuse by Brown was often mocked well before 2008 and taken to mean that he believed he could "abolish the business cycle", so whatever the definition, it's revisionism to claim that it wasn't the topic of political debate at the time.
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
[deleted]
Although he did a good job as Chancellor by most metrics, it's interesting to see how preachy Clarke is in that. 'This is what you want...you may get it at some point.'
Conventional wisdom is that the Tories made a dreadful error not electing him leader, but I wonder how well that attitude would have gone down with either his backbenchers or the press.
Not that William Hague was willing to tell anyone hard truths.
I like Ken Clarke quite a bit more after reading his autobiography (he's more economically liberal and libertarian than I thought, and I admire his jazz/smoking/drinking style) but I think he shared the same sense of entitlement and pomposity that the Heathites of the 1970s did, including the likes of Jim Prior, Ian Gilmour and Geoffrey Howe.
This was how John Smith had used the term as shadow chancellor. Everybody at the time understood what Brown was talking about when he said 'boom and bust', it's only afterwards it's been reimagined to mean *any* boom and *any* recession
And
Here's Ken Clarke's 1996 budget statement where he refers to "no return to boom and bust".
So how can this definition be Brown trying to shift the goalposts after 2008, when it's so clearly everywhere before 2008? Whether he was right or wrong, that's what he meant and his reasons for thinking so make sense. It is not possible now for something like the Maudling dash for growth, the Barber boom, the Lawson boom, leading from their decisions to cut interest rates for political reasons. The issue remaining is that Bank of England independence doesn't insulate it from politics, Brown wasn't right. But let's understand what he even meant.
Plus, it wasn't coined by Ken Clarke in 1996 - there are plenty of references to 'boom and bust policies' on Hansard referring to monetary policy before then, before it really takes off in 1997/8.
Debating with yourself isn't a good look
Brown is a politician. He knew how most people would take his oft repeated phrases.
Besides, he was confronted in the Commons about the looming risk of bust from rapidly rising debt, and arrogantly dismissed them. He deserves no credit in the build up to the crisis, some credit for acting quickly to prevent collapse during it, and little credit for sowing the seeds that flowered into today's gross distortions.
Don't think I'm defending New Labour or Brown's part in it! But again, you're mixing up two separate issues. The constant references to 'boom and bust' that you heard from Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Darling, and everybody in between during New Labour's overlong lifespan were about reminding the public of Lawson and Lamont short-termism, to help Labour steal the 'economic credibility' label for themselves. It was not about making people think New Labour had abolished the business cycle, but the 'political business cycle'.
A different issue to New Labour's/everybody in mainstream politics's blindness in the run up to the 2008 crash, which had different causes.
Matt Frei. "Just what does Boris have to do to get sacked"?
It's probably safe to sack him now as he can no longer be a stalking horse.
An ideal opportunity for Gove to establish himself as the lead (original) Leaver as well.
It's a time for Gove's integrity and modesty?
I think it is fair to say I am not known as Gove's biggest fan. And he would be completely unsuitable as Foreign Secretary (you think Boris' gaffes are bad? Even Liam Fox is worried about Gove's neocon views).
But if we are to have a prominent Leaver in government I would prefer Gove to BoJo.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Labour lost - get over it.
Tories lost more - a fu**ing majority.
So you won the election and Corbyn is PM?
See? Mohammed Al-Sahaf territory!
I guess you would consider the Russo-Japanese war a resounding Russian victory because they still had more territory than Japan at the end of it.
Matt Frei. "Just what does Boris have to do to get sacked"?
It's probably safe to sack him now as he can no longer be a stalking horse.
An ideal opportunity for Gove to establish himself as the lead (original) Leaver as well.
It's a time for Gove's integrity and modesty?
I think he's actually fairly modest; it's his love of drama that's the issue. But, I think he has learnt a valuable lesson from last year.
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
The opportunity arises in the two weeks after the budget and she must take it - even I will be annoyed with TM if she doesn't. Also it would take us into the Christmas period for things to calm down
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
Maybe - she is in a rock and a hard place some of her own making.
She needs to take the opportunity of sacking Priti, even Johnson and Leadsom together with Mcloughlan and others and bring in new blood
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered.
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped.
By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Labour lost - get over it.
Tories lost more - a fu**ing majority.
So you won the election and Corbyn is PM?
See? Mohammed Al-Sahaf territory!
I guess you would consider the Russo-Japanese war a resounding Russian victory because they still had more territory than Japan at the end of it.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
The opportunity arises in the two weeks after the budget and she must take it - even I will be annoyed with TM if she doesn't. Also it would take us into the Christmas period for things to calm down
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
Maybe - she is in a rock and a hard place some of her own making.
She needs to take the opportunity of sacking Priti, even Johnson and Leadsom together with Mcloughlan and others and bring in new blood
I entirely agree. I just don't think she will. She is unlucky that this very difficult scandal blew up just at the moment she could have regained the initiative if only she had a free hand. But I have to say I think a better politician would have made her own luck.
Matt Frei. "Just what does Boris have to do to get sacked"?
It's probably safe to sack him now as he can no longer be a stalking horse.
An ideal opportunity for Gove to establish himself as the lead (original) Leaver as well.
It's a time for Gove's integrity and modesty?
I think it is fair to say I am not known as Gove's biggest fan. And he would be completely unsuitable as Foreign Secretary (you think Boris' gaffes are bad? Even Liam Fox is worried about Gove's neocon views).
But if we are to have a prominent Leaver in government I would prefer Gove to BoJo.
Yes, things are that bad.
I don't see how Gove could unilaterally operate a neocon foreign policy. And I couldn't see him making many gaffes easier - he isn't that sort of person.
I suspect he'd work very hard, and innovatively, to raise the UK's global reputation and profile.
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
The opportunity arises in the two weeks after the budget and she must take it - even I will be annoyed with TM if she doesn't. Also it would take us into the Christmas period for things to calm down
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
Maybe - she is in a rock and a hard place some of her own making.
She needs to take the opportunity of sacking Priti, even Johnson and Leadsom together with Mcloughlan and others and bring in new blood
I entirely agree. I just don't think she will. She is unlucky that this very difficult scandal blew up just at the moment she could have regained the initiative if only she had a free hand. But I have to say I think a better politician would have made her own luck.
But no politician could have foreseen the sexual abuse scandals
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
Why would European leaders have any more respect for Gove than they have for Johnson?
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
The opportunity arises in the two weeks after the budget and she must take it - even I will be annoyed with TM if she doesn't. Also it would take us into the Christmas period for things to calm down
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
Maybe - she is in a rock and a hard place some of her own making.
She needs to take the opportunity of sacking Priti, even Johnson and Leadsom together with Mcloughlan and others and bring in new blood
I entirely agree. I just don't think she will. She is unlucky that this very difficult scandal blew up just at the moment she could have regained the initiative if only she had a free hand. But I have to say I think a better politician would have made her own luck.
But no politician could have foreseen the sexual abuse scandals
There I disagree. I think it could and should have been foreseen. It's a scandal that's been simmering for years. Saville was the first sign that things were changing, and it seeemed unlikely politics would escape. It was May's misfortune that she was left without a chair when the music stopped, but I think it's a bit much saying she couldn't have foreseen that a place which sheltered the likes of Cyril Smith wouldn't escape it.
Edit - far too many double negatives there. I think it's straight now!
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
Why would European leaders have any more respect for Gove than they have for Johnson?
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
Why would European leaders have any more respect for Gove than they have for Johnson?
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
Major was not a ditherer. In 1995 when the Bstards were rebelling he told them to put up or shut up. They put up John Redwood - who was soundly beaten.
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
I think May recognises her role is to be the sacrificial lamb in 2019, so doesn't have either the confidence or motivation to do anything other sit out the next 22 months (if she's lucky) whilst the civil service does its job and wait for the executioner's knock at the door.
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
She should organise replacements for both of them, fire them without ceremony and then carry on. Whoever she appoints as replacements cannot be worse. No matter how things turn out at least she would gain some reputation for having a spine.
She needs to choose an outcome - EEA, EFTA, WTO or even advocating a halt on A50 - anything, but pick something and make it the goal of the govt.
The current shambles is pointless and beyond a joke. We might as well not have MPs and a Parliament at the moment because they effectively seem to be achieving nothing. An empty room produces the same results as Westminster at present.
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
Major was not a ditherer. In 1995 when the Bstards were rebelling he told them to put up or shut up. They put up John Redwood - who was soundly beaten.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election.
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Labour lost - get over it.
Tories lost more - a fu**ing majority.
So you won the election and Corbyn is PM?
See? Mohammed Al-Sahaf territory!
I guess you would consider the Russo-Japanese war a resounding Russian victory because they still had more territory than Japan at the end of it.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
Really? Wikipedia says 'The number of Japanese Army dead in combat is put at around 47,000 with around 27,000 additional casualties from disease, and between 6,000 and 12,000 wounded. Estimates of Russian Army dead range from around 40,000 to around 70,000 men.'
Steve Smith's recent book stressed the defeats and strains of the Russo-Japanese war throughout 1904 and early 1905 as a cause of labour unrest and ultimately the 1905 revolution, rather than the revolution as a 'stab in the back' of the Russian war effort.
I think May recognises her role is to be the sacrificial lamb in 2019, so doesn't have either the confidence or motivation to do anything other sit out the next 22 months (if she's lucky) whilst the civil service does its job and wait for the executioner's knock at the door.
No! That is NOT her role. Her role is to lead, not to be some sort of Uriah Heap figure going "Woe is me!
I guess you would consider the Russo-Japanese war a resounding Russian victory because they still had more territory than Japan at the end of it.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
I think you'll find the Battle of Tsushima and the evacuation of Port Arthur happened independently of the revolution of 1905. Russia did have to come to terms quickly because of the revolution, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war.
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election. I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered. Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even if she did not do as well as hoped. By failing to call a snap election history will record Brown got the second lowest Labour voteshare since WW2 and the lowest number of Labour seats for 23 years until Ed Miliband won even fewer in 2015. Even Corbyn outperformed Brown.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
The product of a completely broken voting system. Conservatives are so stupid they cannot see the dangers involved in not getting something better in place as soon as possible. All they are interested in is grabbing power and clinging on to it. Never mind the consequences.
That is rather the point of a political party and what 'something better' is depends on your perspective
I would have thought it might mean strong and stable government, Mr FD, which worked towards a prosperous economy and and contented population. Something like that. Instead we have a gang of incompetents who are hell-bent on wrecking the economy and the social stability of the nation.
Any more calamitous news from my lovely friends, the Tory party?
Shambles is too nice a word for their predicament...
But they've not quite sunk to the suicide and rape level yet.
There have been allegations of rape.
No suicides yet, but it has to be said they didn't handle Elphicke noticeably better than Labour handled Sargeant. The result has just not been as disastrous.
Matt Frei. "Just what does Boris have to do to get sacked"?
It's probably safe to sack him now as he can no longer be a stalking horse.
An ideal opportunity for Gove to establish himself as the lead (original) Leaver as well.
It's a time for Gove's integrity and modesty?
I think it is fair to say I am not known as Gove's biggest fan. And he would be completely unsuitable as Foreign Secretary (you think Boris' gaffes are bad? Even Liam Fox is worried about Gove's neocon views).
But if we are to have a prominent Leaver in government I would prefer Gove to BoJo.
Yes, things are that bad.
I don't see how Gove could unilaterally operate a neocon foreign policy. And I couldn't see him making many gaffes easier - he isn't that sort of person.
I suspect he'd work very hard, and innovatively, to raise the UK's global reputation and profile.
He'd definitely be a step up from Johnson. I also think bringing in fresh blood would be good for the long term health of the conservative party.
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
The opportunity arises in the two weeks after the budget and she must take it - even I will be annoyed with TM if she doesn't. Also it would take us into the Christmas period for things to calm down
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
Maybe - she is in a rock and a hard place some of her own making.
She needs to take the opportunity of sacking Priti, even Johnson and Leadsom together with Mcloughlan and others and bring in new blood
I entirely agree. I just don't think she will. She is unlucky that this very difficult scandal blew up just at the moment she could have regained the initiative if only she had a free hand. But I have to say I think a better politician would have made her own luck.
But no politician could have foreseen the sexual abuse scandals
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
Major was not a ditherer. In 1995 when the Bstards were rebelling he told them to put up or shut up. They put up John Redwood - who was soundly beaten.
But only after Major went grovelling to Heseltine for his support.
Major's dithering over joining the Euro was not an advert for decisive government.
But then the spam fritter shambles wasn't an advert for competent government either.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The matter!
If
I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might you mean?
Most sensibleune 8th.
Wrong.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
Still bollocks and very tedious when you ignore one simple fact. CON increased vote share by 5.8% at GE17 - alas LAB went up 9.8%
Labour lost - get over it.
Tories lost more - a fu**ing majority.
So you won the election and Corbyn is PM?
See? Mohammed Al-Sahaf territory!
I guess you would consider the Russo-Japanese war a resounding Russian victory because they still had more territory than Japan at the end of it.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
Really? Wikipedia says 'The number of Japanese Army dead in combat is put at around 47,000 with around 27,000 additional casualties from disease, and between 6,000 and 12,000 wounded. Estimates of Russian Army dead range from around 40,000 to around 70,000 men.'
Steve Smith's recent book stressed the defeats and strains of the Russo-Japanese war throughout 1904 and early 1905 as a cause of labour unrest and ultimately the 1905 revolution, rather than the revolution as a 'stab in the back' of the Russian war effort.
Both sides expected an easy victory, and were shocked to find their opponents fought hard. The Japanese captured Port Arthur, and destroyed the Russian fleet, but took terrible casualties on land. Japan had exhausted its credit by the war's end, and had to bring the fighting to an end.
Russia lost its fleet, and lost face, prompting revolts against the government.
Any more calamitous news from my lovely friends, the Tory party?
Shambles is too nice a word for their predicament...
But they've not quite sunk to the suicide and rape level yet.
There have been allegations of rape.
No suicides yet, but it has to be said they didn't handle Elphicke noticeably better than Labour handled Sargeant. The result has just not been as disastrous.
Sargeant's death was reported on ITV Wales as suicide and he leaves a wife and two children
Carwyn Jones said he had dismissed him following complaints from women.
No doubt the truth will be revealed at the inquest but it is a cautionary tale on how complaints are handled
It's time for the great British public to default on these scammers.
Take Back Control
Absolutely classic structure. An utterly contrived setup solely created to avoid tax.
The intra-company loans are always good for a laugh. It's great when in tax jurisdiction A they claim two wholly owned corporate entities should be considered separate but in tax jurisdiction B they claim those self same corporate entities should be considered the same company. All sorts of shenanigans can be undertook that way.
Really? Wikipedia says 'The number of Japanese Army dead in combat is put at around 47,000 with around 27,000 additional casualties from disease, and between 6,000 and 12,000 wounded. Estimates of Russian Army dead range from around 40,000 to around 70,000 men.'
Steve Smith's recent book stressed the defeats and strains of the Russo-Japanese war throughout 1904 and early 1905 as a cause of labour unrest and ultimately the 1905 revolution, rather than the revolution as a 'stab in the back' of the Russian war effort.
Both sides expected an easy victory, and were shocked to find their opponents fought hard. The Japanese captured Port Arthur, and destroyed the Russian fleet, but took terrible casualties on land. Japan had exhausted its credit by the war's end, and had to bring the fighting to an end.
Russia lost its fleet, and lost face, prompting revolts against the government.
Given their willingness to accept losses in 1944-5 I think the Japanese would have been able to keep going for a while in 1905.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
Whilst not my area of history I thought casualties were roughly similar and it was the destruction of the Baltic fleet that brought the war to an end?
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election. I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered. Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even wn.
I doubt Theresa May will be remembered for getting the highest Tory vote share in 25 years. At best, that will be a footnote.
A significant footnote nonetheless
The product of a completely broken voting system. Conservatives are so stupid they cannot see the dangers involved in not getting something better in place as soon as possible. All they are interested in is grabbing power and clinging on to it. Never mind the consequences.
That is rather the point of a political party and what 'something better' is depends on your perspective
I would have thought it might mean strong and stable government, Mr FD, which worked towards a prosperous economy and and contented population. Something like that. Instead we have a gang of incompetents who are hell-bent on wrecking the economy and the social stability of the nation.
Jesus Christ. Exert some continence on your bladder. This site is becoming unreadable thanks to the Falsetto Lamentations of the Eunuch Remoaners.
Some people are just heart-broken, at the thought of leaving the EU. It's not my view, but there it is.
The England cricket team's preparation four years ago seems rather bizarre to me:
' Graeme Swann, England spinner: "We had to go into pubs and keep tabs on a suspect. I'll never forget Matt Prior, wearing an England cap with three lions on it and an England jumper, trying to surreptitiously order a pint of water while watching a bloke at the other end of the bar.
"People were coming up to him - 'here mate, are you Matt Prior? Can I have your autograph?'
"It was a shambles. We sat in a Morrisons car park for 15 hours a day in a hire car. I hated every minute of it." '
I think May recognises her role is to be the sacrificial lamb in 2019, so doesn't have either the confidence or motivation to do anything other sit out the next 22 months (if she's lucky) whilst the civil service does its job and wait for the executioner's knock at the door.
No! That is NOT her role. Her role is to lead, not to be some sort of Uriah Heap figure going "Woe is me!
Agreed! And I really don't think for one minute that May herself thinks that that is her role.
I think she still believes there is a path to her winning the 2022 election; I don't believe she sees herself as a caretaker. She's almost certainly not going to win the next election but looking at the paucity of Tory party contenders I think it's very likely she will lead then to defeat in that election.
Really? Wikipedia says 'The number of Japanese Army dead in combat is put at around 47,000 with around 27,000 additional casualties from disease, and between 6,000 and 12,000 wounded. Estimates of Russian Army dead range from around 40,000 to around 70,000 men.'
Steve Smith's recent book stressed the defeats and strains of the Russo-Japanese war throughout 1904 and early 1905 as a cause of labour unrest and ultimately the 1905 revolution, rather than the revolution as a 'stab in the back' of the Russian war effort.
Both sides expected an easy victory, and were shocked to find their opponents fought hard. The Japanese captured Port Arthur, and destroyed the Russian fleet, but took terrible casualties on land. Japan had exhausted its credit by the war's end, and had to bring the fighting to an end.
Russia lost its fleet, and lost face, prompting revolts against the government.
Given their willingness to accept losses in 1944-5 I think the Japanese would have been able to keep going for a while in 1905.
Max Hastings addresses that issue in Nemesis. The Japanese High Command were dismayed at the willingness of their soldiers to surrender, in 1904-05. They therefore adopted a policy of total cruelty towards captives, in the belief that their own men would never surrender, for fear of similar treatment.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
Whilst not my area of history I thought casualties were roughly similar and it was the destruction of the Baltic fleet that brought the war to an end?
They Russians were forced to evacuate Port Arthur in December 1904, lost the battle of Mukden in March 1905 and their Baltic fleet was destroyed at Tsushima in August. Bloody Sunday, which sparked the revolution, was in January 1905 partly in response to the loss of Port Arthur. The Americans put forward peace proposals in August that the Japanese accepted as they were favourable, and would resolve the expense and logistical difficulty of keeping an army in the field in Manchuria, and Russia accepted because the war was lost and without peace Nicholas II would lose his throne.
I think May recognises her role is to be the sacrificial lamb in 2019, so doesn't have either the confidence or motivation to do anything other sit out the next 22 months (if she's lucky) whilst the civil service does its job and wait for the executioner's knock at the door.
No! That is NOT her role. Her role is to lead, not to be some sort of Uriah Heap figure going "Woe is me!
I'm not saying that should be her role. I'm describing what I think she thinks her role now is, and her state of mind.
I must admit I'm extremely disappointed with Boris, especially as I was one of those who defended him early on when Zoe Williams and the rest were were scathing.
Jesus Christ. Exert some continence on your bladder. This site is becoming unreadable thanks to the Falsetto Lamentations of the Eunuch Remoaners.
Nah. Still not up to your old standards.
Mate. I'm a millionaire with a 22 year old nympho wife, paid £300,000 a book. You're lucky to get monosyllables.
Do you think PB has played any part in your change in fortunes ?
Good question. My immediate arrogant reaction is No. And yet arguing on here has sharpened my intellect, and made me better informed, and also delayed the onset of alcohol induced cognitive decay. I have also, via this splendid site, been forced to change my mind (on Iraq and AV, for instance) and I have met very interesting people (Peter the Punter) and some other interesting dudes who might (go for it RCS1000!!) who night make me a fortune, and even if they don't I've had fun.
My leftwing wife would also add that PB has been a place for me to vent justifiable but controversial rightwing opinions that might have fucked my career had I expressed them on wider social media.
So, my ultimate answer is, I guess. Yes. Thankyou, Mister Smithson Senior
Interesting and generous thoughts Sean, and they make a lot of sense.
I am though intrigued why PB is a place where you can vent controversial rightwing opinions which if expressed elsewhere would fuck your career? Since everyone on PB knows who you are, if your views were going to damage your career, using PB wouldn't offer much protection would it?
I do admire the irony of the electorate denying Theresa May the majority she needed to be able to negotiate effectively with the EU, and then complaining that she won't get a good deal.
Theresa May denied herself a majority, not the electorate.
The electorate had more than a passing influence in the matter!
If only she hadn't called that snap election. I wonder what Gordon Brown's autobiography says about the snap election of 2007.
He might have got the 42% and 318 seats May got rather than the abysmal 29% and 258 seats he did get 3 years later you mean?
Nope, like Mrs May, Gordon Brown dabbling with a snap election (or therein) despite repeated denials that they would do such a thing damaged them both, and neither of the Premierships ever really recovered. Most sensible people acknowledge Mrs May was damaged by the events of June 8th.
Wrong. Mrs May has secured her place in the history books with the highest Tory voteshare in 34 years and the second highest number of Tory seats in 25 years. Even wn.
A significant footnote nonetheless
The product of a completely broken voting system. Conservatives are so stupid they cannot see the dangers involved in not getting something better in place as soon as possible. All they are interested in is grabbing power and clinging on to it. Never mind the consequences.
That is rather the point of a political party and what 'something better' is depends on your perspective
I would have thought it might mean strong and stable government, Mr FD, which worked towards a prosperous economy and and contented population. Something like that. Instead we have a gang of incompetents who are hell-bent on wrecking the economy and the social stability of the nation.
Jesus Christ. Exert some continence on your bladder. This site is becoming unreadable thanks to the Falsetto Lamentations of the Eunuch Remoaners.
Some people are just heart-broken, at the thought of leaving the EU. It's not my view, but there it is.
And the hyperbole they emote about it should be viewed through that prism.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
Whilst not my area of history I thought casualties were roughly similar and it was the destruction of the Baltic fleet that brought the war to an end?
They Russians were forced to evacuate Port Arthur in December 1904, lost the battle of Mukden in March 1905 and their Baltic fleet was destroyed at Tsushima in August. Bloody Sunday, which sparked the revolution, was in January 1905 partly in response to the loss of Port Arthur. The Americans put forward peace proposals in August that the Japanese accepted as they were favourable, and would resolve the expense and logistical difficulty of keeping an army in the field in Manchuria, and Russia accepted because the war was lost and without peace Nicholas II would lose his throne.
The peace treaty sparked riots in Japan, because it was seen as a very poor reward for the sacrifices they'd endured.
An interesting subject. Japanese casualties were vastly greater than Russian and Japan was on the point of suing for peace, when the 1905 revolution broke out, forcing Russia to come to terms.
Whilst not my area of history I thought casualties were roughly similar and it was the destruction of the Baltic fleet that brought the war to an end?
They Russians were forced to evacuate Port Arthur in December 1904, lost the battle of Mukden in March 1905 and their Baltic fleet was destroyed at Tsushima in August. Bloody Sunday, which sparked the revolution, was in January 1905 partly in response to the loss of Port Arthur. The Americans put forward peace proposals in August that the Japanese accepted as they were favourable, and would resolve the expense and logistical difficulty of keeping an army in the field in Manchuria, and Russia accepted because the war was lost and without peace Nicholas II would lose his throne.
The peace treaty sparked riots in Japan, because it was seen as a very poor reward for the sacrifices they'd endured.
A Free Trade Brexit would have the same effect here. Wouldn't make it a bad result!
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
Why would European leaders have any more respect for Gove than they have for Johnson?
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
"Brexit could be the end of Western Political Civilisation"
In terms of largeness of lies, compared to that, £350m a year for new diabetic treatments is positively microscopic.
And yet, when i last looked, Donald Tusk (elected by whom? I genuinely have no idea) is still one of the 1493 official presidents of the EU. Or maybe one of 3, or 8. I forget. Who the fuck knows, or cares. We've left.
Donald Tusk was elected by the 28 EU states, winning 27 votes including Britain's IIRC. It's indirect democracy of a sort... a bit like the way Britain (s)elects its PM really, since PMs are effectively elected by MPs, not by voters. Similarly the POTUS, elected by the US electoral college, not (as Hilary found to her cost) by the voters directly.
I'm not saying it's the best way to do things but there is an element of indirect democracy about it.
Jesus Christ. Exert some continence on your bladder. This site is becoming unreadable thanks to the Falsetto Lamentations of the Eunuch Remoaners.
Nah. Still not up to your old standards.
Mate. I'm a millionaire with a 22 year old nympho wife, paid £300,000 a book. You're lucky to get monosyllables.
Do you think PB has played any part in your change in fortunes ?
Good question. My immediate arrogant reaction is No. And yet arguing on here has sharpened my intellect, and made me better informed, and also delayed the onset of alcohol induced cognitive decay. I have also, via this splendid site, been forced to change my mind (on Iraq and AV, for instance) and I have met very interesting people (Peter the Punter) and some other interesting dudes who might (go for it RCS1000!!) who night make me a fortune, and even if they don't I've had fun.
My leftwing wife would also add that PB has been a place for me to vent justifiable but controversial rightwing opinions that might have fucked my career had I expressed them on wider social media.
So, my ultimate answer is, I guess. Yes. Thankyou, Mister Smithson Senior
Interesting and generous thoughts Sean, and they make a lot of sense.
I am though intrigued why PB is a place where you can vent controversial rightwing opinions which if expressed elsewhere would fuck your career? Since everyone on PB knows who you are, if your views were going to damage your career, using PB wouldn't offer much protection would it?
It's a niche group - someone has to really want to attack @Seant to lift comments from here
On Twitter it's a few retweets and you get a Twitterstorm which hits the front pages
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
Why would European leaders have any more respect for Gove than they have for Johnson?
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
"Brexit could be the end of Western Political Civilisation"
In terms of largeness of lies, compared to that, £350m a year for new diabetic treatments is positively microscopic.
And yet, when i last looked, Donald Tusk (elected by whom? I genuinely have no idea) is still one of the 1493 official presidents of the EU. Or maybe one of 3, or 8. I forget. Who the fuck knows, or cares. We've left.
Donald Tusk was elected by the 28 EU states, winning 27 votes including Britain's IIRC. It's indirect democracy of a sort... a bit like the way Britain (s)elects its PM really, since PMs are effectively elected by MPs, not by voters. Similarly the POTUS, elected by the US electoral college, not (as Hilary found to her cost) by the voters directly.
I'm not saying it's the best way to do things but there is an element of indirect democracy about it.
Malta population approx 400k (?) Germany 80M plus both one vote. Hmm.
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
Why would European leaders have any more respect for Gove than they have for Johnson?
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
"Brexit could be the end of Western Political Civilisation"
In terms of largeness of lies, compared to that, £350m a year for new diabetic treatments is positively microscopic.
And yet, when i last looked, Donald Tusk (elected by whom? I genuinely have no idea) is still one of the 1493 official presidents of the EU. Or maybe one of 3, or 8. I forget. Who the fuck knows, or cares. We've left.
Donald Tusk was elected by the 28 EU states, winning 27 votes including Britain's IIRC. It's indirect democracy of a sort... a bit like the way Britain (s)elects its PM really, since PMs are effectively elected by MPs, not by voters. Similarly the POTUS, elected by the US electoral college, not (as Hilary found to her cost) by the voters directly.
I'm not saying it's the best way to do things but there is an element of indirect democracy about it.
Malta population approx 400k (?) Germany 80M plus both one vote. Hmm.
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
Why would European leaders have any more respect for Gove than they have for Johnson?
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
"Brexit could be the end of Western Political Civilisation"
In terms of largeness of lies, compared to that, £350m a year for new diabetic treatments is positively microscopic.
And yet, when i last looked, Donald Tusk (elected by whom? I genuinely have no idea) is still one of the 1493 official presidents of the EU. Or maybe one of 3, or 8. I forget. Who the fuck knows, or cares. We've left.
Donald Tusk was elected by the 28 EU states, winning 27 votes including Britain's IIRC. It's indirect democracy of a sort... a bit like the way Britain (s)elects its PM really, since PMs are effectively elected by MPs, not by voters. Similarly the POTUS, elected by the US electoral college, not (as Hilary found to her cost) by the voters directly.
I'm not saying it's the best way to do things but there is an element of indirect democracy about it.
Malta population approx 400k (?) Germany 80M plus both one vote. Hmm.
Yes I agree, it sucks. But how to avoid Germany's 80m always ensuring a German EU President?
But by then the dithering will have gone on too long and been damaging in itself - she will look as if she is caving into pressure not taking charge of events.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
The problem is that she is not showing any leadership. No one admires a ditherer.
John Major was mentioned earlier on this thread. The parallels are becoming painfully obvious. Thatcher, Blair, Cameron with their many faults were leaders - decisive and willing to back their judgements. Brown, May, Major are all as you say ditherers. It is no coincidence that the first three won elections and Brown and May couldn't (I know Major did, but he started well ahead of the other two in terms of seats).
Comments
It is of course one of the British Isles. Which happens to include a kingdom formerly known as Great Britain, which it is part of.
Sophie Bolsover - “During my time working in parliament, Rory Stewart was never anything other than completely professional and an excellent employer.”
Edit: I see Francis beat me to it.
It doesn't surprise me that the story is false, bluntly. I think most of them probably are. Some of them even when true are beyond ludicrous for inclusion - i still cannot understand what Rudd and Kwarteng are doing on there, FFS!
But I am afraid anyone on that list is probably ruled out for advancement at the moment in the current ludicrously febrile atmosphere simply because you will get a load of stupid people (or shit stirrers) claiming 'no smoke without fire.'
I think that is all that is saving Boris and particularly Patel right now. Give it two weeks and things may change - but by then the opportunity will have passed.
Not an image I wanted in my head.
An ideal opportunity for Gove to establish himself as the lead (original) Leaver as well.
Patel and Johnson should have been fired today. They haven't been. Even if it is because as we have discussed before she doesn't know who will or won't be tainted in his scandal, that will be costly.
A different issue to New Labour's/everybody in mainstream politics's blindness in the run up to the 2008 crash, which had different causes.
But if we are to have a prominent Leaver in government I would prefer Gove to BoJo.
Yes, things are that bad.
See? Mohammed Al-Sahaf territory!
If he became Foreign Secretary, I think he'd show inside weeks how it should be done, and establish himself as a serious candidate for next PM very quickly.
They both had dreadful results this year.
She needs to take the opportunity of sacking Priti, even Johnson and Leadsom together with Mcloughlan and others and bring in new blood
I suspect he'd work very hard, and innovatively, to raise the UK's global reputation and profile.
This kind of position puts him beyond the pale of mainstream European politics:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/19/brexit-could-spark-democratic-liberation-of-continent-says-gove
Edit - far too many double negatives there. I think it's straight now!
Any more calamitous news from my lovely friends, the Tory party?
Shambles is too nice a word for their predicament...
She should organise replacements for both of them, fire them without ceremony and then carry on. Whoever she appoints as replacements cannot be worse. No matter how things turn out at least she would gain some reputation for having a spine.
She needs to choose an outcome - EEA, EFTA, WTO or even advocating a halt on A50 - anything, but pick something and make it the goal of the govt.
The current shambles is pointless and beyond a joke. We might as well not have MPs and a Parliament at the moment because they effectively seem to be achieving nothing. An empty room produces the same results as Westminster at present.
Steve Smith's recent book stressed the defeats and strains of the Russo-Japanese war throughout 1904 and early 1905 as a cause of labour unrest and ultimately the 1905 revolution, rather than the revolution as a 'stab in the back' of the Russian war effort.
No suicides yet, but it has to be said they didn't handle Elphicke noticeably better than Labour handled Sargeant. The result has just not been as disastrous.
Major's dithering over joining the Euro was not an advert for decisive government.
But then the spam fritter shambles wasn't an advert for competent government either.
Russia lost its fleet, and lost face, prompting revolts against the government.
Carwyn Jones said he had dismissed him following complaints from women.
No doubt the truth will be revealed at the inquest but it is a cautionary tale on how complaints are handled
The intra-company loans are always good for a laugh. It's great when in tax jurisdiction A they claim two wholly owned corporate entities should be considered separate but in tax jurisdiction B they claim those self same corporate entities should be considered the same company. All sorts of shenanigans can be undertook that way.
Attacked again by Asian youths,the Telegraph forgot to mention Racism.
The Red Lion and Round Thorn pubs were both damaged in the Bonfire Night attack
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/15646726.Yobs_smash_windows_at_two_Bradford_pubs_in_vandalism_spree/
I mentioned last years attack on here.
' Graeme Swann, England spinner: "We had to go into pubs and keep tabs on a suspect. I'll never forget Matt Prior, wearing an England cap with three lions on it and an England jumper, trying to surreptitiously order a pint of water while watching a bloke at the other end of the bar.
"People were coming up to him - 'here mate, are you Matt Prior? Can I have your autograph?'
"It was a shambles. We sat in a Morrisons car park for 15 hours a day in a hire car. I hated every minute of it." '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/41859201
I think she still believes there is a path to her winning the 2022 election; I don't believe she sees herself as a caretaker. She's almost certainly not going to win the next election but looking at the paucity of Tory party contenders I think it's very likely she will lead then to defeat in that election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/01/boris.livingstone
Do we have the Lord Melborne thing here?
What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.
I am though intrigued why PB is a place where you can vent controversial rightwing opinions which if expressed elsewhere would fuck your career? Since everyone on PB knows who you are, if your views were going to damage your career, using PB wouldn't offer much protection would it?
مؤشر ترابط جديد
I'm not saying it's the best way to do things but there is an element of indirect democracy about it.
NEW THREAD
On Twitter it's a few retweets and you get a Twitterstorm which hits the front pages