It seems this holidaying lark is very dangerous for Tory politicians. Osborne and his dinner on a yacht, May brain-wave while out hiking and now Patel...
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
FFS how do you convince the council that someone whose medical notes say she NEEDS an overhead hoist actually has to have one.
They accept the fact and are putting up ceiling tracking at some point in next 12 weeks in the meantime the gantry overhead one is deemed a risk and they have taken it away..
Why can't they see that not having it is a much bigger risk given her sole carer (me) cant operate a manual one single handedly.
They seem to think that 2 properly trained council carers are required for the manual one at 10am and 8pm but during the day when she spasms and falls off her powerchair one untrained operative (me) is safe
As I say FFS
That really doesn’t sound good. As suggested the other day, it’s probably time to get your MP involved now.
Done that this morning he is in Kenya but his office are taking it up.
I would start with your local councillor or social services cabinet member, they are closer to it and will give it more person attention. The MP or more likely their staff will simply act as a letterbox
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
Hunt is a dark horse contender for the permanent position. Tory contests are usually won by candidates chosen for who they are not rather than who they are. There are few, if any, 'Anyone But Hunt' MPs, whereas there'd be plenty who'd say that of Boris, or Leadsom, or JRM. Davis too has shown enough questionable judgement to have sizable question marks against his name.
Hunt is vanilla to John Major's grey. Exactly the kind of boring, sensible, pragmatic, centrist that doesn't cut in today's world. Hunt's best bet is to get it as caretaker and stick around.
Hunt is better than that; Asian wife, young, smart, loyal - ticking various boxes for various constituencies, not all of them within the Cons party.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
*looks at Betfair account*
*nods fervently*
Philip Hammond is the only sensible choice.
Given how vehemently he is hated by Leavers, he has no chance in any time horizon currently under consideration.
Its a blessing in disguise for the Tory party. An opportunity to do a Night of the Long Knives on a cabinet Old Gang which cannot win a general election. Priti Patel is typical of what is wrong with the modern Tory party. Hard faced, right wing, out of touch. Boris Johnson, blonde buffoon, Trump lookalike. David Davies, old weary stale reject from the 2010 leadership contest. Its an opportunity to bring in new younger blood as happened with Gavin Williamson after the departure of the sex bomb Michael Fallon.
Only a young promotee to the cabinet can save the Tory party in the medium term-and the Labour Party in the long term -from Jeremy Corbyn.
Speaking of caretakers, I'm reading The Alexiad, and was amused to learn that when Alexios went to fight Robert Guiscard he essentially left the Roman Empire to his mum.
Edited extra bit: if Labour weren't led by Corbyn, they'd have a thirty point lead now.
If Labour weren't led by Corbyn, we wouldn't have had a GE2017, might not have had a Leave vote and could well still have Cameron as PM. In which case they'd probably be about 10 points clear.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
Possibly but the membership would want a true beleaver.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
*looks at Betfair account*
*nods fervently*
Philip Hammond is the only sensible choice.
Labour and LD supporters all backing Hammond and Hunt is like Tory supporters in 2015 all saying Kendall and Cooper were the best choices for Labour.
In the end Corbyn won comfortably with Burnham second, remember it is Tory members who will ultimately decide the next Tory leader and PM just as it was Labour members who decided the next leader then and all the polling shows they want a committed Leaver this time.
Hunt is better than that; Asian wife, young, smart, loyal - ticking various boxes for various constituencies, not all of them within the Cons party.
Yes, and he has also got a streak of political ruthlessness, which is an important attribute in a leader. Unfortunately, he has the NHS millstone round his neck, which is a big minus albeit not his fault.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
Hunt is a dark horse contender for the permanent position. Tory contests are usually won by candidates chosen for who they are not rather than who they are. There are few, if any, 'Anyone But Hunt' MPs, whereas there'd be plenty who'd say that of Boris, or Leadsom, or JRM. Davis too has shown enough questionable judgement to have sizable question marks against his name.
Hunt could really do with 3-6 months in another department first.
Outside the bubble, May's approval ratings are weirdly, stupidly high and pretty much comparable with Cameron and Thatcher at this month of their tenure.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
*looks at Betfair account*
*nods fervently*
Philip Hammond is the only sensible choice.
Labour and LD supporters all backing Hammond and Hunt is like Tory supporters in 2015 all saying Kendall and Cooper were the best choices for Labour.
In the end Corbyn won comfortably with Burnham second, remember it is Tory members who will ultimately decide the next Tory leader and PM just as it was Labour members who decided the next leader then and all the polling shows they want a committed Leaver this time.
On Nixon in China basis, within the Tories if would have to be a leaver who abandons hard Brexit
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
*looks at Betfair account*
*nods fervently*
Philip Hammond is the only sensible choice.
Labour and LD supporters all backing Hammond and Hunt is like Tory supporters in 2015 all saying Kendall and Cooper were the best choices for Labour.
In the end Corbyn won comfortably with Burnham second, remember it is Tory members who will ultimately decide the next Tory leader and PM just as it was Labour members who decided the next leader then and all the polling shows they want a committed Leaver this time.
Yes, but if push comes to shove, I think they'd elect Hunt ahead of Rees-Mogg, who I don't think would get through the MPs' rounds anyway. That said, gaming the MPs' rounds will be bloody difficult.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
Hunt is a dark horse contender for the permanent position. Tory contests are usually won by candidates chosen for who they are not rather than who they are. There are few, if any, 'Anyone But Hunt' MPs, whereas there'd be plenty who'd say that of Boris, or Leadsom, or JRM. Davis too has shown enough questionable judgement to have sizable question marks against his name.
I am so green on Hunt it is scary!
I think his NHS baggage will count against him. But I am biased on this matter I suppose.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
*looks at Betfair account*
*nods fervently*
Philip Hammond is the only sensible choice.
Labour and LD supporters all backing Hammond and Hunt is like Tory supporters in 2015 all saying Kendall and Cooper were the best choices for Labour.
In the end Corbyn won comfortably with Burnham second, remember it is Tory members who will ultimately decide the next Tory leader and PM just as it was Labour members who decided the next leader then and all the polling shows they want a committed Leaver this time.
Yes, but if push comes to shove, I think they'd elect Hunt ahead of Rees-Mogg, who I don't think would get through the MPs' rounds anyway. That said, gaming the MPs' rounds will be bloody difficult.
Its a blessing in disguise for the Tory party. An opportunity to do a Night of the Long Knives on a cabinet Old Gang which cannot win a general election. Priti Patel is typical of what is wrong with the modern Tory party. Hard faced, right wing, out of touch. Boris Johnson, blonde buffoon, Trump lookalike. David Davies, old weary stale reject from the 2010 leadership contest. Its an opportunity to bring in new younger blood as happened with Gavin Williamson after the departure of the sex bomb Michael Fallon.
Only a young promotee to the cabinet can save the Tory party in the medium term-and the Labour Party in the long term -from Jeremy Corbyn.
2005 leadership contest: we didn't need one in 2010. He stood in the 2001 one as well.
"But the JC understands, from two different sources, that Ms Patel did disclose the meeting with Mr Rotem but was told by Number 10 not to include it as it would embarrass the Foreign and Commonwealth Office."
That rather fits with my hypothesis of what she was in fact doing this morning.
Speaking of caretakers, I'm reading The Alexiad, and was amused to learn that when Alexios went to fight Robert Guiscard he essentially left the Roman Empire to his mum.
Edited extra bit: if Labour weren't led by Corbyn, they'd have a thirty point lead now.
If Labour weren't led by Corbyn, we wouldn't have had a GE2017, might not have had a Leave vote and could well still have Cameron as PM. In which case they'd probably be about 10 points clear.
Its a blessing in disguise for the Tory party. An opportunity to do a Night of the Long Knives on a cabinet Old Gang which cannot win a general election. Priti Patel is typical of what is wrong with the modern Tory party. Hard faced, right wing, out of touch. Boris Johnson, blonde buffoon, Trump lookalike. David Davies, old weary stale reject from the 2010 leadership contest. Its an opportunity to bring in new younger blood as happened with Gavin Williamson after the departure of the sex bomb Michael Fallon.
Only a young promotee to the cabinet can save the Tory party in the medium term-and the Labour Party in the long term -from Jeremy Corbyn.
2005 leadership contest: we didn't need one in 2010. He stood in the 2001 one as well.
If May does go over this, imminently, would that mean she actually departs very swiftly, or hang on for the leadership election?
Normally it'd be the latter, but she clearly would be happier out of it. Yet, the seeming caretaker would be Green.
The caretaker is whoever's fit for it. In many ways, it's an advantage to have someone mind the shop who cannot be PM in the long term: it means they don't become an alternative power base.
That said, I still wouldn't pick Green. Someone in the Lords would be better.
Which would reveal that the Tory Party is incapable of agreeing on an MP to fill the role even as a caretaker. They cannot form a coherent government and a new leader will not change that.
Not really. To be a caretaker leader / PM you need to have sufficient experience and authority to be seen as credible in the job, while having no interest yourself in doing it for the long term. That inevitably means an elder statesman. On the Tory benches, there are very few former senior ministers, partly because of Labour's 13 years in office but also because of the speed with which Cameron, Osborne and Hague left the Commons. There's only really Clarke and he's unsuitable because of the European question.
But it would be much better if May were to be the caretaker PM if she were forced out or resigned as Con leader.
FWIW, Cameron is 300/1 and Osborne is 200/1 (neither of whom are in the Lords but that could be changed easily enough); Oddschecker doesn't quote odds for Hague.
Looking at years served, Jeremy Hunt really should be an obvious contender for the position.
*looks at Betfair account*
*nods fervently*
Philip Hammond is the only sensible choice.
Given how vehemently he is hated by Leavers, he has no chance in any time horizon currently under consideration.
Mr. Herdson, I was imagining Labour hadn't started fawning over the self-declared friend of Hamas and he'd gone shortly after the 2017 election.
Ah. In that case, assuming that they'd chosen someone half-sensible - Starmer, say - then I think Labour would be far more openly pro-Remain and there'd be a ceiling on their support as a result of that. I don't think they could easily get much beyond about a 15 point lead, though they'd be pushing that now.
The latest twist doesn't make much sense. Why would a meeting with Yuval Rotem be any more embarrassing to the FCO than the other 12 meetings? Would anyone have noticed if the list had been 14 rather than 12 meetings?
Might that depend what was being discussed at those meetings?
Comments
https://twitter.com/RachelSJohnson/status/928226472321519618
Only a young promotee to the cabinet can save the Tory party in the medium term-and the Labour Party in the long term -from Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end Corbyn won comfortably with Burnham second, remember it is Tory members who will ultimately decide the next Tory leader and PM just as it was Labour members who decided the next leader then and all the polling shows they want a committed Leaver this time.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/926423815478968322
NEW THREAD
ONLY. SENSIBLE. CHOICE.