Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!
Oh gods! He talks about himself in the third person?
Seriously though, what a tremendous arse he is. And if Trump read that, no doubt he's think it a compliment to his tremendous ass.
I really can't abide Trump but I am having a little difficulty in working out why accusing a politician of being willing to do anything for donations is "slut shaming" her. Would it be thought that is what he meant if he was talking about a man?
The man is a total arse and there is no need to try and contrive offence. He produces enough genuine affronts without inventing them.
I'm not inferring anything from his comments - it's just his overall manner which is that of a giant arse, whether he is getting downright sexist or racist or not.
Oof, looking at some of those seats SCON won in 2017, its remarkable how much SLD declined in so many seats from what were already steep declines in in 2015. Very efficient voting for their overall percentage, but take Berwickshire as an example - from 45% to less than 5%, losing almost 15% between 2015 and 2017.
Oof, looking at some of those seats SCON won in 2017, its remarkable how much SLD declined in so many seats from what were already steep declines in in 2015. Very efficient voting for their overall percentage, but take Berwickshire as an example - from 45% to less than 5%, losing almost 15% between 2015 and 2017.
We saw a similar LibDem secondary collapse in many places in 2017 and indeed in 2015 in seats they had lost in 2010.
The incumbancy and tactical votes were great for the LibDems when they were available but when they disappeared we saw how much, or how little, hardcore LibDem support there was.
Oof, looking at some of those seats SCON won in 2017, its remarkable how much SLD declined in so many seats from what were already steep declines in in 2015. Very efficient voting for their overall percentage, but take Berwickshire as an example - from 45% to less than 5%, losing almost 15% between 2015 and 2017.
The Scottish electorate is remarkably volatile.
It would certainly seem unwise for anyone to be completely confident of being safe, even if they have what look like safe majorities, given recent trends. Still, it's nice for the politicians to feel uncertain about such things.
1) End WFA in England and Wales but keep it in Scotland 2) Build endless new towns - locations and financing not revealed
I wouldn't have thought that would appeal to Conservative members.
She's perceived to be a winner.
Who is best placed to win the next general election will be the biggest influencer on Tory members.
Scottish Parliament election, 2016: Edinburgh Central
Conservative Ruth Davidson 10,399 30.4 Increase 15.4 SNP Alison Dickie 9,789 28.6 Decrease 4.0 Labour Sarah Boyack 7,546 22.1 Decrease 9.8 Scottish Green Alison Johnstone [5] 4,644 13.6 Increase 13.6 Liberal Democrats Hannah Bettsworth 1,672 4.9 Decrease 15.6 Libertarian Tom Laird 119 0.3 N/A
One of the more remarkable results outside a by-election in recent times. Previous election the Tories were 4th in that seat.
She deserves a great deal of credit.
But the SCons also hit a sweet spot. They became the party of choice for voters who were pro-Union and anti-EU, enabling them to sweep the Borders and North East.
I was looking at the Scottish Borders Council website, and there I learn that apparently it isn't SCON, it's SCUP. News to me.
In the last 3 elections it has very much been campaigning for the Scottish conservative and UNIONIST party. This may not always work of course.
1) End WFA in England and Wales but keep it in Scotland 2) Build endless new towns - locations and financing not revealed
I wouldn't have thought that would appeal to Conservative members.
She's perceived to be a winner.
Who is best placed to win the next general election will be the biggest influencer on Tory members.
Scottish Parliament election, 2016: Edinburgh Central
Conservative Ruth Davidson 10,399 30.4 Increase 15.4 SNP Alison Dickie 9,789 28.6 Decrease 4.0 Labour Sarah Boyack 7,546 22.1 Decrease 9.8 Scottish Green Alison Johnstone [5] 4,644 13.6 Increase 13.6 Liberal Democrats Hannah Bettsworth 1,672 4.9 Decrease 15.6 Libertarian Tom Laird 119 0.3 N/A
One of the more remarkable results outside a by-election in recent times. Previous election the Tories were 4th in that seat.
She deserves a great deal of credit.
But the SCons also hit a sweet spot. They became the party of choice for voters who were pro-Union and anti-EU, enabling them to sweep the Borders and North East.
I was looking at the Scottish Borders Council website, and there I learn that apparently it isn't SCON, it's SCUP. News to me.
In the last 3 elections it has very much been campaigning for the Scottish conservative and UNIONIST party. This may not always work of course.
I thought in the last one it was about campaigning for 'Ruth Davidson's candidates'?
Oof, looking at some of those seats SCON won in 2017, its remarkable how much SLD declined in so many seats from what were already steep declines in in 2015. Very efficient voting for their overall percentage, but take Berwickshire as an example - from 45% to less than 5%, losing almost 15% between 2015 and 2017.
The Scottish electorate is remarkably volatile.
It was remarkably non-volatile in 2010.
Though going from total non-votality in 2010 to almost total votality in 2015 is itself an example of volatility.
1) End WFA in England and Wales but keep it in Scotland 2) Build endless new towns - locations and financing not revealed
I wouldn't have thought that would appeal to Conservative members.
She's perceived to be a winner.
Who is best placed to win the next general election will be the biggest influencer on Tory members.
Scottish Parliament election, 2016: Edinburgh Central
Conservative Ruth Davidson 10,399 30.4 Increase 15.4 SNP Alison Dickie 9,789 28.6 Decrease 4.0 Labour Sarah Boyack 7,546 22.1 Decrease 9.8 Scottish Green Alison Johnstone [5] 4,644 13.6 Increase 13.6 Liberal Democrats Hannah Bettsworth 1,672 4.9 Decrease 15.6 Libertarian Tom Laird 119 0.3 N/A
One of the more remarkable results outside a by-election in recent times. Previous election the Tories were 4th in that seat.
She deserves a great deal of credit.
But the SCons also hit a sweet spot. They became the party of choice for voters who were pro-Union and anti-EU, enabling them to sweep the Borders and North East.
I was looking at the Scottish Borders Council website, and there I learn that apparently it isn't SCON, it's SCUP. News to me.
In the last 3 elections it has very much been campaigning for the Scottish conservative and UNIONIST party. This may not always work of course.
Wasn't there a thing awhile back about changing the name? Was any particular new name preferred?
Oof, looking at some of those seats SCON won in 2017, its remarkable how much SLD declined in so many seats from what were already steep declines in in 2015. Very efficient voting for their overall percentage, but take Berwickshire as an example - from 45% to less than 5%, losing almost 15% between 2015 and 2017.
The Scottish electorate is remarkably volatile.
It would certainly seem unwise for anyone to be completely confident of being safe, even if they have what look like safe majorities, given recent trends. Still, it's nice for the politicians to feel uncertain about such things.
Results in rural and Highland Scotland have long depended on voters' views of the candidates more than the party. But, the Central Belt was monolithic for Labour, until it ceased to be, in 2015.
Oof, looking at some of those seats SCON won in 2017, its remarkable how much SLD declined in so many seats from what were already steep declines in in 2015. Very efficient voting for their overall percentage, but take Berwickshire as an example - from 45% to less than 5%, losing almost 15% between 2015 and 2017.
SLD switched enmass to the Tories in a way I found personally very, very surprising.
All the voter supression tricks being pulled today in Alabama. Voters being asked for greater levels of I'd than required, claiming voter cannot vote as they are inactive etc.. never mind the ludicrous waiting lines.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Oof, looking at some of those seats SCON won in 2017, its remarkable how much SLD declined in so many seats from what were already steep declines in in 2015. Very efficient voting for their overall percentage, but take Berwickshire as an example - from 45% to less than 5%, losing almost 15% between 2015 and 2017.
The Scottish electorate is remarkably volatile.
It was remarkably non-volatile in 2010.
Though going from total non-votality in 2010 to almost total votality in 2015 is itself an example of volatility.
Between 2010-2017, there has been a 2% swing from Con to Lab. From 1997-2017, 7.5% from Lab to Con. But, at constituency level, there have been remarkable shifts in fortunes.
Ruth can be pragmatic on the Brexit deal that May secures.
Or she can be like Ken Clarke - and end her Westminster career punting for some impossible European dream. I hope the former, as she would scare to death both Labour and (especially) the LibDems.
I think Ruth is extremely pragmatic. Some of the things she is being questioned about are a direct result of the Scottish context in which she operates. We could actually do with some immigration, for example.
Yes Ruth is highly pragmatic on Brexit. She went from no Brexit to hard Brexit when having photo ops with fishermen to floppy soft Brexit now. Whatever Brexit you want Ruth agrees with you.
Ruth can be pragmatic on the Brexit deal that May secures.
Or she can be like Ken Clarke - and end her Westminster career punting for some impossible European dream. I hope the former, as she would scare to death both Labour and (especially) the LibDems.
I think Ruth is extremely pragmatic. Some of the things she is being questioned about are a direct result of the Scottish context in which she operates. We could actually do with some immigration, for example.
Yes Ruth is highly pragmatic on Brexit. She went from no Brexit to hard Brexit when having photo ops with fishermen to floppy soft Brexit now. Whatever Brexit you want Ruth agrees with you.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
While in Australia the Tory party are called the Liberal Party.
In the UK though we're called the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are illiberal and undemocratic so I won't be supporting them.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Have there been an openly gay major party leaders before? Another first for the Tories?
Heath was likely the first gay PM but closeted
I have trouble with accusations that Heath was gay. Can we be sure he wasn't just asexual?
An anecdote, if I may: at uni I knew a lad who was just not interested in girls. He would come out clubbing with us occasionally, but showed no inclination to pull. I assumed he was gay.
He wasn't. He was asexual. As far as I can tell, neither men or women floated his boat.
As it happens, he's done rather well for himself - probably because all the time and energy that he would have spent on the pull or in relationships has been more productively spent.
Might it be that all the Heath was gay comments come from people who, like me in my stupid youth, presumed people who were not having relationships with members of the opposite sex had to be gay?
I am with you on this one.
Heath seemed in love with himself, and attracted to no one else.
I think that is very harsh. My understanding is Heath had one love in his life and she married someone else. I remember seeing him interviewed about his private life and he looked incredibly uncomfortable, not because he had anything to hide but simply because he didn't come from a generation or background that spoke about such things.
Sky seem to have become the UK EU broadcasting corporation with every negative comment they can find and always supporting the EU line. Indeed I cannot name one Sky journalist who is not a remainer including Islam, Rigby, Boulton, and Mark Stone. The BBC to be fair seem to be much more balanced.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
While in Australia the Tory party are called the Liberal Party.
In the UK though we're called the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are illiberal and undemocratic so I won't be supporting them.
They aren't, the Tory Party are the National Party of Australia who have a centre right coalition with the Liberal Party.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Chamberlain and Macmillan were both monarchists and unionists as was Heseltine which meant they could stil be Tories
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
As a monarchist and a unionist, such a restrictive view makes me less inclined to vote Tory. All parties are coalitions. Sure, those coalitions can get too big, to the point the wings really should be in different parties, but we don't have enough viable parties for people to find perfect fits.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Chamberlain and Macmillan were both monarchists and unionists as was Heseltine which meant they could stil be Tories
But were they? They came from non-Tory traditions originally.Using your criteria Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson could have been Tories.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Chamberlain and Macmillan were both monarchists and unionists as was Heseltine which meant they could stil be Tories
But were they? They came from non-Tory traditions originally.Using your criteria Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson could have been Tories.
They could have been on those issues alone but they were also centre left economically which made them Labour
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Chamberlain and Macmillan were both monarchists and unionists as was Heseltine which meant they could stil be Tories
But were they? They came from non-Tory traditions originally.Using your criteria Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson could have been Tories.
They could have been on those issues alone but they were also centre left economically which made them Labour
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
As a monarchist and a unionist, such a restrictive view makes me less inclined to vote Tory. All parties are coalitions. Sure, those coalitions can get too big, to the point the wings really should be in different parties, but we don't have enough viable parties for people to find perfect fits.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere, in LD terms that means social liberalism and civil liberties, see the problems Farron got into, in Labour terms centre left economics, in Tory terms monarchism and unionism
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Chamberlain and Macmillan were both monarchists and unionists as was Heseltine which meant they could stil be Tories
But were they? They came from non-Tory traditions originally.Using your criteria Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson could have been Tories.
They could have been on those issues alone but they were also centre left economically which made them Labour
But so was Macmillan!
He was not centre left economically, he was centrist
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Have there been an openly gay major party leaders before? Another first for the Tories?
Heath was likely the first gay PM but closeted
I have trouble with accusations that Heath was gay. Can we be sure he wasn't just asexual?
An anecdote, if I may: at uni I knew a lad who was just not interested in girls. He would come out clubbing with us occasionally, but showed no inclination to pull. I assumed he was gay.
He wasn't. He was asexual. As far as I can tell, neither men or women floated his boat.
As it happens, he's done rather well for himself - probably because all the time and energy that he would have spent on the pull or in relationships has been more productively spent.
Might it be that all the Heath was gay comments come from people who, like me in my stupid youth, presumed people who were not having relationships with members of the opposite sex had to be gay?
I am with you on this one.
Heath seemed in love with himself, and attracted to no one else.
I think that is very harsh. My understanding is Heath had one love in his life and she married someone else. I remember seeing him interviewed about his private life and he looked incredibly uncomfortable, not because he had anything to hide but simply because he didn't come from a generation or background that spoke about such things.
I have heard that story too, but I think he sublimated his energies into his political career afterwards.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
As a monarchist and a unionist, such a restrictive view makes me less inclined to vote Tory. All parties are coalitions. Sure, those coalitions can get too big, to the point the wings really should be in different parties, but we don't have enough viable parties for people to find perfect fits.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere, in LD terms that means social liberalism and civil liberties, see the problems Farron got into, in Labour terms centre left economics, in Tory terms monarchism and unionism
Neither monarchism nor unionism are even issues in most of the nation.
To me being Tory means economically right/centre-right and a belief in the individual over the state.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
So as an economically right-wing individual who believes that individuals and companies make better decisions than the state, that is a republican because of his belief in meritocratic individualism who should I vote for?
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
As a monarchist and a unionist, such a restrictive view makes me less inclined to vote Tory. All parties are coalitions. Sure, those coalitions can get too big, to the point the wings really should be in different parties, but we don't have enough viable parties for people to find perfect fits.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere, in LD terms that means social liberalism and civil liberties, see the problems Farron got into, in Labour terms centre left economics, in Tory terms monarchism and unionism
Neither monarchism nor unionism are even issues in most of the nation.
To me being Tory means economically right/centre-right and a belief in the individual over the state.
None of those are Tory principles as such, though the Tories have often adopted them, at times e.g. the era of Gladstone and Disraeli or the 1950s the Liberals better represented those principles than the Tories did.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere
That's not the problem. The problem is how rigidly you define it (and who gets to define it). For one, there are unionist monarchists who vote Labour, perhaps say based on economic policy or other social policies. By your definition they are essentially demonstrating a type of false consciousness because they dare to weigh up the other factors behind supporting a party in a different way than you would prefer. I agree if you take way ideology too much in a big tent approach its a problem, it becomes silly tribalism based on how people think they should vote (we see this when people support or oppose a policy based on who is proposing it), but with unionist monarchists in non Tory parties and republicans in the Tories, and parties, like human beings, being more complex than can be summarised in a two word pithy phrase, I don't see how you get to be the one who tells people they are not 'proper' Tories when the party itself, as represented by its leaders, would probably dispute you on that score.
It'd be nice if we could all vote for a party that perfectly matches our views, all of them, but that's not possible, and so you will always have divergences of opinion, and more vitally, divergence over what the actual core of the party ideology is. Clearly not all Tories agree with your view on it.
They also need to persuade people that even if the party does not match their views completely, it is still the best option for them overall. Your method is guaranteed to push people into voting for someone else. I've voted LD three times and Tory once, and arguments like yours are telling me I should vote LD even though they've done nothing to try to win it back - after all, at least they'll be grateful for my vote.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
As a monarchist and a unionist, such a restrictive view makes me less inclined to vote Tory. All parties are coalitions. Sure, those coalitions can get too big, to the point the wings really should be in different parties, but we don't have enough viable parties for people to find perfect fits.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere, in LD terms that means social liberalism and civil liberties, see the problems Farron got into, in Labour terms centre left economics, in Tory terms monarchism and unionism
Neither monarchism nor unionism are even issues in most of the nation.
To me being Tory means economically right/centre-right and a belief in the individual over the state.
None of those are Tory principles as such, though the Tories have often adopted them, at times e.g. the era of Gladstone and Disraeli or the 1950s the Liberals better represented those principles than the Tories did.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
So as an economically right-wing individual who believes that individuals and companies make better decisions than the state, that is a republican because of his belief in meritocratic individualism who should I vote for?
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
So as an economically right-wing individual who believes that individuals and companies make better decisions than the state, that is a republican because of his belief in meritocratic individualism who should I vote for?
I suggest you join the Orange Book wing of the LDs or the Libertarian Party
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
As a monarchist and a unionist, such a restrictive view makes me less inclined to vote Tory. All parties are coalitions. Sure, those coalitions can get too big, to the point the wings really should be in different parties, but we don't have enough viable parties for people to find perfect fits.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere, in LD terms that means social liberalism and civil liberties, see the problems Farron got into, in Labour terms centre left economics, in Tory terms monarchism and unionism
Neither monarchism nor unionism are even issues in most of the nation.
To me being Tory means economically right/centre-right and a belief in the individual over the state.
Joking aside (and surely @HYFUD is jesting us with his purge of nonbelievers) the decline of social class as the political divide in the nation, in favour of an age and cultural divide, does mean that both major parties need to redifine what they are for. During that shift of tectonic plates we may see some political precedents shattered.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
What, no religion too? What ever happened to "God, King, and Country"?
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere
That's not the problem. The problem is how rigidly you define it (and who gets to define it). For one, there are unionist monarchists who vote Labour, perhaps say based on economic policy or other social policies. By your definition they are essentially demonstrating a type of false consciousness because they dare to weigh up the other factors behind supporting a party in a different way than you would prefer. I agree if you take way ideology too much in a big tent approach its a problem, it becomes silly tribalism based on how people think they should vote (we see this when people support or oppose a policy based on who is proposing it), but with unionist monarchists in non Tory parties and republicans in the Tories, and parties, like human beings, being more complex than can be summarised in a two word pithy phrase, I don't see how you get to be the one who tells people they are not 'proper' Tories when the party itself, as represented by its leaders, would probably dispute you on that score.
It'd be nice if we could all vote for a party that perfectly matches our views, all of them, but that's not possible, and so you will always have divergences of opinion, and more vitally, divergence over what the actual core of the party ideology is. Clearly not all Tories agree with your view on it.
They also need to persuade people that even if the party does not match their views completely, it is still the best option for them overall. Your method is guaranteed to push people into voting for someone else. I've voted LD three times and Tory once, and arguments like yours are telling me I should vote LD.
Well you're going to get love bombed by this Tory urging you to keep on voting Tory.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
As a monarchist and a unionist, such a restrictive view makes me less inclined to vote Tory. All parties are coalitions. Sure, those coalitions can get too big, to the point the wings really should be in different parties, but we don't have enough viable parties for people to find perfect fits.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere, in LD terms that means social liberalism and civil liberties, see the problems Farron got into, in Labour terms centre left economics, in Tory terms monarchism and unionism
Neither monarchism nor unionism are even issues in most of the nation.
To me being Tory means economically right/centre-right and a belief in the individual over the state.
I agree entirely. Scotland = pop. 5.25m, and I wish them well; monarchism comes down to preferring - just - an unattractive pair of elderly billionaires to get the gig rather than a hypothetical POTUK Tony and FLOTUK Cherie, or worse. But unless you are Chas n Mills, or Scottish, elevating either question to an Eternal Principle is just weird.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Chamberlain and Macmillan were both monarchists and unionists as was Heseltine which meant they could stil be Tories
But were they? They came from non-Tory traditions originally.Using your criteria Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson could have been Tories.
They could have been on those issues alone but they were also centre left economically which made them Labour
But so was Macmillan!
He was not centre left economically, he was centrist
Macmillan was well to the left in economics of Blair!
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere
That's not the problem. The problem is how rigidly you define it (and who gets to define it). For one, there are unionist monarchists who vote Labour, perhaps say based on economic policy or other social policies. By your definition they are essentially demonstrating a type of false consciousness because they dare to weigh up the other factors behind supporting a party in a different way than you would prefer. I agree if you take way ideology too much in a big tent approach its a problem, it becomes silly tribalism based on how people think they should vote (we see this when people support or oppose a policy based on who is proposing it), but with unionist monarchists in non Tory parties and republicans in the Tories, and parties, like human beings, being more complex than can be summarised in a two word pithy phrase, I don't see how you get to be the one who tells people they are not 'proper' Tories when the party itself, as represented by its leaders, would probably dispute you on that score.
It'd be nice if we could all vote for a party that perfectly matches our views, all of them, but that's not possible, and so you will always have divergences of opinion, and more vitally, divergence over what the actual core of the party ideology is. Clearly not all Tories agree with your view on it.
They also need to persuade people that even if the party does not match their views completely, it is still the best option for them overall. Your method is guaranteed to push people into voting for someone else. I've voted LD three times and Tory once, and arguments like yours are telling me I should vote LD even though they've done nothing to try to win it back - after all, at least they'll be grateful for my vote.
You can be a Labour supporter and a monarchist and unionist, though Corbyn is not really either if centre left economics is more important, you cannot be a Tory and not be a monarchist and unionist
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere
That's not the problem. The problem is how rigidly you define it (and who gets to define it). For one, there are unionist monarchists who vote Labour, perhaps say based on economic policy or other social policies. By your definition they are essentially demonstrating a type of false consciousness because they dare to weigh up the other factors behind supporting a party in a different way than you would prefer. I agree if you take way ideology too much in a big tent approach its a problem, it becomes silly tribalism based on how people think they should vote (we see this when people support or oppose a policy based on who is proposing it), but with unionist monarchists in non Tory parties and republicans in the Tories, and parties, like human beings, being more complex than can be summarised in a two word pithy phrase, I don't see how you get to be the one who tells people they are not 'proper' Tories when the party itself, as represented by its leaders, would probably dispute you on that score.
It'd be nice if we could all vote for a party that perfectly matches our views, all of them, but that's not possible, and so you will always have divergences of opinion, and more vitally, divergence over what the actual core of the party ideology is. Clearly not all Tories agree with your view on it.
They also need to persuade people that even if the party does not match their views completely, it is still the best option for them overall. Your method is guaranteed to push people into voting for someone else. I've voted LD three times and Tory once, and arguments like yours are telling me I should vote LD.
Well you're going to get love bombed by this Tory urging you to keep on voting Tory.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
I am sorry but you have to define what a party stands for somewhere
That's not the problem. The problem is how rigidly you define it (and who gets to define it). For one, there are unionist monarchists who vote Labour, perhaps say based on economic policy or other social policies. By your definition they are essentially demonstrating a type of false consciousness because they dare to weigh up the other factors behind supporting a party in a different way than you would prefer. I agree if you take way ideology too much in a big tent approach its a problem, it becomes silly tribalism based on how people think they should vote (we see this when people support or oppose a policy based on who is proposing it), but with unionist monarchists in non Tory parties and republicans in the Tories, and parties, like human beings, being more complex than can be summarised in a two word pithy phrase, I don't see how you get to be the one who tells people they are not 'proper' Tories when the party itself, as represented by its leaders, would probably dispute you on that score.
It'd be nice if we could all vote for a party that perfectly matches our views, all of them, but that's not possible, and so you will always have divergences of opinion, and more vitally, divergence over what the actual core of the party ideology is. Clearly not all Tories agree with your view on it.
They also need to persuade people that even if the party does not match their views completely, it is still the best option for them overall. Your method is guaranteed to push people into voting for someone else. I've voted LD three times and Tory once, and arguments like yours are telling me I should vote LD.
Well you're going to get love bombed by this Tory urging you to keep on voting Tory.
My MP self published a novel set in the Civil War, which is a definite plus in fairness. I make no promises though - I didn't like voting for mostly negative reasons, which was a definite factor in my 2017 vote.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative.
I suppose Neville Chamberlain was never a Tory - but a Liberal Unionist. Ditto Harold Macmillan. Likewise Heseltine is really a National Liberal who would have supported Lloyd George back in the 1920s.
Chamberlain and Macmillan were both monarchists and unionists as was Heseltine which meant they could stil be Tories
But were they? They came from non-Tory traditions originally.Using your criteria Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson could have been Tories.
They could have been on those issues alone but they were also centre left economically which made them Labour
But so was Macmillan!
He was not centre left economically, he was centrist
Macmillan was well to the left in economics of Blair!
Blair imposed a windfall tax on privatised utilities, introduced a minimum wage and increased spending over his premiership, he was not really socialist but he was not really centre right economically either. Macmillan did not really shift the country left he just left in place much of what Attlee left but he was still a monarchist and unionist nonetheless
My MP self published a novel set in the Civil War, which is a definite plus in fairness. I make no promises though - I didn't like voting for mostly negative reasons, which was a definite factor in my 2017 vote.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
My MP self published a novel set in the Civil War, which is a definite plus in fairness. I make no promises though - I didn't like voting for mostly negative reasons, which was a definite factor in my 2017 vote.
I'd say he has potential, though the pacing is off in the second half, too rushed, and that bit also requires a bit more knowledge about the governance during that period than most people would have.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
So as an economically right-wing individual who believes that individuals and companies make better decisions than the state, that is a republican because of his belief in meritocratic individualism who should I vote for?
I suggest you join the Orange Book wing of the LDs or the Libertarian Party
How does the Orange Book wing of the LDs better represent that than the Cameroon (or Thatcherite) wings of the Conservative Party?
The LDs are too left-wing and too undependable for my tastes - they would get into coalition with Labour if they could. While I could tolerate the Orange Bookers the only time in recent memory that the Lib Dems have been led by an Orange Booker, the Conservative Party was led by Cameron.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
What, no religion too? What ever happened to "God, King, and Country"?
Religion as such has not been an issue for the Tories as monarchy and unionism, the Tories tended to be an Anglican Party but many had sympathy for Catholic King James IInd and Thatcher was a Methodist
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
They didn’t raise it in the same way as people wouldn’t engage with someone on the street howling at the moon.
My MP self published a novel set in the Civil War, which is a definite plus in fairness. I make no promises though - I didn't like voting for mostly negative reasons, which was a definite factor in my 2017 vote.
I'd say he has potential, though the pacing is off in the second half, too rushed, and that bit also requires a bit more knowledge about the governance during that period than most people would have.
Thank you, I'm going to be doing a lot of reading of the festive break, and if Andrew Murrison's book turns out to be very good/historically accurate then expect to see some Andrew Murrison for next Tory leader threads, we need a good historian as PM.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
They didn’t raise it in the same way as people wouldn’t engage with someone on the street howling at the moon.
They were most focused on the local plan and anti social behaviour and parking etc as it was a local election
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
So as an economically right-wing individual who believes that individuals and companies make better decisions than the state, that is a republican because of his belief in meritocratic individualism who should I vote for?
I suggest you join the Orange Book wing of the LDs or the Libertarian Party
How does the Orange Book wing of the LDs better represent that than the Cameroon (or Thatcherite) wings of the Conservative Party?
The LDs are too left-wing and too undependable for my tastes - they would get into coalition with Labour if they could. While I could tolerate the Orange Bookers the only time in recent memory that the Lib Dems have been led by an Orange Booker, the Conservative Party was led by Cameron.
Both Cameron and Thatcher were monarchists and unionists, as I said you may vote Tory as you prefer them to Labour but that does not make you a Tory.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
They didn’t raise it in the same way as people wouldn’t engage with someone on the street howling at the moon.
They were most focused on the local plan and anti social behaviour and parking etc as it was a local election
They wouldn't have raised it in a general election either.
My issues of taxes, spending, balance between individual and state etc are real issues not monarchism and unionism (within England for the latter).
Looking at Betfair Moore seems to be coming in as favourite during the day; and also looking at the CNN coverage, they appear to be talking down Jones's prospects with some exit poll analysis...What would a Republican candidate need to do to lose a blue state?
Meanwhile US politics and it's role in the world is diminishing by the second.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
What, no religion too? What ever happened to "God, King, and Country"?
Religion as such has not been an issue for the Tories as monarchy and unionism, the Tories tended to be an Anglican Party but many had sympathy for Catholic King James IInd and Thatcher was a Methodist
When was the last election that monarchism was an active issue?
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
They didn’t raise it in the same way as people wouldn’t engage with someone on the street howling at the moon.
They were most focused on the local plan and anti social behaviour and parking etc as it was a local election
Yeah that and the fact that they were talking to a bolted on can’t fucking believe it is he real space cadet. They were focused on that too.
My MP self published a novel set in the Civil War, which is a definite plus in fairness. I make no promises though - I didn't like voting for mostly negative reasons, which was a definite factor in my 2017 vote.
I'd say he has potential, though the pacing is off in the second half, too rushed, and that bit also requires a bit more knowledge about the governance during that period than most people would have.
Thank you, I'm going to be doing a lot of reading of the festive break, and if Andrew Murrison's book turns out to be very good/historically accurate then expect to see some Andrew Murrison for next Tory leader threads, we need a good historian as PM.
Good historical fiction is only partly defined by historical accuracy of course, depending on author. Be prepared for a few cutesy references to famous quotes/moments from the period. As I said, not great, but I don't regret reading it by any means.
And this isn't a spoiler given the blurb on the thing, but I do note that the protagonist is a military man who then becomes an MP, a bit like, well, Dr Murrison himself.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
They didn’t raise it in the same way as people wouldn’t engage with someone on the street howling at the moon.
They were most focused on the local plan and anti social behaviour and parking etc as it was a local election
Yeah that and the fact that they were talking to a bolted on can’t fucking believe it is he real space cadet. They were focused on that too.
I never mentioned it because I was focused on local issues but none of that changes the core principles of Toryism
They wouldn't have raised it in a general election either.
My issues of taxes, spending, balance between individual and state etc are real issues not monarchism and unionism (within England for the latter).
I've been campaigning for the Tories since 2001 and I cannot recall a single instance where someone brought up the monarchy.
The only election I can recall the Union being brought up was in 2015 but that was in the context of a Labour/SNP coalition sending English taxpayers' money to Scotland.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
They didn’t raise it in the same way as people wouldn’t engage with someone on the street howling at the moon.
They were most focused on the local plan and anti social behaviour and parking etc as it was a local election
They wouldn't have raised it in a general election either.
My issues of taxes, spending, balance between individual and state etc are real issues not monarchism and unionism (within England for the latter).
They are real issues but not defining Tory issues, although the Tories tend to be more to your flavour on those issues than Labour is
Looking at Betfair Moore seems to be coming in as favourite during the day; and also looking at the CNN coverage, they appear to be talking down Jones's prospects with some exit poll analysis...What would a Republican candidate need to do to lose a blue state?
President Donald Trump has a divided approval rating among Alabama voters on Tuesday: An even number approve of his job performance vs. disapprove of his job performance in preliminary exit polls.
Three in 10 voters say they cast their ballots to express support for Trump, 2 in 10 said they voted to express opposition to Trump. Nearly half of voters said the President did not play a factor in their Senate vote on Tuesday.
Still, a majority of Moore supporters in preliminary exit polling said they cast their ballots to show support for Trump.
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
What, no religion too? What ever happened to "God, King, and Country"?
Religion as such has not been an issue for the Tories as monarchy and unionism, the Tories tended to be an Anglican Party but many had sympathy for Catholic King James IInd and Thatcher was a Methodist
When was the last election that monarchism was an active issue?
Since Labour overtook the Tories as the main party of opposition it has been less of an issue but if you go back to the foundations of the Conservative and Unionist Party it was a more staunch commitment to the monarchy and the landed estates which was the key dividing line between the Tories and the Whigs (the antecedents of the LDs) who were more committed to free trade and the merchant classes
Ruth Davidson belongs in the Lib Dems, and the majority of the membership see her as such. Discuss. Paging HYUFD...
Ruth Davidson is a monarchist and unionist, hence she is a Tory and not a LD
HYUFD has a problem with logic......
You can be a monarchist and unionist and be a LD, you have to be a monarchist and unionist to be a Tory
This republican Tory who was supporting Yes in 2014 begs to differ.
You are clearly not a Tory then, just a classical liberal who prefers the Tories to Labour. In many western countries, Germany, Spain etc the liberals are economically right of the conservatives and in Australia too the Liberal Party is the more economically right-wing of the Liberal/National coalition while the Nationals are more socially conservative and the most staunchly monarchist while Turnbull, the Liberal PM, is a republican
Did you only want purists to vote for you in that by election HYUFD?
Provided they were monarchists and unionists I would be happy to have their vote, if they were not I would have advised them to vote elsewhere.
Oh lord. Unspoofable.
S’ok they took his advice.
Not one person raised it but in a straight Liberal v Tory choice the most monarchist and unionist choice was clear
They didn’t raise it in the same way as people wouldn’t engage with someone on the street howling at the moon.
They were most focused on the local plan and anti social behaviour and parking etc as it was a local election
Yeah that and the fact that they were talking to a bolted on can’t fucking believe it is he real space cadet. They were focused on that too.
I never mentioned it because I was focused on local issues but none of that changes the core principles of Toryism
But how did you know whether to advise them not to vote for you if you didn’t discuss it and surely you wouldn’t have accepted votes from non-Tories?
Since Labour overtook the Tories as the main party of opposition it has been less of an issue but if you go back to the foundations of the Conservative and Unionist Party it was a more staunch commitment to the monarchy and the landed estates which was the key dividing line between the Tories and the Whigs (the antecedents of the LDs) who were more committed to free trade and the merchant classes
This may come as a shock to you but I wasn't born in the 18th century and I'm not choosing between 18th century parties.
Looking at Betfair Moore seems to be coming in as favourite during the day; and also looking at the CNN coverage, they appear to be talking down Jones's prospects with some exit poll analysis...
Whilst he may well win, one would have thought that the last couple of years would have warned people against drawing any conclusions from favourites shortening in the immediate run up to polls closing.
Comments
The incumbancy and tactical votes were great for the LibDems when they were available but when they disappeared we saw how much, or how little, hardcore LibDem support there was.
295 - 312
"When a young man is privileged to have intercourse with a Prime Minister, it is for the latter to choose the modus operandi."
Though going from total non-votality in 2010 to almost total votality in 2015 is itself an example of volatility.
93 - 315
(Lab abstained)
In the UK though we're called the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are illiberal and undemocratic so I won't be supporting them.
291 - 315
292 - 314
Main Clause:
Passed without a Division
That's it - Day 6 over - two days to go - big vote tomorrow.
I'd expect exit polls around then.
I saw elsewhere we'd have an idea of the result around 3am, assuming it wasn't a close one.
https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/940705498743169025
To me being Tory means economically right/centre-right and a belief in the individual over the state.
It'd be nice if we could all vote for a party that perfectly matches our views, all of them, but that's not possible, and so you will always have divergences of opinion, and more vitally, divergence over what the actual core of the party ideology is. Clearly not all Tories agree with your view on it.
They also need to persuade people that even if the party does not match their views completely, it is still the best option for them overall. Your method is guaranteed to push people into voting for someone else. I've voted LD three times and Tory once, and arguments like yours are telling me I should vote LD even though they've done nothing to try to win it back - after all, at least they'll be grateful for my vote.
https://libertarianpartyuk.com/
I'd say he has potential, though the pacing is off in the second half, too rushed, and that bit also requires a bit more knowledge about the governance during that period than most people would have.
The LDs are too left-wing and too undependable for my tastes - they would get into coalition with Labour if they could. While I could tolerate the Orange Bookers the only time in recent memory that the Lib Dems have been led by an Orange Booker, the Conservative Party was led by Cameron.
My issues of taxes, spending, balance between individual and state etc are real issues not monarchism and unionism (within England for the latter).
Meanwhile US politics and it's role in the world is diminishing by the second.
And this isn't a spoiler given the blurb on the thing, but I do note that the protagonist is a military man who then becomes an MP, a bit like, well, Dr Murrison himself.
The only election I can recall the Union being brought up was in 2015 but that was in the context of a Labour/SNP coalition sending English taxpayers' money to Scotland.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/alabama-race-exit-polls/index.html
The Trump factor in Alabama
President Donald Trump has a divided approval rating among Alabama voters on Tuesday: An even number approve of his job performance vs. disapprove of his job performance in preliminary exit polls.
Three in 10 voters say they cast their ballots to express support for Trump, 2 in 10 said they voted to express opposition to Trump. Nearly half of voters said the President did not play a factor in their Senate vote on Tuesday.
Still, a majority of Moore supporters in preliminary exit polling said they cast their ballots to show support for Trump.
I don't see the word monarchy mentioned even once in the entire 2017 manifesto: https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
Although they evidently didn’t need advising.
So defining the party can't be bothered to mention them.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
The Tories were founded to oppose the Whigs attempts to disinherit James, Duke of York
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tories_(British_political_party)