I think the issue anyway with social care is the arbitrary division between social care and health care - particularity in the context of what the NHS will fund in terms of free continuing healthcare. That is a postcode lottery and a scandal which causes huge stress to families when elderly relatives are at the end of their lives.
If we took the function off councils for social care and had one provider of both as in Ireland it would be a much easier system to negotiate. Of course it doesn't get round the payment issue - why should someone with £5m of assets get free home care but someone with only £30k in assets have to pay full home care charges - just because of whether the asset is held in a £5m house or is held as £30k in a savings account. Cos that is how positively evil and rotten the current system is - you can of course sell houses or place charges on them so the cost is born by those inheriting the £5m house via the estate and there is no impact on the elderly person during their life.
Of course the dementia tax at least tried to highlight that rottenness but May did an appalling job of explaining it. No one cared about the elderly needing care - all people were interested in was keeping bigger inheritances. How low the vanity of ever rising house prices has taken us.
The other problem is defining assets and being able to utilise them. If the elderly person in the £5 million home has put it in a trust to his son(s) or daughter(s), it's no longer his asset and can't be counted toward his or her care.
Get used to it. Given Corbyn’s attitude to the press, should he come to power we’ll probably only be allowed to read reports from them, Russia Today and the Morning Star.
40 years or so ago we had groups here threatening death to a British citizen at the behest of an Iranian religious/political leader. Now we have the propaganda arm of that same state filming a meeting at which a Labour MP is being criticised for her views on Israel. Her leader cannot apparently be criticised for his opposing views. He is having a “debate”. When she disagrees, it is not a debate. No she has to be shut up.
If socialists should be on the side of the oppressed not the oppressors, as @Roger tells us, why the hell is the Labour leader on the side of the Iranian regime, one of the biggest oppressors around - of its own people, of women, of gays, of Jews, of all minorities, a regime which currently has cruelly locked up and is treating abominably a British woman and keeping her apart from her own child?
If that's true of Iran why are your examples so weak and emotive. 'Keeping her apart from her own child' is something that is done to British prisoners. If any Jews are being ill treated in Iran why haven't they moved to Israel where they'll be welcomed? In what way are women oppressed that differs from say Saudi Arabia or most Islamic regimes? Making homosexuality illegal hardly makes Iran unique......
For a lawyer it's surprising how many of your posts have the intemperance of a 'Sun' headline writer.
Ireland is hoping to seal a special Brexit side deal in Brussels allowing it to continue using the UK as a “land bridge” for goods in transit to Dublin without border checks, a senior Irish tax official has revealed.
Under the special deal being discussed, goods from the continent would undergo checks in Calais. The freight containers would then be sealed and given free passage to Dublin via Dover and Holyhead.
Sounds like 'cakeism' to me. What if the UK wants to check them?
This was discussed last night and I'm not sure people got the implications. It is not for the EU to guarantee free passage via Dover and Holyhead, it's for us. That's our territory.
I can't see a British government waving Irish lorries onto ferries at Dover and Holyhead while British lorries queued lasting long.......
Miss Cyclefree, the problem with that approach is that people generally aren't into politics. Activists of other parties are, so they could simply try to bugger up another party's leadership election.
I am beginning to think that party members should have no vote in the leadership. The party leader has to have the confidence of MPs in Parliament and MPs are better able to assess their competence than party members. We are in danger of downgrading the role of Parliament and MPs. That is, IMO, the wrong way to go.
Excellent podcast, but can I comment on the format?
I don't know if it is the internet which has fcked my attention span or if it is incipient dementia, but either way, it's fcked. That being so, consider the relative attraction of the offer of a 40 minute podcast with two advertised weighty topics, vs RCS's post yesterday correctly adverised as covering 5 questions in 10 minutes, with a nice big clickable youtube video at the top of the page, with the promise of cats in it. And compare and contrast the amount of below the line discussion of the RCS video vs today's podcast.
Just saying.
I agree. The podcasts are far too long. When I have the time to listen to them I really enjoy them but that does not happen often enough. The BTL discussion on these threads suggests I am not alone in having this problem.
+1. I don't listen to podcasts at all as a rule, as they require patient attention, while I can skim 10 times the information in printed form in the same time. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency that PB headers are now podcasts, with no disrespect to the speakers - I'd be happy to look through what they say if they wanted to put it in article form.
Mike once published impressive stats for how many people tune in, so perhaps I'm a minority here. But I wonder what proportion actually sit through them, as opposed to just sampling a minute or two.
Mr. Viewcode, I agree. But it's the same thinking that makes the EU believe annexing Northern Ireland into its customs area is acceptable.
Miss Cyclefree, I believe that's how the Conservatives used to do it. And Labour, until very recently, gave MPs a full third of the leadership voting weight.
The current Conservative rule book seems fairly sensible. The Labour one would be fine too, if the MPs hadn't been such utter dingbats.
Get used to it. Given Corbyn’s attitude to the press, should he come to power we’ll probably only be allowed to read reports from them, Russia Today and the Morning Star.
40 years or so ago we had groups here threatening death to a British citizen at the behest of an Iranian religious/political leader. Now we have the propaganda arm of that same state filming a meeting at which a Labour MP is being criticised for her views on Israel. Her leader cannot apparently be criticised for his opposing views. He is having a “debate”. When she disagrees, it is not a debate. No she has to be shut up.
If socialists should be on the side of the oppressed not the oppressors, as @Roger tells us, why the hell is the Labour leader on the side of the Iranian regime, one of the biggest oppressors around - of its own people, of women, of gays, of Jews, of all minorities, a regime which currently has cruelly locked up and is treating abominably a British woman and keeping her apart from her own child?
If that's true of Iran why are your examples so weak and emotive. 'Keeping her apart from her own child' is something that is done to British prisoners. If any Jews are being ill treated in Iran why haven't they moved to Israel where they'll be welcomed? In what way are women oppressed that differs from say Saudi Arabia or most Islamic regimes? Making homosexuality illegal hardly makes Iran unique......
For a lawyer it's surprising how many of your posts have the intemperance of a 'Sun' headline writer.
Suprising how much bullshit is written about the Middle East. Lebanon which doesn't recognise Israel (wants to drive them into the sea PB speak)... is full of Jews.
Mr. Palmer, et al, it might be that it's simply a mostly different audience for the podcasts. I do quite like them but often now don't listen because I spend much of my time writing, and I can't listen to something serious *and* try to keep writing at the same time. Little breaks for posting on PB work better than stopping and starting the podcasts.
Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?
The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.
The leader cannot be someone who is in the Lords. So why should they be someone who is not even an MP? How can such a person possibly hold the government to account?
Party members tend to be more committed than normal voters. That may be great from the perspective of getting people to deliver leaflets but is a problem, IMO, precisely because - being so committed - they are unlike normal voters. Having MPs and leaders beholden to party members seems to me to risk them becoming narrower rather than more open in their outlook. See the current Tory party obsessing about having a replacement Leaver leader the party members will like as if the rest of us don’t count. Ditto Labour.
MPs have the estimable advantage of being elected by voters, most of whom are not party members. That ought to give them a better chance of connecting with what most voters are actually interested in than if they only listen to party members. Of course, that may not work in safe seats where they weigh the votes but that raises the issue of electoral reform.
It may be an old-fashioned view - and I expect to be shot down in flames - but if Parliament is to matter and if we really want MPs to listen to voters then I think we should be moving away from the current fad of making party members the be-all and end-all. It is narrowing the concerns of parties and making them self-righteous, with all the nastiness and intolerance which goes with that.
How would you suggest that parties with no immediate prospect of government should organise? How should UKIP, with zero MPs, choose a leader? Should the LibDems, with a handful, ignore a strong candidate who isn't one? Isn't the purpose of forming a party to promote broadly agreed objectives and persuade those who disagree, rather than to simulate agreement with opinions that one actually doesn't hold?
For that matter, if the Tories were to decide that Ruth D was The Answer, shouldn't it be possible to choose her? No doubt a seat would be found in a heartbeat.
Get used to it. Given Corbyn’s attitude to the press, should he come to power we’ll probably only be allowed to read reports from them, Russia Today and the Morning Star.
40 years or so ago we had groups here threatening death to a British citizen at the behest of an Iranian religious/political leader. Now we have the propaganda arm of that same state filming a meeting at which a Labour MP is being criticised for her views on Israel. Her leader cannot apparently be criticised for his opposing views. He is having a “debate”. When she disagrees, it is not a debate. No she has to be shut up.
If socialists should be on the side of the oppressed not the oppressors, as @Roger tells us, why the hell is the Labour leader on the side of the Iranian regime, one of the biggest oppressors around - of its own people, of women, of gays, of Jews, of all minorities, a regime which currently has cruelly locked up and is treating abominably a British woman and keeping her apart from her own child?
If that's true of Iran why are your examples so weak and emotive. 'Keeping her apart from her own child is something that is done to British prisoners'. If any Jews are being ill treated in Iran why haven't they moved to Israel where they'll be welcomed? In what way are women oppressed that differes from say Sausi Arabia or most Islamic regimes? Making homosexuality illegal hardly makes Iran unique......
For a lawyer it's surprising how many of your posts have the intemperance of a 'Sun' headline writer.
I have been one of the severest critics of Saudi Arabia on here and, indeed, Islamist regimes generally. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people like you and Corbyn who think that socialists should be on the side of the oppressed while supporting a regime like Iran. Corbyn criticises Saudi Arabia but does not extend the same criticisms to Iran, which in substance is equally as bad. There are only two differences as far as I can see: one is against the US and pays him and the other doesn’t. So don’t try and pretend that there is some great principle of being on the side of the oppressed.
And as for your implication that the Iranian criminal justice system is on a par with the British one, well, amongst the nonsense you write, that must come pretty high on the list.
As for the Sun, no idea what its leaders are like. I bow to your superior knowledge.
Potentially, it might amount to obstruction of justice. But wasn't this the same MO in the rape allegation? The party tried to deal with the matter privately rather than report it to the police for proper investigation.
Ireland is hoping to seal a special Brexit side deal in Brussels allowing it to continue using the UK as a “land bridge” for goods in transit to Dublin without border checks, a senior Irish tax official has revealed.
Under the special deal being discussed, goods from the continent would undergo checks in Calais. The freight containers would then be sealed and given free passage to Dublin via Dover and Holyhead.
Sounds like 'cakeism' to me. What if the UK wants to check them?
This was discussed last night and I'm not sure people got the implications. It is not for the EU to guarantee free passage via Dover and Holyhead, it's for us. That's our territory.
I can't see a British government waving Irish lorries onto ferries at Dover and Holyhead while British lorries queued lasting long.......
Recent history suggests that it's 'brave' to put limits on what one might see this government doing.
Ireland is hoping to seal a special Brexit side deal in Brussels allowing it to continue using the UK as a “land bridge” for goods in transit to Dublin without border checks, a senior Irish tax official has revealed.
Under the special deal being discussed, goods from the continent would undergo checks in Calais. The freight containers would then be sealed and given free passage to Dublin via Dover and Holyhead.
I would have to disagree a little on that. I'm a Tory Cllr, and I married a Labour Cllr. Some have found that very very difficult. Incomprehensible to some. Friendship groups totally destroyed. And while there are most certainly a few who have been very supportive, its been a difficult process.
I'm sorry to hear that. Only consolation is that friends who presume to tell either of you whom to marry are idiots, and you really don't want idiots as friends.
My idealistic dad used to belong to a fundamentalist Christian group called Moral Rearmament. He got engaged to my not very religious mother, who would always have preferred a cocktail party to a revivalist meeting. They asked her politely to break the engagement as it was "not fair to him as a committed Christian". She said (suppressing amusement) that was surely a matter for him: she loved him, but of course they could ask him what his priorities were. So they asked him, and he instantly told them to get lost, and thereafter chucked any communication from them into the bin.
5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?
And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'
I'm going to go for £295k. I think anything over £300k would suggest that you bought well, anything under £290k and you probably bought new.
Valuation and sale price do not equal the same thing, as the London property market is generally proving at present. In E&W the Land Registry is the only honest player.
How would you suggest that parties with no immediate prospect of government should organise? How should UKIP, with zero MPs, choose a leader? Should the LibDems, with a handful, ignore a strong candidate who isn't one? Isn't the purpose of forming a party to promote broadly agreed objectives and persuade those who disagree, rather than to simulate agreement with opinions that one actually doesn't hold?
For that matter, if the Tories were to decide that Ruth D was The Answer, shouldn't it be possible to choose her? No doubt a seat would be found in a heartbeat.
I was thinking of parties who are represented in Parliament already. I don’t care at all about UKIP, to be frank.
Agree that the purpose of a party is to promote broadly agreed objectives. But then it is to persuade the wider electorate to agree so that those objectives can be implemented via Parliament. It seems to me at the moment that both major parties are too busy talking to themselves, to those who already agree with them and reinforcing their views rather than reaching out to the rest of us.
Another fine day to further lighten the glorious history of the Labour party.
Iranian Press TV broadcasting from a CLP meeting. 4 no confidence votes in one evening, all seemly about Jewish racism. Labour MPs not informed of violent threats to them. Continued debate over whether Israel should exist.
And then they complain that Blair thinks the Party may be lost.
Potentially, it might amount to obstruction of justice. But wasn't this the same MO in the rape allegation? The party tried to deal with the matter privately rather than report it to the police for proper investigation.
Worse than that, the victim in the rape case was told by party officials that it would “damage” her career prospects if she went to the police. This of course for an offence where time is critical for the police to gather evidence. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
I would have to disagree a little on that. I'm a Tory Cllr, and I married a Labour Cllr. Some have found that very very difficult. Incomprehensible to some. Friendship groups totally destroyed. And while there are most certainly a few who have been very supportive, its been a difficult process.
I'm sorry to hear that. Only consolation is that friends who presume to tell either of you whom to marry are idiots, and you really don't want idiots as friends.
My idealistic dad used to belong to a fundamentalist Christian group called Moral Rearmament. He got engaged to my not very religious mother, who would always have preferred a cocktail party to a revivalist meeting. They asked her politely to break the engagement as it was "not fair to him as a committed Christian". She said (suppressing amusement) that was surely a matter for him: she loved him, but of course they could ask him what his priorities were. So they asked him, and he instantly told them to get lost, and thereafter chucked any communication from them into the bin.
Lol @ Pest control being needed to remove the mouse. Does noone own a cat at broadcasting house ?
It’s clearly full of metropolitan types who have never come across anything so horrible as a dead mouse before. Get a piece of card, slide it under the box, lift the whole thing up and put it in the bin outside.
Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?
The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.
Because to have to sell the benefits of membership to the members to get cash in, and having influence is a major selling point.
Remember the Tories used to have MP only votes. Wasn't that until IDS??
Selling influence is not, IMO, a good enough reason and leads to problems which we are seeing in both main parties today. Members can be involved in discussing policy, in selling the message, in bringing ideas forward etc. But ultimately Parliament is the forum for governing and leaders have to have the confidence of their MPs if our Parliamentary democracy is to work effectively.
I just question the idea that widening party membership is the answer. MPs need to listen to voters not just to party members. Those of us who are not party members are being ignored - and, bluntly, we are the majority. Rather than it being widened - in terms of perspectives - it seems to me to be narrowed and in a way which is bad for the parties and bad for our governance.
The counterargument is that MPs should reflect the views of the membership. That a given MP is out of line with the membership is the fault of the MP and not the members. It's an argument for a gradual turnover of MPs and, arguably, there is a point when additional experience adds little value.
I don't suggest that's a correct view but it's perfectly intellectually defensible one. That it ultimately leads to a narrowing of thought is not one that occurs to members as, and one sees it in postings here, some (perhaps many or most) party members appear to have boundless confidence in their own virtue and the inherent malevolence of their opposition.
Lol @ Pest control being needed to remove the mouse. Does noone own a cat at broadcasting house ?
It’s clearly full of metropolitan types who have never come across anything so horrible as a dead mouse before. Get a piece of card, slide it under the box, lift the whole thing up and put it in the bin outside.
We have rentokil at my work, surprised the person who trapped the mouse didn't do what you said though - they're damned hard to catch in the first place !
Lol @ Pest control being needed to remove the mouse. Does noone own a cat at broadcasting house ?
It’s clearly full of metropolitan types who have never come across anything so horrible as a dead mouse before. Get a piece of card, slide it under the box, lift the whole thing up and put it in the bin outside.
I remember a student house I lived in - a dead mouse there kept appearing in the most extraordinary places! And how we laughed.....
Lol @ Pest control being needed to remove the mouse. Does noone own a cat at broadcasting house ?
It’s clearly full of metropolitan types who have never come across anything so horrible as a dead mouse before. Get a piece of card, slide it under the box, lift the whole thing up and put it in the bin outside.
It reminds me of when there was a dead rat outside the office. Someone picked it up with a shovel and then held it under the bosses nose asking him if he wanted it for lunch.
Excellent podcast, but can I comment on the format?
I don't know if it is the internet which has fcked my attention span or if it is incipient dementia, but either way, it's fcked. That being so, consider the relative attraction of the offer of a 40 minute podcast with two advertised weighty topics, vs RCS's post yesterday correctly adverised as covering 5 questions in 10 minutes, with a nice big clickable youtube video at the top of the page, with the promise of cats in it. And compare and contrast the amount of below the line discussion of the RCS video vs today's podcast.
Just saying.
I agree. The podcasts are far too long. When I have the time to listen to them I really enjoy them but that does not happen often enough. The BTL discussion on these threads suggests I am not alone in having this problem.
+1. I don't listen to podcasts at all as a rule, as they require patient attention, while I can skim 10 times the information in printed form in the same time. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency that PB headers are now podcasts, with no disrespect to the speakers - I'd be happy to look through what they say if they wanted to put it in article form.
Mike once published impressive stats for how many people tune in, so perhaps I'm a minority here. But I wonder what proportion actually sit through them, as opposed to just sampling a minute or two.
I sometimes get round to listening to them, but I'm afraid that's the exception nowadays, which is a pity since there is often a lot of great content there.
Freakonomics transcribe their podcasts, which is fantastic. I don't know how expensive it would be for PB / Polling Matters to do the same.
Mr. Price, Youtube automatically creates subtitles, it seems, now. I was surprised when they appeared on my handful of videos, and were pretty accurate.
Also, timestamps can be handy for podcasts (some have them, some don't).
Mr. Price, Youtube automatically creates subtitles, it seems, now. I was surprised when they appeared on my handful of videos, and were pretty accurate.
Also, timestamps can be handy for podcasts (some have them, some don't).
Excellent podcast, but can I comment on the format?
I don't know if it is the internet which has fcked my attention span or if it is incipient dementia, but either way, it's fcked. That being so, consider the relative attraction of the offer of a 40 minute podcast with two advertised weighty topics, vs RCS's post yesterday correctly adverised as covering 5 questions in 10 minutes, with a nice big clickable youtube video at the top of the page, with the promise of cats in it. And compare and contrast the amount of below the line discussion of the RCS video vs today's podcast.
Just saying.
I agree. The podcasts are far too long. When I have the time to listen to them I really enjoy them but that does not happen often enough. The BTL discussion on these threads suggests I am not alone in having this problem.
+1. I don't listen to podcasts at all as a rule, as they require patient attention, while I can skim 10 times the information in printed form in the same time. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency that PB headers are now podcasts, with no disrespect to the speakers - I'd be happy to look through what they say if they wanted to put it in article form.
Mike once published impressive stats for how many people tune in, so perhaps I'm a minority here. But I wonder what proportion actually sit through them, as opposed to just sampling a minute or two.
Yes, I agree. I very rarely watch videos or listen to podcasts. The written word is massively more efficient as a means of communication.
Excellent podcast, but can I comment on the format?
I don't know if it is the internet which has fcked my attention span or if it is incipient dementia, but either way, it's fcked. That being so, consider the relative attraction of the offer of a 40 minute podcast with two advertised weighty topics, vs RCS's post yesterday correctly adverised as covering 5 questions in 10 minutes, with a nice big clickable youtube video at the top of the page, with the promise of cats in it. And compare and contrast the amount of below the line discussion of the RCS video vs today's podcast.
Just saying.
I agree. The podcasts are far too long. When I have the time to listen to them I really enjoy them but that does not happen often enough. The BTL discussion on these threads suggests I am not alone in having this problem.
+1. I don't listen to podcasts at all as a rule, as they require patient attention, while I can skim 10 times the information in printed form in the same time. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency that PB headers are now podcasts, with no disrespect to the speakers - I'd be happy to look through what they say if they wanted to put it in article form.
Mike once published impressive stats for how many people tune in, so perhaps I'm a minority here. But I wonder what proportion actually sit through them, as opposed to just sampling a minute or two.
I sometimes get round to listening to them, but I'm afraid that's the exception nowadays, which is a pity since there is often a lot of great content there.
Freakonomics transcribe their podcasts, which is fantastic. I don't know how expensive it would be for PB / Polling Matters to do the same.
I've often thought of doing the podcast/YouTube for free, but selling the transcript via smashwords/whatever.
As for duration, it depends on format. Lectures on YouTube I can listen to something like this (h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIlrAosYiM ) for over a hour, but if it's the chatty format between two people, then no.
Ten minutes is my ideal length: Doug deMuro used to be perfect (h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJFrHWH0_C8 ) but he's gotten really bloated (h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhE64beLG0Q is 27 minutes long) so I don't bother with him no more.
It's generally thought so, though she was suitably discreet. Similarly, I'm not sure that Boris's siblings are as zealously Conservative as he might (?) wish.
When I first stood for Parliament in Chelsea, my apolitical but previously Tory-voting mum joined the Labour Party to be supportive. She was a teller for me at Chelsea Town Hall, where she got on famously with the Tory teller, who had numerous common acquaintances. The LibDem teller snootily refused to engage with either of them, clearly regarding them as Not Serious People, in which he was perhaps not altogether wrong.
Lol @ Pest control being needed to remove the mouse. Does noone own a cat at broadcasting house ?
It’s clearly full of metropolitan types who have never come across anything so horrible as a dead mouse before. Get a piece of card, slide it under the box, lift the whole thing up and put it in the bin outside.
We have rentokil at my work, surprised the person who trapped the mouse didn't do what you said though - they're damned hard to catch in the first place !
In my (rural) area the doormouse is a protected species.
I would have to disagree a little on that. I'm a Tory Cllr, and I married a Labour Cllr. Some have found that very very difficult. Incomprehensible to some. Friendship groups totally destroyed. And while there are most certainly a few who have been very supportive, its been a difficult process.
I'm sorry to hear that. Only consolation is that friends who presume to tell either of you whom to marry are idiots, and you really don't want idiots as friends.
My idealistic dad used to belong to a fundamentalist Christian group called Moral Rearmament. He got engaged to my not very religious mother, who would always have preferred a cocktail party to a revivalist meeting. They asked her politely to break the engagement as it was "not fair to him as a committed Christian". She said (suppressing amusement) that was surely a matter for him: she loved him, but of course they could ask him what his priorities were. So they asked him, and he instantly told them to get lost, and thereafter chucked any communication from them into the bin.
I would have to disagree a little on that. I'm a Tory Cllr, and I married a Labour Cllr. Some have found that very very difficult. Incomprehensible to some. Friendship groups totally destroyed. And while there are most certainly a few who have been very supportive, its been a difficult process.
I'm sorry to hear that. Only consolation is that friends who presume to tell either of you whom to marry are idiots, and you really don't want idiots as friends.
My idealistic dad used to belong to a fundamentalist Christian group called Moral Rearmament. He got engaged to my not very religious mother, who would always have preferred a cocktail party to a revivalist meeting. They asked her politely to break the engagement as it was "not fair to him as a committed Christian". She said (suppressing amusement) that was surely a matter for him: she loved him, but of course they could ask him what his priorities were. So they asked him, and he instantly told them to get lost, and thereafter chucked any communication from them into the bin.
Didn’t Atlee’s wife vote Conservative?
Churchill's wife voted Liberal
To be fair so did Winston Churchill on several occasions.
Vince Cable seems to want to create a Momentum movement within the Lib Dem Party.
Has he not been observing what is happening within the Labour Party?
Clearly not. He thinks anyone should be able to join for free and non-MPs should be able to stand for the leadership. What could possibly go wrong there?
Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?
The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.
Because to have to sell the benefits of membership to the members to get cash in, and having influence is a major selling point.
Remember the Tories used to have MP only votes. Wasn't that until IDS??
Selling influence is not, IMO, a good enough reason and leads to problems which we are seeing in both main parties today. Members can be involved in discussing policy, in selling the message, in bringing ideas forward etc. But ultimately Parliament is the forum for governing and leaders have to have the confidence of their MPs if our Parliamentary democracy is to work effectively.
I just question the idea that widening party membership is the answer. MPs need to listen to voters not just to party members. Those of us who are not party members are being ignored - and, bluntly, we are the majority. Rather than it being widened - in terms of perspectives - it seems to me to be narrowed and in a way which is bad for the parties and bad for our governance.
The counterargument is that MPs should reflect the views of the membership. That a given MP is out of line with the membership is the fault of the MP and not the members. It's an argument for a gradual turnover of MPs and, arguably, there is a point when additional experience adds little value.
I don't suggest that's a correct view but it's perfectly intellectually defensible one. That it ultimately leads to a narrowing of thought is not one that occurs to members as, and one sees it in postings here, some (perhaps many or most) party members appear to have boundless confidence in their own virtue and the inherent malevolence of their opposition.
It is a counter argument, but it is not really constitutional. MPs should represent their constituents, which ever way those constituents voted, and they are meant not to mirror their constituents individual mores, but to vote with their own conscience based upon their ability to weigh the evidence. The evolution of whipping has damaged that tradition admittedly. To vote for an MP is to delegate your decision making to them, and that is the essence of our parliamentary system. It is why referenda do not work well in conjunction, though that is a slightly different subject
It's generally thought so, though she was suitably discreet. Similarly, I'm not sure that Boris's siblings are as zealously Conservative as he might (?) wish.
When I first stood for Parliament in Chelsea, my apolitical but previously Tory-voting mum joined the Labour Party to be supportive. She was a teller for me at Chelsea Town Hall, where she got on famously with the Tory teller, who had numerous common acquaintances. The LibDem teller snootily refused to engage with either of them, clearly regarding them as Not Serious People, in which he was perhaps not altogether wrong.
I think I may have told this story before but when my father in law first stood as a Councillor in Arbroath his ward was made up of 2 sections. The first part was a council estate and was pretty solid for him but the second was the fit o' the toon where the fisher families lived.
For reasons lost in the mists of time they were solidly Conservative and normally determined the ward. My father in law's family, however, were fishers from Auchmithie ( a very small village just north of Arbroath) for many generations and intermarriage between the 2 communities was commonplace. He had his mother acting as teller in the fit o' the toon welcoming each family by name and saying, "You'll be voting for my son". And they did.
I would have to disagree a little on that. I'm a Tory Cllr, and I married a Labour Cllr. Some have found that very very difficult. Incomprehensible to some. Friendship groups totally destroyed. And while there are most certainly a few who have been very supportive, its been a difficult process.
I'm sorry to hear that. Only consolation is that friends who presume to tell either of you whom to marry are idiots, and you really don't want idiots as friends.
My idealistic dad used to belong to a fundamentalist Christian group called Moral Rearmament. He got engaged to my not very religious mother, who would always have preferred a cocktail party to a revivalist meeting. They asked her politely to break the engagement as it was "not fair to him as a committed Christian". She said (suppressing amusement) that was surely a matter for him: she loved him, but of course they could ask him what his priorities were. So they asked him, and he instantly told them to get lost, and thereafter chucked any communication from them into the bin.
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Did it shake your trust in John Major, when you found out about his affair ?
Lady Archer summed up the feelings of many Tories.
'I am a little surprised, not at Mrs Currie's indiscretion but at a temporary lapse in John Major's taste.'
An acquaintance of mine stood next to John Major at a urinal at a party conference. He said he couldn't help not take a peak and said he could see why Edwina was impressed
Presumably Boris is expecting a better deal from his divorce than he has currently.
He just needs to believe hard enough...
One wonders if, after the divorce, he will be expecting sex and other martial "perks" since he and she are "currently aligned" so a post-divorce agreement should be "the easiest trade agreement post-marital settlement ever"
Vince Cable seems to want to create a Momentum movement within the Lib Dem Party.
Has he not been observing what is happening within the Labour Party?
Vince and those around him might but I detect a lot of hostility to the proposal from within the Party and especially to the notion non-members should have some kind of say on who the leader should be.
Contrary to Ms Cyclefree, I quite like our current arrangement of one member one vote. As a long-standing (and suffering) member of the Party, I've paid my dues, trod many pavements and confronted any number of angry voters so having my vote for leader count for the same as Tom Brake's or Layla Moran's is a big help. The leader does need to be an MP though the Party President doesn't, isn't and in my view shouldn't be an MP or peer.
Presumably Boris is expecting a better deal from his divorce than he has currently.
He just needs to believe hard enough...
One wonders if, after the divorce, he will be expecting sex and other martial "perks" since he and she are "currently aligned" so a post-divorce agreement should be "the easiest trade agreement post-marital settlement ever"
He has probably told her that she needs him more than he needs her, and thinks that will help with the divorce negotiations
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Did it shake your trust in John Major, when you found out about his affair ?
Lady Archer summed up the feelings of many Tories.
'I am a little surprised, not at Mrs Currie's indiscretion but at a temporary lapse in John Major's taste.'
Fuck me, that's rich coming from Jeffrey's spouse of 50+ years.
There's a lot of history between the Archers and Edwina Currie.
When they were at Oxford Mary Archer and Edwina Currie lived next door to each other. Apparently Ann Widdecombe was also a neighbour as well as the future wife of Gyles Brandreth.
Rumour has it that Edwina Currie was interested in Jeffrey Archer.
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Trust him to do what?
It is actually quite sad what has happened to Boris Johnson's reputation. At one time I felt that while he was a bit of a prat he was quite likeable, then it became apparent that he really is a charlatan who stabs his friends in the back and is quite deluded about his abilities. His divorce is really a personal thing, that aside from jokes about the parallels with Brexit, should not have a bearing on his politics IMO. Divorce or otherwise he is little more suitable to be PM than Jeremy Corbyn.
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Did it shake your trust in John Major, when you found out about his affair ?
Lady Archer summed up the feelings of many Tories.
'I am a little surprised, not at Mrs Currie's indiscretion but at a temporary lapse in John Major's taste.'
Fuck me, that's rich coming from Jeffrey's spouse of 50+ years.
There's a lot of history between the Archers and Edwina Currie.
When they were at Oxford Mary Archer and Edwina Currie lived next door to each other. Apparently Ann Widdecombe was also a neighbour as well as the future wife of Gyles Brandreth.
Rumour has it that Edwina Currie was interested in Jeffrey Archer.
That was presumably before she got salmonella in her eggs
I still think one of the great what ifs is if the revelation about John Major's playing hide the purple parsnip with Edwina Currie broke at the height of Back to Basics.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
Vince Cable seems to want to create a Momentum movement within the Lib Dem Party.
Has he not been observing what is happening within the Labour Party?
Vince Cable will indeed have seen what is happening in Labour which is that the party is raking in a small fortune from members' subs. My guess is this is about money, not politics.
I would have to disagree a little on that. I'm a Tory Cllr, and I married a Labour Cllr. Some have found that very very difficult. Incomprehensible to some. Friendship groups totally destroyed. And while there are most certainly a few who have been very supportive, its been a difficult process.
I'm sorry to hear that. Only consolation is that friends who presume to tell either of you whom to marry are idiots, and you really don't want idiots as friends.
My idealistic dad used to belong to a fundamentalist Christian group called Moral Rearmament. He got engaged to my not very religious mother, who would always have preferred a cocktail party to a revivalist meeting. They asked her politely to break the engagement as it was "not fair to him as a committed Christian". She said (suppressing amusement) that was surely a matter for him: she loved him, but of course they could ask him what his priorities were. So they asked him, and he instantly told them to get lost, and thereafter chucked any communication from them into the bin.
Didn’t Atlee’s wife vote Conservative?
Yep. Also scared the willies out of Special Branch as they tried to keep up when driving her husband around during election campaigns. A long and happy marriage - which I suspect may be an important part of being a successful PM - a lonely job - imagine if there was no one you could unburden to....
Vince Cable seems to want to create a Momentum movement within the Lib Dem Party.
Has he not been observing what is happening within the Labour Party?
Vince Cable will indeed have seen what is happening in Labour which is that the party is raking in a small fortune from members' subs. My guess is this is about money, not politics.
Insane.
Even the LibDems seem bent on suicide.
Although I gather from a family member who is a member that it probably wont get past conference.
Time to revive the Liberals, once LibDems are overrun with far-right activists, nuts and loons?
I still think one of the great what ifs is if the revelation about John Major's playing hide the purple parsnip with Edwina Currie broke at the height of Back to Basics.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
The members were less important back then and while there were quite a few Colonel Blimps they were a lot more reflective of the average conservative voter than they are now. Like with the Labour party the membership is like an old mug of tea that is left forgotten; it gradually evaporates and festers so that eventually only thing visible is a concentrate of nasty mouldy scum
I still think one of the great what ifs is if the revelation about John Major's playing hide the purple parsnip with Edwina Currie broke at the height of Back to Basics.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
Major only won in 1990 as he was not Heseltine and MPs voted for Hague over Clarke in 1997.
More likely Michael Howard may have taken over if Portillo did not get it
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Did it shake your trust in John Major, when you found out about his affair ?
Made me trust his judgement....:)
To be honest , I was surprised. Nevertheless , on reflection and hindsight ,cespecially since the referendum in 2016.I have changed my view .I think he did a marvellous job now on the Maastricht Treaty.
I still think one of the great what ifs is if the revelation about John Major's playing hide the purple parsnip with Edwina Currie broke at the height of Back to Basics.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
Major only won in 1990 as he was not Heseltine and MPs voted for Hague over Clarke in 1997.
More likely Michael Howard may have taken over if Portillo did not get it
No way. Howard was toxic at that time, and Widdecombe would have torpedoed him.
I still think one of the great what ifs is if the revelation about John Major's playing hide the purple parsnip with Edwina Currie broke at the height of Back to Basics.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
Major only won in 1990 as he was not Heseltine and MPs voted for Hague over Clarke in 1997.
More likely Michael Howard may have taken over if Portillo did not get it
The Conservative Parliamentary Party of 1997 was vastly different to the 1994 version, not just in numbers.
Ms Widdecombe would have destroyed Howard's attempt at the crown like she did in 1997.
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Absurd. As Bill Clinton, Trump, Berlusconi, Mitterand and Chirac proved voters do not care about politicians private lives if they connect with them.on the issues of the day.
Plus Eden was a divorcee too for example.
If not Boris anyway his supporters will just transfer en masse to Mogg as the next best anti Chequers Deal and pro hard Brexit candidate
A long and happy marriage - which I suspect may be an important part of being a successful PM - a lonely job - imagine if there was no one you could unburden to....
I still think one of the great what ifs is if the revelation about John Major's playing hide the purple parsnip with Edwina Currie broke at the height of Back to Basics.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
Major only won in 1990 as he was not Heseltine and MPs voted for Hague over Clarke in 1997.
More likely Michael Howard may have taken over if Portillo did not get it
I am not sure whether you are just blinkered by your hatred of anyone pro-EU, but your analysis is way out. Ken Clarke had a huge following then in the PCP. Michael Howard was no-where near
The trouble with Boris going down in flames is that it might make the membership agitate for JRM even more.
Tonight is a big moment for the ERG. Boris star has fallen and if he is not banging the drum there is no one else near his gravitas to leavers
Oh for goodness sake almost everybody in rs ago.
And now they know he's a womaniser who isn't trusted by his wife
If his wife can't trust him, who can?
Voters are electing a PM not the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury, almost half the males in the country have had affairs and more so if they have power and money
Generally, women (more than half the electorate) aren't keen on 'men who have affairs' (and men vice versa) - but I think you are missing the bigger point - "trust". If his wife can't trust him - can you?
Bob Dole tried that tactic against Bill Clinton in 1996 and it fell flat, voters are not looking for a Saint just someone with some charisma who can do the job well
Well, that second criteria eliminates Boris! He was a spectacularly useless Foreign Sec.
He was a relatively successful Mayor of London, Remainers disliked his stint as Foreign Secretary after Brexit but that is no surprise
I’m a Londoner and a Leaver
In his first term as Mayor he was mediocre. His second term was worse. He was a terrible foreign secretary. None of that gives me confidence he’d be a good PM
Boris and Mogg have more support combined than all the other candidates put together in the latest ConHome Tory members poll.
If May goes expect an anti Chequers Deal hard line Brexiteer to replace her as the ERG will ensure an anti Chequers Deal candidate gets to the final two as the right did with Leadsom, Davis and IDS
You put too much faith in polls. Especially ConHome polls*.
I can see Davies as a caretaker PM. More likely Hunt or Javid will win.
* and I know they were the least worst pollster in one case 13 years ago
Hunt and Javid would now lose comprehensively with the membership if it goes to them as they both backed Chequers unless MPs manage to put them both in the last two.
ConHome not only predicted Cameron would win in 2005 but got his victory margin almost spot on too
Hunt and Javid would now lose comprehensively with the membership if it goes to them as they both backed Chequers unless MPs manage to put them both in the last two.
ConHome not only predicted Cameron would win in 2005 but got his victory margin almost spot on too
But ConHome polls weren't predicting in 2004 Dave would win.
Nor did they predict Theresa May would win months before she did.
Remember that incredibly tricky "lawyerly trick" question that Kavanaugh was asked during the confirmation hearing, the one where Kavanaugh acted like he'd never even heard of the law firm?
Turns out he's close friends with an attorney who works at the firm.
The Republicans really are still sore about Bork and are looking to settle scores.
Kamala Harris is a star. No wonder she is favourite for Democrat nominee. She ticks all the boxes. She is number 46. At 10s on Betfair.
No she is not, at the moment Biden and Sanders are followed by Warren.
On Betfair she's the favourite.
Which does not correlate with the Democratic primary polling at all where she is barely an asterisk including in early voting states and in general election polling Trump has beaten Harris but he always trails Biden and Sanders
Because punters know polling this far out usually isn't an accurate predictor of the nominee.
It was for Romney 2012 or Dole 1996 or Mondale 1984 in terms of candidates selected against incumbent Presidents
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Absurd. As Bill Clinton, Trump, Berlusconi, Mitterand and Chirac proved voters do not care about politicians private lives if they connect with them.on the issues of the day.
Plus Eden was a divorcee too for example.
If not Boris anyway his supporters will just transfer en masse to Mogg as the next best anti Chequers Deal and pro hard Brexit candidate
Well that could be true. I suppose the one advantage of Boris is that he doesn't really believe in Brexit because although he looks stupid he isn't, and also he has the other advantage of not looking like an unfortunate love child from a union between Heinrich Himmler and Walter the Softy
I still think one of the great what ifs is if the revelation about John Major's playing hide the purple parsnip with Edwina Currie broke at the height of Back to Basics.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
Major only won in 1990 as he was not Heseltine and MPs voted for Hague over Clarke in 1997.
More likely Michael Howard may have taken over if Portillo did not get it
I am not sure whether you are just blinkered by your hatred of anyone pro-EU, but your analysis is way out. Ken Clarke had a huge following then in the PCP. Michael Howard was no-where near
I thinks it’s more that HYUFD sees both the past and the future through the prism of the present. Things were different then, just as they will be different in the future.
Well there goes what was left of Boris’ leadership ambitions. If his own wife can’t trust him then why should the rest of us?
Trust him to do what?
It is actually quite sad what has happened to Boris Johnson's reputation. At one time I felt that while he was a bit of a prat he was quite likeable, then it became apparent that he really is a charlatan who stabs his friends in the back and is quite deluded about his abilities. His divorce is really a personal thing, that aside from jokes about the parallels with Brexit, should not have a bearing on his politics IMO. Divorce or otherwise he is little more suitable to be PM than Jeremy Corbyn.
He is still more suitable as Corbyn as you say. In my opinion he would win against JC. It does not matter that many Conservatives do not approve of Boris. In a straight fight between BJ and JC , they would have to vote Bojo ,and he knows that.
He is a great campaigner ,that is why Cameron was desperate to have him in board on the remain side in the referendum 2016.
Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?
The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.
The leader cannot be someone who is in the Lords. So why should they be someone who is not even an MP? How can such a person possibly hold the government to account?
Party members tend to be more committed than normal voters. That may be great from the perspective of getting people to deliver leaflets but is a problem, IMO, precisely because - being so committed - they are unlike normal voters. Having MPs and leaders beholden to party members seems to me to risk them becoming narrower rather than more open in their outlook. See the current Tory party obsessing about having a replacement Leaver leader the party members will like as if the rest of us don’t count. Ditto Labour.
MPs have the estimable advantage of being elected by voters, most of whom are not party members. That ought to give them a better chance of connecting with what most voters are actually interested in than if they only listen to party members. Of course, that may not work in safe seats where they weigh the votes but that raises the issue of electoral reform.
It may be an old-fashioned view - and I expect to be shot down in flames - but if Parliament is to matter and if we really want MPs to listen to voters then I think we should be moving away from the current fad of making party members the be-all and end-all. It is narrowing the concerns of parties and making them self-righteous, with all the nastiness and intolerance which goes with that.
Hunt and Javid would now lose comprehensively with the membership if it goes to them as they both backed Chequers unless MPs manage to put them both in the last two.
ConHome not only predicted Cameron would win in 2005 but got his victory margin almost spot on too
But ConHome polls weren't predicting in 2004 Dave would win.
Nor did they predict Theresa May would win months before she did.
I don't think ConHome was even around until the start of 2005 and certainly not polling.
May led a number of ConHome polls before she became leader but the key is Chequers if May goes and it gets to the membership the members would pick a dead parrot if it was the anti Chequers Deal hard Brexit candidate in the last 2
Comments
For a lawyer it's surprising how many of your posts have the intemperance of a 'Sun' headline writer.
Mike once published impressive stats for how many people tune in, so perhaps I'm a minority here. But I wonder what proportion actually sit through them, as opposed to just sampling a minute or two.
Miss Cyclefree, I believe that's how the Conservatives used to do it. And Labour, until very recently, gave MPs a full third of the leadership voting weight.
The current Conservative rule book seems fairly sensible. The Labour one would be fine too, if the MPs hadn't been such utter dingbats.
Suprising how much bullshit is written about the Middle East. Lebanon which doesn't recognise Israel (wants to drive them into the sea PB speak)... is full of Jews.
For that matter, if the Tories were to decide that Ruth D was The Answer, shouldn't it be possible to choose her? No doubt a seat would be found in a heartbeat.
And as for your implication that the Iranian criminal justice system is on a par with the British one, well, amongst the nonsense you write, that must come pretty high on the list.
As for the Sun, no idea what its leaders are like. I bow to your superior knowledge.
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1038004480044875776?s=21
My idealistic dad used to belong to a fundamentalist Christian group called Moral Rearmament. He got engaged to my not very religious mother, who would always have preferred a cocktail party to a revivalist meeting. They asked her politely to break the engagement as it was "not fair to him as a committed Christian". She said (suppressing amusement) that was surely a matter for him: she loved him, but of course they could ask him what his priorities were. So they asked him, and he instantly told them to get lost, and thereafter chucked any communication from them into the bin.
Agree that the purpose of a party is to promote broadly agreed objectives. But then it is to persuade the wider electorate to agree so that those objectives can be implemented via Parliament. It seems to me at the moment that both major parties are too busy talking to themselves, to those who already agree with them and reinforcing their views rather than reaching out to the rest of us.
Iranian Press TV broadcasting from a CLP meeting.
4 no confidence votes in one evening, all seemly about Jewish racism.
Labour MPs not informed of violent threats to them.
Continued debate over whether Israel should exist.
And then they complain that Blair thinks the Party may be lost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
I don't suggest that's a correct view but it's perfectly intellectually defensible one. That it ultimately leads to a narrowing of thought is not one that occurs to members as, and one sees it in postings here, some (perhaps many or most) party members appear to have boundless confidence in their own virtue and the inherent malevolence of their opposition.
Freakonomics transcribe their podcasts, which is fantastic. I don't know how expensive it would be for PB / Polling Matters to do the same.
Also, timestamps can be handy for podcasts (some have them, some don't).
As for duration, it depends on format. Lectures on YouTube I can listen to something like this (h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIlrAosYiM ) for over a hour, but if it's the chatty format between two people, then no.
Ten minutes is my ideal length: Doug deMuro used to be perfect (h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJFrHWH0_C8 ) but he's gotten really bloated (h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhE64beLG0Q is 27 minutes long) so I don't bother with him no more.
He just needs to believe hard enough...
Had an awesome pun lined up as well.
BJ sucks.
When I first stood for Parliament in Chelsea, my apolitical but previously Tory-voting mum joined the Labour Party to be supportive. She was a teller for me at Chelsea Town Hall, where she got on famously with the Tory teller, who had numerous common acquaintances. The LibDem teller snootily refused to engage with either of them, clearly regarding them as Not Serious People, in which he was perhaps not altogether wrong.
In my (rural) area the doormouse is a protected species.
'I am a little surprised, not at Mrs Currie's indiscretion but at a temporary lapse in John Major's taste.'
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1038009983965782017
Vince Cable seems to want to create a Momentum movement within the Lib Dem Party.
Has he not been observing what is happening within the Labour Party?
He was the Mark Reckless of his era.
I think one of the issues with a lack of videos is that very rarely do the guests turn up in person, their segments are recorded via Skype.
For reasons lost in the mists of time they were solidly Conservative and normally determined the ward. My father in law's family, however, were fishers from Auchmithie ( a very small village just north of Arbroath) for many generations and intermarriage between the 2 communities was commonplace. He had his mother acting as teller in the fit o' the toon welcoming each family by name and saying, "You'll be voting for my son". And they did.
Contrary to Ms Cyclefree, I quite like our current arrangement of one member one vote. As a long-standing (and suffering) member of the Party, I've paid my dues, trod many pavements and confronted any number of angry voters so having my vote for leader count for the same as Tom Brake's or Layla Moran's is a big help. The leader does need to be an MP though the Party President doesn't, isn't and in my view shouldn't be an MP or peer.
When they were at Oxford Mary Archer and Edwina Currie lived next door to each other. Apparently Ann Widdecombe was also a neighbour as well as the future wife of Gyles Brandreth.
Rumour has it that Edwina Currie was interested in Jeffrey Archer.
I reckon a resignation followed by Ken Clarke becoming PM.
I reckon Hezza's dicky ticker would have ruled him out.
Portillo was too young and callow and the MPs were still one nation aligned and the members didn't get a look in.
Still think he is the Conservatives best candidate as a campaigner.
I always thought the Darius Guppy affair , was more damaging.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/darius-boris-and-a-blast-from-the-past-1658043.html
However never seemed to do any real harm to him , as London Mayor.
Even the LibDems seem bent on suicide.
Although I gather from a family member who is a member that it probably wont get past conference.
Time to revive the Liberals, once LibDems are overrun with far-right activists, nuts and loons?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45435368
More likely Michael Howard may have taken over if Portillo did not get it
Nevertheless , on reflection and hindsight ,cespecially since the referendum in 2016.I have changed my view .I think he did a marvellous job now on the Maastricht Treaty.
Ms Widdecombe would have destroyed Howard's attempt at the crown like she did in 1997.
Plus Eden was a divorcee too for example.
If not Boris anyway his supporters will just transfer en masse to Mogg as the next best anti Chequers Deal and pro hard Brexit candidate
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1038021873165115393
https://twitter.com/David__Osland/status/1038017846570311681
ConHome not only predicted Cameron would win in 2005 but got his victory margin almost spot on too
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1038026956149796866?s=21
Nor did they predict Theresa May would win months before she did.
1) Most things don't happen
2) Most things don't matter, or don't matter to most people
In my opinion he would win against JC.
It does not matter that many Conservatives do not approve of Boris.
In a straight fight between BJ and JC , they would have to vote Bojo ,and he knows that.
He is a great campaigner ,that is why Cameron was desperate to have him in board on the remain side in the referendum 2016.
May led a number of ConHome polls before she became leader but the key is Chequers if May goes and it gets to the membership the members would pick a dead parrot if it was the anti Chequers Deal hard Brexit candidate in the last 2