what on earth is Camron thinking ? Presumably "Id make a vey good Foreign Secretary".
Im afarid he's had his time in politics and should look for something else to do.
Perhaps a job with Twitter?
if he had toughed out the Brexit transition he may have had a point, but if we were in a head to head with Russia or China whos to say he wouldnt flounce off just because the PM asked him to do something he didnt agree with
To be fair to Cameron, it can be difficult to know whether you'll enjoy retirement or a similar change unless you've committed already. Not to mention he seemed convinced he had to go.
He may be looking at the Cabinet and thinking it is not necessarily overflowing with talent.
To be fair to Cameron, it can be difficult to know whether you'll enjoy retirement or a similar change unless you've committed already. Not to mention he seemed convinced he had to go.
He may be looking at the Cabinet and thinking it is not necessarily overflowing with talent.
Plus he is only 52 and his Deputy PM and Chancellor are now in jobs earning around £1 million a year
In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.
But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.
Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.
One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.
Just as well the chances aren't against him then. Boris /thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
You are at it again. Conhome is noas leader
You may not accept Boris, that does not mean a majority of Conservative members and voters won't and the fact you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001 confirms you are on the Blairite wing of the party anyway.
If a few Blairites leave the party if Boris or Mogg become leader for the LDs it might give them a bit of much needed publicity but not much more than that
You do have a knack of talking utte You would have the party led by a group that would destroy it
A man who leads the polling of Tory members who will have the final say on who the next leader is is by no means finished and I would suggest it is actually rather arrogant to suggest he is just because you dislike the ConHome survey results.
The fact you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 is a statement of fact, the Tories won 30% in 1997 and 31% in 2001. Given the Tories got 42% in 2017 you could say you make up only a minority of about 1/4 of the current Tory vote ie those who voted for Blair but have switched to the Tories to vote for Cameron and May, you are therefore in the minority rather than the majority of the party's vote.
It is also a bit rich to complain of people wishing to 'destroy' the party when you did not even vote for the party in at least 2 general elections, those who loyally stuck to the party through bad times as well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
Remember winning election is about getting people to vote FOR you. Not chasing them away in the pursuit of purity
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
If you want the Washington Post for almost nothing, then install Kindle for Android or iPhone, change your country to the US (it's OK, you can use a UK credit card still), and then go to subscriptions and choose Washington Post : you get six months free, and then about $4/month after. You can log in - using your Amazon account - on their website
It’s a testament to how effective Trump’s name-calling is that I immediately thought ”Amazon Washington Post” when I read the first few words.
To be fair to Cameron, it can be difficult to know whether you'll enjoy retirement or a similar change unless you've committed already. Not to mention he seemed convinced he had to go.
He may be looking at the Cabinet and thinking it is not necessarily overflowing with talent.
He should set up a nice B&B and invite ex leaders to stay
To be fair to Cameron, it can be difficult to know whether you'll enjoy retirement or a similar change unless you've committed already. Not to mention he seemed convinced he had to go.
He may be looking at the Cabinet and thinking it is not necessarily overflowing with talent.
He should set up a nice B&B and invite ex leaders to stay
To be fair to Cameron, it can be difficult to know whether you'll enjoy retirement or a similar change unless you've committed already. Not to mention he seemed convinced he had to go.
He may be looking at the Cabinet and thinking it is not necessarily overflowing with talent.
He should set up a nice B&B and invite ex leaders to stay
May I belatedly express my admiration of the stance taken by Tracey Crouch concerning fixed odds machines. They have nothing to do with gambling and are little more than a legalised form of robbery.
I wish she were my MP so I could vote for her.
The disagreement on thge facts is odd. Crouch clearly suggests that a decision was taken to introduce the change this month. May's frosty reply to her quite friendly letter says flatly that it's not the case. I suppose it's one of those cases where a decision is made in verbal discussion and subsequently overridden. But why May allowed it to become a major issue is really baffling.
Hammond should not get away scot free either, as he sanctioned the delay as McVey's boss. The motive of the Treasury was to protect a small revenue source generated from a practice that routinely destroys peoples' lives. When was the last time that a Government embarked on a giveaway budget bonanza* but saw a ministerial resignation within days related to that same budget?
*Albeit an entirely fortuitous bonanza generated by a past miscalculation given that the current and future GDP forecasts remain anemic.
Nice podcast again - enjoying the shorter length format.
One thing that's striking to me on Presidents is that, at least since WWII and perhaps before that, successful Democratic candidates tend to be younger and Republicans older.
Of the 14 Presidents from FDR onwards, Democrats make up the 5 youngest and Republicans the 5 oldest. The two who are out of order are Truman and Johnson, who of course both served as VP before and became President through a death.
Does that have any relevance for 2020? Perhaps makes me just a bit more cautious on the idea that Biden and Warren are such frontrunners...
Yes but against incumbent Presidents Democratic candidates ie Kerry, Mondale, McGovern, Stevenson etc tend to be much older.
The younger Democrats tend to either win without facing an incumbent President e.g. JFK or Obama or after facing a President from a party which has been in office for 8 years or more e.g. Carter or Bill Clinton neither condition of which applies in 2020
To be fair to Cameron, it can be difficult to know whether you'll enjoy retirement or a similar change unless you've committed already. Not to mention he seemed convinced he had to go.
He may be looking at the Cabinet and thinking it is not necessarily overflowing with talent.
He should set up a nice B&B and invite ex leaders to stay
Angela Merkel could be his first guest
Bed and Brexit?
The Brexit would however be Continental not Full English.
A man who leads the polling of Tory members who will have the final say on who the next leader is is by no means finished and I would suggest it is actually rather arrogant to suggest he is just because you dislike the ConHome survey results.
The fact you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 is a statement of fact, the Tories won 30% in 1997 and 31% in 2001. Given the Tories got 42% in 2017 you could say you make up only a minority of about 1/4 of the current Tory vote ie those who voted for Blair but have switched to the Tories to vote for Cameron and May, you are therefore in the minority rather than the majority of the party's vote.
It is also a bit rich to complain of people wishing to 'destroy' the party when you did not even vote for the party in at least 2 general elections, those who loyally stuck to the party through bad times as well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
"A man who leads the polling of Tory members..."
It's a shame this has to be mentioned yet again, but ConHome surveys are not polls.
And not for nothing was it once known as UKIPHome.....
It's an interesting site, but their poll respondents are definitely on the UKIP/Hard Brexit wing of the party.
ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on.
If you only want a poll the last poll of Tory members from Yougov had Mogg ahead, so there
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Of course it's popular to have a go at Cameron - but if he was still in the Commons there's a decent chance he would be PM again right now.
Remember what Clarke said at PMQs on his final day - he's the best performer there has been in his entire time as an MP - in a completely different league to anyone else around today.
His electoral record in terms of MPs gained in 2010 and expectations in 2015 is also outstanding.
If he did become Foreign Secretary he would then be hot favourite for next PM.
I'm sorry, but this overlooks his inadequacies. He failed in his renegotiation, undertook a referendum with insufficient preparation, lost the argument, when it became apparent that LEAVE were winning he failed to adapt and continued with his failed approach, and when the referendum was lost he said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" and fucked off to leave somebody else to clear up the mess. I appreciate that leavers were pleased with the outcome, but that doesn't alter the fact that Cameron failed catastrophically to achieve his goals.
I suspect history will be kind to Cameron's first term and pretty unforgiving of his second.
How exactly is he going to be in the HoC to be Foreign Secretary? Or does he think he can do it from the Lords? I doubt the hard grind between him & the job (and no guarantee of getting it) are his cup of tea.
On the Crouch resignation I suspect; i) The govt did not want (any more) headlines over job losses in April 2019 so shunted it back 6 months, ii) Crouch did a 'do it in April or I quit' iii) Pour encourage les autres May said 'there's the door'.
If the decision had been to delay 'indefinitely' or for '18 months' I could understand it, but over a 6 month delay seems a tad excessive. Perhaps Ms Crouch overplayed her hand and backed herself into a corner.
Boris will not stand at GE2020 and has risen as far as he will ever rise in politics. As Lilian Bayliss of the Old Vic once observed to an aspiring actress; 'Well, you had your chance my dear, and you've muffed it'
Boris leads the latest ConHome polling, he is not going anywhere whatever you may wish for
Nice podcast again - enjoying the shorter length format.
One thing that's striking to me on Presidents is that, at least since WWII and perhaps before that, successful Democratic candidates tend to be younger and Republicans older.
Of the 14 Presidents from FDR onwards, Democrats make up the 5 youngest and Republicans the 5 oldest. The two who are out of order are Truman and Johnson, who of course both served as VP before and became President through a death.
Does that have any relevance for 2020? Perhaps makes me just a bit more cautious on the idea that Biden and Warren are such frontrunners...
Of course it's popular to have a go at Cameron - but if he was still in the Commons there's a decent chance he would be PM again right now.
Remember what Clarke said at PMQs on his final day - he's the best performer there has been in his entire time as an MP - in a completely different league to anyone else around today.
His electoral record in terms of MPs gained in 2010 and expectations in 2015 is also outstanding.
If he did become Foreign Secretary he would then be hot favourite for next PM.
I'm sorry, but this overlooks his inadequacies. He failed in his renegotiation, undertook a referendum with insufficient preparation, lost the argument, when it became apparent that LEAVE were winning he failed to adapt and continued with his failed approach, and when the referendum was lost he said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" and fucked off to leave somebody else to clear up the mess. I appreciate that leavers were pleased with the outcome, but that doesn't alter the fact that Cameron failed catastrophically to achieve his goals.
I suspect history will be kind to Cameron's first term and pretty unforgiving of his second.
How exactly is he going to be in the HoC to be Foreign Secretary? Or does he think he can do it from the Lords? I doubt the hard grind between him & the job (and no guarantee of getting it) are his cup of tea.
On the Crouch resignation I suspect; i) The govt did not want (any more) headlines over job losses in April 2019 so shunted it back 6 months, ii) Crouch did a 'do it in April or I quit' iii) Pour encourage les autres May said 'there's the door'.
If the decision had been to delay 'indefinitely' or for '18 months' I could understand it, but over a 6 month delay seems a tad excessive. Perhaps Ms Crouch overplayed her hand and backed herself into a corner.
Boris will not stand at GE2020 and has risen as far as he will ever rise in politics. As Lilian Bayliss of the Old Vic once observed to an aspiring actress; 'Well, you had your chance my dear, and you've muffed it'
Given Boris’ track record and Marina’s friends that’s a very good choice of word
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Of course it's popular to have a go at Cameron - but if he was still in the Commons there's a decent chance he would be PM again right now.
Remember what Clarke said at PMQs on his final day - he's the best performer there has been in his entire time as an MP - in a completely different league to anyone else around today.
His electoral record in terms of MPs gained in 2010 and expectations in 2015 is also outstanding.
If he did become Foreign Secretary he would then be hot favourite for next PM.
I'm sorry, but this overlooks his inadequacies. He failed in his renegotiation, undertook a referendum with insufficient preparation, lost the argument, when it became apparent that LEAVE were winning he failed to adapt and continued with his failed approach, and when the referendum was lost he said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" and fucked off to leave somebody else to clear up the mess. I appreciate that leavers were pleased with the outcome, but that doesn't alter the fact that Cameron failed catastrophically to achieve his goals.
I suspect history will be kind to Cameron's first term and pretty unforgiving of his second.
How exactly is he going to be in the HoC to be Foreign Secretary? Or does he think he can do it from the Lords? I doubt the hard grind between him & the job (and no guarantee of getting it) are his cup of tea.
On the Crouch resignation I suspect; i) The govt did not want (any more) headlines over job losses in April 2019 so shunted it back 6 months, ii) Crouch did a 'do it in April or I quit' iii) Pour encourage les autres May said 'there's the door'.
If the decision had been to delay 'indefinitely' or for '18 months' I could understand it, but over a 6 month delay seems a tad excessive. Perhaps Ms Crouch overplayed her hand and backed herself into a corner.
Boris will not stand at GE2020 and has risen as far as he will ever rise in politics. As Lilian Bayliss of the Old Vic once observed to an aspiring actress; 'Well, you had your chance my dear, and you've muffed it'
Boris leads the latest ConHome polling, he is not going anywhere whatever you may wish for
Survey! SURVEY!! Not polling! It's about as scientific as the average book by Richard Dawkins and probably less accurate.
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Historically it is winning the centre ground (as Cameron and Blair did) that delivers majorities. Whether that remains true in the next election is not yet clear, but If Tories want to win, they should listen to BG.
How times change. Remarkable how the Mail has turned against the Brexiteers under the new editor.
We wait to find out how much DM readers turn against the Mail...
According to the recent reports, the DM has lost 50% of its readership in the past 10 years, down to just over a million a day now. Of course most of the other papers are in the last chance saloon with near terminal levels of confirmed paid readership. Went into my local papershop to get some milk the other evening and the large amount of dailies still on the shelves was depressing, and from chatting to the shop's owner, discovered that his order from the distributor was much reduced. While from a dozen or so newspaper delivery "boys", twice daily, now has only 3, once a day
Surprised but it'd be great for the party image and positioning post Brexit.
I've generally been well disposed toward Cameron in an instinctive way which I recognise is probably not entirely logical, and I liked the Coalition, but would it be great for either? He would look like he sat out the trickiest years for no reason other than to avoid the hassle, and he presumably wouldn't be in for a top job unless the party were closer to a BINO than a Hard leave position, and him being in a position of influence seems like it would just aggravate the internal divisions already at breaking point. And if he was content to sit on the backbenches he'd still be in the Commons.
I'd presume if and when he comes back it'd be through a peerage? Jumping the queue ahead of Major, Blair and Brown though (in fairness I do not know if any of those would want a peerage).
Cameron, the worst PM since Lord North, naturally wants to be the worst foreign secretary since Johnson.
He has done enough harm. RIP. No flowers.
They should make him an ambassador. We can have a referendum to decide which country.
First a pig, then the country, now the world.
Where to send him? France?
They can teach him the proper purpose of charcuterie.
May I belatedly express my admiration of the stance taken by Tracey Crouch concerning fixed odds machines. They have nothing to do with gambling and are little more than a legalised form of robbery.
I wish she were my MP so I could vote for her.
The disagreement on thge facts is odd. Crouch clearly suggests that a decision was taken to introduce the change this month. May's frosty reply to her quite friendly letter says flatly that it's not the case. I suppose it's one of those cases where a decision is made in verbal discussion and subsequently overridden. But why May allowed it to become a major issue is really baffling.
Sadly it’s one of the more miserable trends of the modern age that gentlemen’s/ladies’ agreements are seemingly no longer to be relied upon. It’s a shame, but there it is.
How times change. Remarkable how the Mail has turned against the Brexiteers under the new editor.
We wait to find out how much DM readers turn against the Mail...
According to the recent reports, the DM has lost 50% of its readership in the past 10 years, down to just over a million a day now. Of course most of the other papers are in the last chance saloon with near terminal levels of confirmed paid readership. Went into my local papershop to get some milk the other evening and the large amount of dailies still on the shelves was depressing, and from chatting to the shop's owner, discovered that his order from the distributor was much reduced. While from a dozen or so newspaper delivery "boys", twice daily, now has only 3, once a day
Printed papers are suffering the same business pressures as many High Street shops. Competition that wasn't there 15 years ago.
A man who leads the polling of Tory members who will have the final say on who the next leader is is by no means finished and I would suggest it is actually rather arrogant to suggest he is just because you dislike the ConHome survey results.
The fact you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 is a statement of fact, the Tories won 30% in 1997 and 31% in 2001. Given the Tories got 42% in 2017 you could say you make up only a minority of about 1/4 of the current Tory vote ie those who voted for Blair but have switched to the Tories to vote for Cameron and May, you are therefore in the minority rather than the majority of the party's vote.
It is also a bit rich to complain of people wishing to 'destroy' the party when you did not even vote for the party in at least 2 general elections, those who loyally stuck to the party through bad times as well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
"A man who leads the polling of Tory members..."
It's a shame this has to be mentioned yet again, but ConHome surveys are not polls.
And not for nothing was it once known as UKIPHome.....
It's an interesting site, but their poll respondents are definitely on the UKIP/Hard Brexit wing of the party.
ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on./
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Well, true.
I suppose my question to you is what you're really getting with someone like Boris. I voted for Corbyn because I felt that we needed a fresh injection of idealism (combined with personal civility and respect). I can see why you might favour, say, David Davis or even Rees-Mogg for the same sort of reasons. But with Boris you simultaneously alienate voters like BigG and fail to get a leader who you can rely on to believe anything in particular.
At a more tactical level, I'm not sure that it's worth you and BigG fighting it out here (nobody's going to win!), but that's a matter for you, of course.
Of course it's popular to have a go at Cameron - but if he was still in the Commons there's a decent chance he would be PM again right now.
Remember what Clarke said at PMQs on his final day - he's the best performer there has been in his entire time as an MP - in a completely different league to anyone else around today.
His electoral record in terms of MPs gained in 2010 and expectations in 2015 is also outstanding.
If he did become Foreign Secretary he would then be hot favourite for next PM.
I'm sorry, but this overlooks his inadequacies. He failed in his renegotiation, undertook a referendum with insufficient preparation, lost the argument, when it became apparent that LEAVE were winning he failed to adapt and continued with his failed approach, and when the referendum was lost he said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" and fucked off to leave somebody else to clear up the mess. I appreciate that leavers were pleased with the outcome, but that doesn't alter the fact that Cameron failed catastrophically to achieve his goals.
I suspect history will be kind to Cameron's first term and pretty unforgiving of his second.
How exactly is he going to be in the HoC to be Foreign Secretary? Or does he think he can do it from the Lords? I doubt the hard grind between him & the job (and no guarantee of getting it) are his cup of tea.
On the Crouch resignation I suspect; i) The govt did not want (any more) headlines over job losses in April 2019 so shunted it back 6 months, ii) Crouch did a 'do it in April or I quit' iii) Pour encourage les autres May said 'there's the door'.
If the decision had been to delay 'indefinitely' or for '18 months' I could understand it, but over a 6 month delay seems a tad excessive. Perhaps Ms Crouch overplayed her hand and backed herself into a corner.
Boris will not stand at GE2020 and has risen as far as he will ever rise in politics. As Lilian Bayliss of the Old Vic once observed to an aspiring actress; 'Well, you had your chance my dear, and you've muffed it'
Boris leads the latest ConHome polling, he is not going anywhere whatever you may wish for
Of course it's popular to have a go at Cameron - but if he was still in the Commons there's a decent chance he would be PM again right now.
Remember what Clarke said at PMQs on his final day - he's the best performer there has been in his entire time as an MP - in a completely different league to anyone else around today.
His electoral record in terms of MPs gained in 2010 and expectations in 2015 is also outstanding.
If he did become Foreign Secretary he would then be hot favourite for next PM.
I'm sorry, but this overlooks his inadequacies. He failed in his renegotiation, undertook a referendum with insufficient preparation, lost the argument, when it became apparent that LEAVE were winning he failed to adapt and continued with his failed approach, and when the referendum was lost he said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" and fucked off to leave somebody else to clear up the mess. I appreciate that leavers were pleased with the outcome, but that doesn't alter the fact that Cameron failed catastrophically to achieve his goals.
I suspect history will be kind to Cameron's first term and pretty unforgiving of his second.
How exactly is he going to be in the HoC to be Foreign Secretary? Or does he think he can do it from the Lords? I doubt the hard grind between him & the job (and no guarantee of getting it) are his cup of tea.
On the Crouch resignation I suspect; i) The govt did not want (any more) headlines over job losses in April 2019 so shunted it back 6 months, ii) Crouch did a 'do it in April or I quit' iii) Pour encourage les autres May said 'there's the door'.
If the decision had been to delay 'indefinitely' or for '18 months' I could understand it, but over a 6 month delay seems a tad excessive. Perhaps Ms Crouch overplayed her hand and backed herself into a corner.
Boris will not stand at GE2020 and has risen as far as he will ever rise in politics. As Lilian Bayliss of the Old Vic once observed to an aspiring actress; 'Well, you had your chance my dear, and you've muffed it'
Boris leads the latest ConHome polling, he is not going anywhere whatever you may wish for
Or is time on "hate crime" fine and dandy when leftists are on the receiving end?
If it’s about a woman on LBC describing how she was kicked and wrestled to the ground for being Jewish . Then that most certainly hits the criteria of a crime that should be investigated.
"In a parting shot she accused other ministers of delaying the cut in the maximum stakes after making "commitments" to MPs with "registered interests", a reference to MPs who have received donations from the gambling industry. Friends of Ms Crouch told The Telegraph that her comments were directed at Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, and Jeremy Wright, the Culture Secretary."
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Well, true.
I suppose my question to you is what you're really getting with someone like Boris. I voted for Corbyn because I felt that we needed a fresh injection of idealism (combined with personal civility and respect). I can see why you might favour, say, David Davis or even Rees-Mogg for the same sort of reasons. But with Boris you simultaneously alienate voters like BigG and fail to get a leader who you can rely on to believe anything in particular.
At a more tactical level, I'm not sure that it's worth you and BigG fighting it out here (nobody's going to win!), but that's a matter for you, of course.
Personal civility and respect.. you mean the sort of civility and respect Corbyn give to jews?
In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.
But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.
Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.
One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.
Just as well the chances aren't against him then. Boris /thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
You are at it again. Conhome is noas leader
You may not accept at
You do have a knack of talking utte You would have the party led by a group that would destroy it
A man who leads the polling of Tory members who will have the final say on who the next leader is is by no means finished and I would suggest it is actually rather arrogant to suggest he is just because you dislike the ConHome survey results.
The fact you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 is a statement of fact, the Tories won 30% in 1997 and 31% in 2001. Given the Tories got 42% in 2017 you could say you make up only a minority of about 1/4 of the current Tory vote ie those who voted for Blair but have switched to the Tories to vote for Cameron and May, you are therefore in the minority rather than the majority of the party's vote.
It is also a bit rich to complain of people wishing to 'destroy' the party when you did not even vote for the party in at least 2 general elections, those who loyally stuck to the party through bad times as well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
Remember winning election is about getting people to vote FOR you. Not chasing them away in the pursuit of purity
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
Many conservatives voted for Blair in those years. Sometimes a government is exhausted and in those circumstances blind loyalty leads into a cul de sac
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Is that the bar we are setting ourselves? To be like Corbynistas?
May I belatedly express my admiration of the stance taken by Tracey Crouch concerning fixed odds machines. They have nothing to do with gambling and are little more than a legalised form of robbery.
I wish she were my MP so I could vote for her.
The disagreement on thge facts is odd. Crouch clearly suggests that a decision was taken to introduce the change this month. May's frosty reply to her quite friendly letter says flatly that it's not the case. I suppose it's one of those cases where a decision is made in verbal discussion and subsequently overridden. But why May allowed it to become a major issue is really baffling.
You don't think there is some possibility that Mrs is being dishonest about this, do you?
Or perhaps it has something to do with the number of MPs who represent bookmakers' interests? Incidentally, if I am not ,mistaken my own MP, Laurence Robertson, is one of these.
Anyway it's nice to hear from you again, Nick. I have now finally completed my move from the smoke and am settling down in deepest Gloucestershire, not a million miles from the world's greatest sporting venue. Have yet to unpack, but all that can follow in due course and in plenty of time for the Open Meeting.
We must meet and catch up some time, but until then, toodle pip, and warm regards.
Boris leads the latest ConHome polling, he is not going anywhere whatever you may wish for
You need to stop swinging off Johnson's nuts. It's over.
Even Johnson recognises that his chances are in the past.
That however will not stop Conhome including him in surveys or Pollsters including him in polls.
It just distorts the figures of those who are more likely to stand / be selected as the last two by the PCP.
I don't think he does. I interpret Johnsons remarks as him biding his time, let someone else deal with Brexit and he can then sail in and take the top job.
Good article on how the UK government trashed the relationship with Ireland, which should be the UK's ally in the EU because of a common interest in limiting the damage of Brexit.
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
Or is time on "hate crime" fine and dandy when leftists are on the receiving end?
If it’s about a woman on LBC describing how she was kicked and wrestled to the ground for being Jewish . Then that most certainly hits the criteria of a crime that should be investigated.
If it is the recent incident where the woman's phone got robbed as well she was attacked by someone from outside the event she was protesting so it isn't even anything to do with the Labour party.
On the general issue more than happy for the police to handle this stuff*, they won't press any charges without evidence and it can't be put down to some conspiracy of the Labour leadership if they don't.
*Assuming they are only investigating serious incidents, they really would have better stuff to do than deal with every minor detail of Labours factional disputes.
Of course it's popular to have a go at Cameron - but if he was still in the Commons there's a decent chance he would be PM again right now.
Remember what Clarke said at PMQs on his final day - he's the best performer there has been in his entire time as an MP - in a completely different league to anyone else around today.
His electoral record in terms of MPs gained in 2010 and expectations in 2015 is also outstanding.
If he did become Foreign Secretary he would then be hot favourite for next PM.
I'm sorry, but this overlooks his inadequacies. He failed in his renegotiation, undertook a referendum with insufficient preparation, lost the argument, when it became apparent that LEAVE were winning he failed to adapt and continued with his failed approach, and when the referendum was lost he said "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" and fucked off to leave somebody else to clear up the mess. I appreciate that leavers were pleased with the outcome, but that doesn't alter the fact that Cameron failed catastrophically to achieve his goals.
I suspect history will be kind to Cameron's first term and pretty unforgiving of his second.
How exactly is he going to be in the HoC to be Foreign Secretary? Or does he think he can do it from the Lords? I doubt the hard grind between him & the job (and no guarantee of getting it) are his cup of tea.
On the Crouch resignation I suspect; i) The govt did not want (any more) headlines over job losses in April 2019 so shunted it back 6 months, ii) Crouch did a 'do it in April or I quit' iii) Pour encourage les autres May said 'there's the door'.
If the decision had been to delay 'indefinitely' or for '18 months' I could understand it, but over a 6 month delay seems a tad excessive. Perhaps Ms Crouch overplayed her hand and backed herself into a corner.
Boris will not stand at GE2020 and has risen as far as he will ever rise in politics. As Lilian Bayliss of the Old Vic once observed to an aspiring actress; 'Well, you had your chance my dear, and you've muffed it'
Boris leads the latest ConHome polling, he is not going anywhere whatever you may wish for
Survey! SURVEY!! Not polling! It's about as scientific as the average book by Richard Dawkins and probably less accurate.
So how do you explain Mogg leading Yougov of Tory members then?
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Historically it is winning the centre ground (as Cameron and Blair did) that delivers majorities. Whether that remains true in the next election is not yet clear, but If Tories want to win, they should listen to BG.
Thatcher and Attlee moved the centre ground their way and won
A man who leads the polling of Tory members who will have the final say on who the next leader is is by no means finished and I would suggest it is actually rather arrogant to suggest he is just because you dislike the ConHome survey results.
The fact you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 is a statement of fact, the Tories won 30% in 1997 and 31% in 2001. Given the Tories got 42% in 2017 you could say you make up only a minority of about 1/4 of the current Tory vote ie those who voted for Blair but have switched to the Tories to vote for Cameron and May, you are therefore in the minority rather than the majority of the party's vote.
It is also a bit rich to complain of people wishing to 'destroy' the party when you did not even vote for the party in at least 2 general elections, those who loyally stuck to the party through bad times as well as good may I suggest have more grounds to lecture on that front
"A man who leads the polling of Tory members..."
It's a shame this has to be mentioned yet again, but ConHome surveys are not polls.
And not for nothing was it once known as UKIPHome.....
It's an interesting site, but their poll respondents are definitely on the UKIP/Hard Brexit wing of the party.
ConHome got the 2005 Tory leadership election spot on./
13 years ago? That recently?
There have been no Tory membership votes on the leadership since
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Well, true.
I suppose my question to you is what you're really getting with someone like Boris. I voted for Corbyn because I felt that we needed a fresh injection of idealism (combined with personal civility and respect). I can see why you might favour, say, David Davis or even Rees-Mogg for the same sort of reasons. But with Boris you simultaneously alienate voters like BigG and fail to get a leader who you can rely on to believe anything in particular.
At a more tactical level, I'm not sure that it's worth you and BigG fighting it out here (nobody's going to win!), but that's a matter for you, of course.
Boris has charisma and an election winning record, Davis and Mogg do not.
As I have said I prefer May for now to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period Boris for 2022
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
Or is time on "hate crime" fine and dandy when leftists are on the receiving end?
If it’s about a woman on LBC describing how she was kicked and wrestled to the ground for being Jewish . Then that most certainly hits the criteria of a crime that should be investigated.
Sounds like common assault to me. Certainly worth investigating, whether it was because she was Jewish or not.
Personally, I dislike the concept of "hate crimes" getting beaten up should be the same crime for everyone, though I think it reasonable to consider motivation when deciding sentencing.
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Historically it is winning the centre ground (as Cameron and Blair did) that delivers majorities. Whether that remains true in the next election is not yet clear, but If Tories want to win, they should listen to BG.
Thatcher and Attlee moved the centre ground their way and won
The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
Are you assuming May or someone else as leader when considering it to be more like a 5/1 shot?
So how do you explain Mogg leading Yougov of Tory members then?
I am not interested in or concerned with other sources of information. I am pointing out that you are building a case by claiming a source of information as reliable, useful and accurate when it is not. You do it far too often and it is not only stupid, but dishonest.
(Even if I did accept your claim, which I note you don't link to, it falls for three other reasons: (1) Yougov's panels are also self selected and will not be representative, nor are they large enough to draw reliable data from in this case (2) there is no point in having a poll until we know the candidates, and there is no reason to think Mogg will be one (3) even if those are set aside and I accepted the findings it would contradict your own point by showing Boris is not in fact the most popular figure.)
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
Are you assuming May or someone else as leader when considering it to be more like a 5/1 shot?
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
Not amongst the specials, well "To be next Foreign Secretary - 50/1" but doesn't appeal.
Well obviously but that does not change the fact BigG voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 so he is not the ultra party loyalist he sometimes claims to be.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
Not amongst the specials, well "To be next Foreign Secretary - 50/1" but doesn't appeal.
Noone replying on twitter seems to have tried to get on the bet so far as I can tell.
May I belatedly express my admiration of the stance taken by Tracey Crouch concerning fixed odds machines. They have nothing to do with gambling and are little more than a legalised form of robbery.
I wish she were my MP so I could vote for her.
The disagreement on thge facts is odd. Crouch clearly suggests that a decision was taken to introduce the change this month. May's frosty reply to her quite friendly letter says flatly that it's not the case. I suppose it's one of those cases where a decision is made in verbal discussion and subsequently overridden. But why May allowed it to become a major issue is really baffling.
"Nothing has changed" seems to be May's mantra at this point
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
It occurred to me after the last discussion of this subject that if the Bank of England wanted to honour a great Briton, no one would have been more suitable given the users of £50 notes than John Macadam.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
It occurred to me after the last discussion of this subject that if the Bank of England wanted to honour a great Briton, no one would have been more suitable given the users of £50 notes than John Macadam.
That does sound a bit like some of my more zealot grassroots colleagues - "X voted the wrong way in 2001 so is just a bloody Tory really".
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Well obviously the party needs people like Big G to win but that makes him a Tory leaning swing voter rather than a Tory loyalist.
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
Just stop this now. I am no swing voter and my work for the party over 55 years speaks for itself.
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
You voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 NOT Tory you are therefore not a Tory core voter and would have been classed on canvass sheets as a possible at best then
This is nonsense. The ballot is secret so no one knew who I voted for in 97 and 01.
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
Big G I wouldn't take an exchange on an internet chatroom (even one as illustrious, influential and important as PB [hi Mike]) as a meaningful attack on you or your beliefs. It is of course entirely up to HYUFD to make all kinds of assertions based upon his beliefs, but unless I am mistaken, you have been alive longer than him so you were a Tory BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN OR AT LEAST HAD A POLITICAL OPINION and hence when he was in the womb, and thereafter when he was asking for sherbert dabs at the sweet shop, You Were a Tory.
Always remember that; you outrank him.
+1
I’ve said this before but BigG seems to me to represent the best sort of Conservatism. The Tory party could do with having more people like him in it.
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
It occurred to me after the last discussion of this subject that if the Bank of England wanted to honour a great Briton, no one would have been more suitable given the users of £50 notes than John Macadam.
For anyone who wants to see the greatest band ever, The Specials are touring next year in April and May. The tour will sellout quickly and this may the last chance to see them.
Or is time on "hate crime" fine and dandy when leftists are on the receiving end?
If it’s about a woman on LBC describing how she was kicked and wrestled to the ground for being Jewish . Then that most certainly hits the criteria of a crime that should be investigated.
Sounds like common assault to me. Certainly worth investigating, whether it was because she was Jewish or not.
Personally, I dislike the concept of "hate crimes" getting beaten up should be the same crime for everyone, though I think it reasonable to consider motivation when deciding sentencing.
I concur. And I would entirely remove the extension of the blasphemy laws in the 2010 equalities act.
The 16/1 looks fair value. Given the possibility of extreme turbulence you can easily imagine how he might be brought back in that timeframe to help steady the ship. It looks more like a 5/1 shot to me given that he has apparently indicated that he is interested.
Are you assuming May or someone else as leader when considering it to be more like a 5/1 shot?
Comments
He may be looking at the Cabinet and thinking it is not necessarily overflowing with talent.
Plus Corbyn and Momentum are changing the game somewhat from the days of New Labour
Angela Merkel could be his first guest
*Albeit an entirely fortuitous bonanza generated by a past miscalculation given that the current and future GDP forecasts remain anemic.
The younger Democrats tend to either win without facing an incumbent President e.g. JFK or Obama or after facing a President from a party which has been in office for 8 years or more e.g. Carter or Bill Clinton neither condition of which applies in 2020
Mr. Glenn, ha, that's rather good.
If you only want a poll the last poll of Tory members from Yougov had Mogg ahead, so there
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/07/09/leave-voting-conservative-party-members-are-starti/
Political parties need a mixture of inspiration and common zeal, don't they? New Labour, for all its successes in the early years, drained the well to the point that most of us in 2010 were no longer sure what we stood for - we were just sure we were better than the Tories. That isn't enough. You're keen to have a Conservative Party that really stands for something, and that's a fair objective. But if you alienate people like BigG it's the same mistake as if the left alienate someone like Yvette Cooper.
What keeps Labour together is that it's got a strong left-wing leadership but that leadership is notably tolerant of dissent - there is virtually no effort to nudge local parties into choosing the right sort of candidates (which I've seen throughout the previous 45 years).
Or is time on "hate crime" fine and dandy when leftists are on the receiving end?
Try asking a Corbynista whether a Labour voter who voted for Cameron in 2010 and 2015 is a Labour loyalist and wait for the reaction!
That however will not stop Conhome including him in surveys or Pollsters including him in polls.
It just distorts the figures of those who are more likely to stand / be selected as the last two by the PCP.
I suppose my question to you is what you're really getting with someone like Boris. I voted for Corbyn because I felt that we needed a fresh injection of idealism (combined with personal civility and respect). I can see why you might favour, say, David Davis or even Rees-Mogg for the same sort of reasons. But with Boris you simultaneously alienate voters like BigG and fail to get a leader who you can rely on to believe anything in particular.
At a more tactical level, I'm not sure that it's worth you and BigG fighting it out here (nobody's going to win!), but that's a matter for you, of course.
"In a parting shot she accused other ministers of delaying the cut in the maximum stakes after making "commitments" to MPs with "registered interests", a reference to MPs who have received donations from the gambling industry. Friends of Ms Crouch told The Telegraph that her comments were directed at Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, and Jeremy Wright, the Culture Secretary."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/01/tracey-crouch-has-quit-government-delay-slashing-stakes-crack/
Or perhaps it has something to do with the number of MPs who represent bookmakers' interests? Incidentally, if I am not ,mistaken my own MP, Laurence Robertson, is one of these.
Anyway it's nice to hear from you again, Nick. I have now finally completed my move from the smoke and am settling down in deepest Gloucestershire, not a million miles from the world's greatest sporting venue. Have yet to unpack, but all that can follow in due course and in plenty of time for the Open Meeting.
We must meet and catch up some time, but until then, toodle pip, and warm regards.
PtP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46059306
https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1058273709771890688
You seem intent to belittle my work for the party and it demeans you
On the general issue more than happy for the police to handle this stuff*, they won't press any charges without evidence and it can't be put down to some conspiracy of the Labour leadership if they don't.
*Assuming they are only investigating serious incidents, they really would have better stuff to do than deal with every minor detail of Labours factional disputes.
https://twitter.com/brianspanner1/status/746488316510482433?lang=en
Chickened out of standing for leader, made no effort as Foreign secretary, scared to run next time.
If only he had submitted the other column...
As I have said I prefer May for now to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period Boris for 2022
Personally, I dislike the concept of "hate crimes" getting beaten up should be the same crime for everyone, though I think it reasonable to consider motivation when deciding sentencing.
(Even if I did accept your claim, which I note you don't link to, it falls for three other reasons: (1) Yougov's panels are also self selected and will not be representative, nor are they large enough to draw reliable data from in this case (2) there is no point in having a poll until we know the candidates, and there is no reason to think Mogg will be one (3) even if those are set aside and I accepted the findings it would contradict your own point by showing Boris is not in fact the most popular figure.)
I think my association would be open mouthed in astonishment if they read your open attack on my party credentials and I know whose side they would be on
That's the shameful part of his record he desperately wants to expunge
Always remember that; you outrank him.
http://news.sky.com/story/met-police-begin-criminal-investigation-into-labour-antisemitism-claims-11542357
His friend has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.
His time has been and gone, sadly.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2018/november/think-science-for-the-next-50-character
Suggests that the Turing and Lovelace backers in the thread a while back were, ahem, on the money...
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1058285061789892608?s=21
I’m going to be even more smug and unbearable.
The report also considered pubs and bars as being good for people, because they are centres for social interaction.
That's just weird. What kind of Royal Society for Public Health treats addictive poisons as a public good?