I think that is valid actually. Personally I think someones class is defined by their upbringing, not current salary.
If a privately educated son of millionaires loses all his inherited wealth aged 40 and ends up on the dole in social housing, I would say they were an upper class person who has fallen on hard times. They're not working class.
Likewise, a council estate boy done good, maybe a rapper that comes from a disadvantaged upbringing, will always be working class even if they make £10m a year
I earn a fair bit over the 60k figure.
I grew up in a council house and I very much still think of myself as working class.
If you have to get out of bed in the morning to pay your bills, you are working class
Never thought I’d be described as working class!
That’s one off the bucket list 😂
Doesn't count if the bills are for the upkeep of a country estate or the like, Charles!
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Given 8 Labour MPs and 3 Tory MPs have already defected to CUK/TIG, both main parties are already split anyway, it is just the extent of the split that may get bigger but Blairites in Labour and Remainers in the Tory Party are now clearly a minority
If you ll, etc.
It is possible we could see CUK/TIG become a UK En Marche if say Raab or Boris succeeds May as Tory Leader and Corbyn stays Labour Leader
That is what *ought* to be happening.
And I would be early to the barricades.
But the evidence I would be followed by many isn't appearing. Yet, at least.
Yes, it would seem that UK politics is continuing to polarise to the extremes and moderates like Grieve are being left behind.
I would mind less about this were the representatives of those extremes not so monumentally stupid.
"moderates like Grieve".
lol.....
Yes this casting of Grieve as a moderate by the media is a joke. He's just as extreme as Mark Francois and Steve baker.
He seems like a very reasonable and moderate soul to me.
He has beking.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
Well I disagree. I don't see what those examples you give have to do with proving or disproving him a fanatic, those are procedural issues. Anyone who is prepared to risk any outcome to achieve their personal aim, which they describe in moral terms, and brooks no compromise to their goal, is a fanatic in my book. Not all fanatics are rabid, and not all are as destructive as one another, but he is definitely one to me, he will do anything to get what he wants. When others do that they are criticised. Grieve gets excused the same behaviour because he wants to remain, so his outcome does not appear as destructive. I agree at this point we should remain, but his behaviour is still that of a fanatic.
It’s all invective and no substance. He writes like a petulant child, rather like Grieve is behaving. Actions have consequences as Grieve is now discovering.
C'mon. Don't be churlish. Parris is a top class writer. You don't need to agree with him to appreciate that.
He is, but writing the same thing time and time again makes for dull reading. His column used to be one of the first things I read in the Saturday paper. No longer. His writing hadn’t changed but equally the words haven’t.
Those areas are generally more Tory than twenty years ago, due to shifts in house prices. The Lib Dem party in the Richmond and Twickenham area was far bigger a couple of years ago, for instance. The children of the media intelligentsia who used to populate them have moved to places like Sydenham, Herne Hill and East Dulwich in South London, in my experience.
Even the Tories in Richmond and Twickenham are likely to be 'right on' Remainer types. The blue blazer contingent is relatively small.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
I would mind less about this were the representatives of those extremes not so monumentally stupid.
"moderates like Grieve".
lol.....
Yes this casting of Grieve as a moderate by the media is a joke. He's just as extreme as Mark Francois and Steve baker.
He seems like a very reasonable and moderate soul to me.
He has been prepared to risk absolutely everything to achieve what he wants. His mildness of tone and intelligence do not disguise that he would be content see everything burn to achieve his aims. It is a joke that because he is articulate and mild that he gets a pass on the same pig headed stubborness and willingness to damn all but his preferred outcome as Baker or Francois.
He's more effective than them and a damn sight more likable, but he's the flip side of the coin - obsessive (as I am about him because people given him a free pass), uncaring of the risk to the country if he cannot get what he wants, and fanatically certain in the moral mission he is undertaking.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
I think Trump's election victory somewhat disproves that
No one would agree on who could receive a coronation to lead them into another one.
Maybe they should go into the upcoming GE with no leader at all, send a poster with the Tory logo to the leaders' debates - Corbyn would be flummoxed.
Having lost a 20% lead in the polls last time, it would be electoral suicide to repeat it.
Not disagreeing. I think a GE is an astoundingly stupid idea for the Tories, and a very bad idea for the country, nothing more than an epic can kicking exercise, with all the supposed chance of resolution people expect from it dependent on such a GE going exactly as they want, and ignoring the riven state of the Tories in particular.
Unless they truly, deeply believe that a sub-optimal Brexit outcome is worth fighting at every cost (and there are some who think that) the rest of the party should do whatever it takes - CU, referemdum, whatever - to avoid going to a GE this year.
But so many seem to want it now.
I assume May, whose credibility is non existent, is trying to scare a few more rebels into supporting her woeful deal with talk of an election. A soft Brexit is not a long term solution for anyone because it has no wororthwile benefits in their own right. For Remainers it’s just a temporary stop on the way to re-entry. For Leavers, there is no realistic exit out - just back in.
Elections can give really strange results due to the operation of FPTP. It's not unusual for one main party to get fewer votes and more seats than the other one. In Scotland the SNP could wipe Labour out with very little change in the vote.
So it might be tempting to a PM. Electoral calculus is still predicting a Tory majority of 8, although I think these were a series of good polls for the Tories. She could take us out on 39% of the vote. A referendum wouldn't allow that.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I would mind less about this were the representatives of those extremes not so monumentally stupid.
"moderates like Grieve".
lol.....
Yes this casting of Grieve as a moderate by the media is a joke. He's just as extreme as Mark Francois and Steve baker.
He seems like a very reasonable and moderate soul to me.
He has been prepared to risk absolutely everything to achieve what he wants. His mildness of tone and intelligence do not disguise that he would be content see everything burn to achieve his aims. It is a joke that because he ly certain in the moral mission he is undertaking.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
Did you and your husband vote Tory in 2015 and 2017? If not I would imagine you are unlikely to normally vote Tory anyway given the Tories won a majority in the former and 42% of the vote in the latter
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
I think Trump's election victory somewhat disproves that
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
Wasn't that where we were in 2017, except May managed to get some form of deal through.
He has been prepared to risk absolutely everything to achieve what he wants. His mildness of tone and intelligence do not disguise that he would be content see everything burn to achieve his aims. It is a joke that because he is articulate and mild that he gets a pass on the same pig headed stubborness and willingness to damn all but his preferred outcome as Baker or Francois.
He's more effective than them and a damn sight more likable, but he's the flip side of the coin - obsessive (as I am about him because people given him a free pass), uncaring of the risk to the country if he cannot get what he wants, and fanatically certain in the moral mission he is undertaking.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
What's the difference between Grieve wanting to have his say on Brexit and Beaconsfield Conservatives wanting to have their say on Grieve ?
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
Wasn't that where we were in 2017, except May managed to get some form of deal through.
No as in February 1974 Labour were largest party, unlike 2017, although Heath did win a majority in England in February 1974 as May did in 2017
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
Approval ratings/takes what it has to be PM have been pretty good predictors of general election results.
In 2015 Dave's lead over Ed was a pointer to a Tory majority and the VI polls being wrong.
Ditto in 1992.
Also Mrs May's collapsing ratings in 2017 were a huge pointer that she was about to screw the pooch.
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
I think Trump's election victory somewhat disproves that
What's Donald Trump got to do with any of this?
He was a celebrity with high name recognition who won
No one would agree on who could receive a coronation to lead them into another one.
Maybe they should go into the upcoming GE with no leader at all, send a poster with the Tory logo to the leaders' debates - Corbyn would be flummoxed.
Having lost a 20% lead in the polls last time, it would be electoral suicide to repeat it.
Not disagreeing. I think a GE is an astoundingly stupid idea for the Tories, and a very bad idea for the country, nothing more than an epic can kicking exercise, with all the supposed chance of resolution people expect from it dependent on such a GE going exactly as they want, and ignoring the riven state of the Tories in particular.
Unless they truly, deeply believe that a sub-optimal Brexit outcome is worth fighting at every cost (and there are some who think that) the rest of the party should do whatever it takes - CU, referemdum, whatever - to avoid going to a GE this year.
But so many seem to want it now.
I assume May, whose credibility is non existent, is trying to scare a few more rebels into supporting her woeful deal with talk of an election. A soft Brexit is not a long term solution for anyone because it has no wororthwile benefits in their own right. For Remainers it’s just a temporary stop on the way to re-entry. For Leavers, there is no realistic exit out - just back in.
Elections can give really strange results due to the operation of FPTP. It's not unusual for one main party to get fewer votes and more seats than the other one. In Scotland the SNP could wipe Labour out with very little change in the vote.
So it might be tempting to a PM. Electoral calculus is still predicting a Tory majority of 8, although I think these were a series of good polls for the Tories. She could take us out on 39% of the vote. A referendum wouldn't allow that.
Electoral calculus predicted a 100 + majority last time and look how that worked out. Without boundary changes, which are long overdue, and a party leader defined by a single issue where she has abjectly failed and with all the charisma of a dead fish, she’d be insane. It’s not as though Labour are led by moderates.
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
Approval ratings/takes what it has to be PM have been pretty good predictors of general election results.
In 2015 Dave's lead over Ed was a pointer to a Tory majority and the VI polls being wrong.
Ditto in 1992.
Also Mrs May's collapsing ratings in 2017 were a huge pointer that she was about to screw the pooch.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
An election now will lead to a parliament even more remainey than the one we have now. Anti-Brexit campaigns, fired up by their recent successes, will promote tactical voting against Brexiters and this could well lead to a number of prominent Brexiters losing their seats, Bojo and IDS are particularly vulnerable. Labour and all other opposition parties will make commitments involving a second referendum, however qualified. So the likelihood is that a new parliament will contain a majority of MPs elected on the promise of a second vote. And leave voters, angry and demoralised, will drift away from a Tory party that many will say cannot be trusted to deliver, toward the Farage/Brexit party. So an early election is likely to lead ultimately to remain.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
If she lost, Corbyn and McDonnell would be in Downing St and Brexit would be irrelevant because we’d all be in deep in the mire.
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
Approval ratings/takes what it has to be PM have been pretty good predictors of general election results.
In 2015 Dave's lead over Ed was a pointer to a Tory majority and the VI polls being wrong.
Ditto in 1992.
Also Mrs May's collapsing ratings in 2017 were a huge pointer that she was about to screw the pooch.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
What's the difference between Grieve wanting to have his say on Brexit and Beaconsfield Conservatives wanting to have their say on Grieve ?
An MP represents all his constituents not simply the 300 or so members of the local party, assuming they are all genuine Conservatives (which may not necessarily be the case - the Tories seem very relaxed about the possibility of UKIP entryism). He is not a delegate - see Edmund Burke etc. They are acting against him because he won't simply parrot their lines but uses his judgment - on the basis of the facts before him now, which were not anticipated 3 years ago.
Of course you can have parties where the MP just does whatever he is ordered by a tiny minority but ask yourself whether that is what is best in Parliamentary democracy and whether it is likely to attract voters - uncommitted ones - to your party. And when considering this look at the parties that normally adopt this approach - usually Far Left parties - and ask whether this is how the Tories ought to be behaving.
I notice also that this zeal for having MPs represent their constituents does not extend to all those Brexiteer MPs representing Remain constituencies. They are not being called to account. Funny that.
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
I think Trump's election victory somewhat disproves that
What's Donald Trump got to do with any of this?
He was a celebrity with high name recognition who won
Doesn't mean that Boris will follow suit. Besides anything else (the small fact of our system being very different to that of the US for starters,) he is a long-established political actor with suitcases full of baggage to match.
If the Conservatives could win a General Election just by fielding somebody famous as Prime Minister then, following your logic, they would be much better off drafting a popular TV personality (possibly someone who plays one of the more likeable characters in a major soap opera,) parachuting the individual in question into a safe seat helpfully vacated by an elderly Tory who was planning to retire at the next election anyway, and then installing said person as leader by acclamation.
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
Approval ratings/takes what it has to be PM have been pretty good predictors of general election results.
In 2015 Dave's lead over Ed was a pointer to a Tory majority and the VI polls being wrong.
Ditto in 1992.
Also Mrs May's collapsing ratings in 2017 were a huge pointer that she was about to screw the pooch.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I can see the similarities. The largest party might well be determined by the outcome of the SNP v Labour battle in Scotland. I still expect Labour gains there in a Westminster election - despite Labour having a poor local by election result in Strathclyde this week.
Rolling Stones cancel North American tour as Mick Jagger is hospitalized with piles after spending months in his bath chair taking advantage of the free television licence for the over 75's :
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the government like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the govenment like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Clearly shows that he needs to get out of London more often
I concur that polling isn't entirely useless, just that (a) we need to try to view all polls with our thinking hats on, and (b) some polls are more useful than others.
I'm aware from numerous past discussions on PB that some evidence exists of the predictive value of long-established trend surveys of the ratings of sitting major party leaders in terms of forecasting GE results. The fact that these indicate that Corbyn is received even more badly than May is almost the only crumb of comfort currently available to Conservative supporters: it indicates that a 1997-style wipeout probably isn't on the cards and, if they manage to change leaders and find a better replacement before the next GE rolls around, they could well do a great deal better than prevailing circumstances might otherwise suggest.
On the other hand, standard voting intention polls have a chequered record to say the least, and I see little if any value in attempts to rate the popularity of theoretical future leaders, for reasons previously described.
There were no shortage of people who thought that Theresa May was just the ticket when she took over the reins. This confidence did not survive her first significant collision with the electorate.
Boris Johnson is not a serious politician. Not anymore. Being London Mayor was about the limit of his capabilities. If the Tories think he is the answer they really are in deep shit.
I would mind less about this were the representatives of those extremes not so monumentally stupid.
"moderates like Grieve".
lol.....
Yes this casting of Grieve as a moderate by the media is a joke. He's just as extreme as Mark Francois and Steve baker.
He seems like a very reasonable and moderate soul to me.
He has been prepared to risk absolutely everything to achieve what he wants. His mildness of tone and intelligence do not disguise that he would be content see everything burn to achieve his
He's more effective than them and a damn sight more likable, but he's the flip side of the coin - obsessive (as I am about him because people given him a free pass), uncaring of the risk to the country if he cannot get what he wants, and fanatically certain in the moral mission he is undertaking.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
The Beaconsfield Conservatives owe no obligation to Dominic Grieve to keep him as their candidate.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I can see the similarities. The largest party might well be determined by the outcome of the SNP v Labour battle in Scotland. I still expect Labour gains there in a Westminster election - despite Labour having a poor local by election result in Strathclyde this week.
You are clueless about Scotland. labour will be lucky to have one left if any. They are as popular as dog sh** on your shoe.
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the government like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Jon Snow is a fully paid up Corbynista. Apparently Channel 4 have apologised for his comments - but he hasn’t, yet.
I think that is valid actually. Personally I think someones class is defined by their upbringing, not current salary.
If a privately educated son of millionaires loses all his inherited wealth aged 40 and ends up on the dole in social housing, I would say they were an upper class person who has fallen on hard times. They're not working class.
Likewise, a council estate boy done good, maybe a rapper that comes from a disadvantaged upbringing, will always be working class even if they make £10m a year
I earn a fair bit over the 60k figure.
I grew up in a council house and I very much still think of myself as working class.
If you have to get out of bed in the morning to pay your bills, you are working class
Never thought I’d be described as working class!
That’s one off the bucket list 😂
Doesn't count if the bills are for the upkeep of a country estate or the like, Charles!
Just a small house in the suburbs
Reminds me of a guy in the Insurance market telling me about his small place in the country.
He was telling me about his little pond, but then mentioned he had a rowing boat on it to reach an island.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
What's the difference between Grieve wanting to have his say on Brexit and Beaconsfield Conservatives wanting to have their say on Grieve ?
An MP represents all his constituents not simply the 300 or so members of the local party, assuming they are all genuine Conservatives (which may not necessarily be the case - the Tories seem very relaxed about the possibility of UKIP entryism). He is not a delegate - see Edmund Burke etc. They are acting against him because he won't simply parrot their lines but uses his judgment - on the basis of the facts before him now, which were not anticipated 3 years ago.
Of course you can have parties where the MP just does whatever he is ordered by a tiny minority but ask yourself whether that is what is best in Parliamentary democracy and whether it is likely to attract voters - uncommitted ones - to your party. And when considering this look at the parties that normally adopt this approach - usually Far Left parties - and ask whether this is how the Tories ought to be behaving.
I notice also that this zeal for having MPs represent their constituents does not extend to all those Brexiteer MPs representing Remain constituencies. They are not being called to account. Funny that.
Didn't Edmund Burke get defeated after his speech ?
As I said earlier if Grieve is held in as high regard as people claim then he will be able to find another Conservative constituency party more in agreement with his views.
But the philosophy you are preaching that MPs should be able to do as they want with local memberships being servile cheerleaders is repellent and reeks of 'people like them should not tell people like me what to do'.
Actions have consequences - something which needs to apply to politicians as it does to the rest of us.
Boris Johnson is not a serious politician. Not anymore. Being London Mayor was about the limit of his capabilities. If the Tories think he is the answer they really are in deep shit.
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the government like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Jon Snow is a fully paid up Corbynista. Apparently Channel 4 have apologised for his comments - but he hasn’t, yet.
Wow he really is losing it then ! Lol
Seriously though , I did have one of those , did he really say that moments when I was watching Channel 4 News .
He really should apologize but I doubt he will . Overall though I like Channel 4 News and think they do a much better job of holding the government to account .
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
What's the difference between Grieve wanting to have his say on Brexit and Beaconsfield Conservatives wanting to have their say on Grieve ?
An MP represents all his constituents not simply the 300 or so members of the local party, assuming they are all genuine Conservatives (which may not necessarily be the case - the Tories seem very relaxed about the possibility of UKIP entryism). He is not a delegate - see Edmund Burke etc. They are acting against him because he won't simply parrot their lines but uses his judgment - on the basis of the facts before him now, which were not anticipated 3 years ago.
Of course you can have parties where the MP just does whatever he is ordered by a tiny minority but ask yourself whether that is what is best in Parliamentary democracy and whether it is likely to attract voters - uncommitted ones - to your party. And when considering this look at the parties that normally adopt this approach - usually Far Left parties - and ask whether this is how the Tories ought to be behaving.
I notice also that this zeal for having MPs represent their constituents does not extend to all those Brexiteer MPs representing Remain constituencies. They are not being called to account. Funny that.
Indeed, but the constituency association has the right to select and deselect its candidates and rightly so. Or are you claiming that once in situ, MPs are unsackable and untouchable except at election time, regardless of their actions.
He has been prepared to risk absolutely everything to achieve what he wants. His mildness of tone and intelligence do not disguise that he would be content see everything burn to achieve his
He's more effective than them and a damn sight more likable, but he's the flip side of the coin - obsessive (as I am about him because people given him a free pass), uncaring of the risk to the country if he cannot get what he wants, and fanatically certain in the moral mission he is undertaking.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
The Beaconsfield Conservatives owe no obligation to Dominic Grieve to keep him as their candidate.
MPs are in effect contracted workers for the following parliament.
There needs to be no obligation to offer a new contract if they have failed to give satisfaction or if there are doubts as to how well they will be perform in the future.
Its a pity more are not cleared out on a regular basis.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I can see the similarities. The largest party might well be determined by the outcome of the SNP v Labour battle in Scotland. I still expect Labour gains there in a Westminster election - despite Labour having a poor local by election result in Strathclyde this week.
You are clueless about Scotland. labour will be lucky to have one left if any. They are as popular as dog sh** on your shoe.
Labour is polling better in Scotland than was the case in April/May 2017 when they were below 15% in some polls. On 8th June they emerged with over 27% and six gains to give them a total of seven - unexpected by Labour itself. Latest polls place them in the 23% - 26% range, and I would expect them to build on that - as happened in 2017 - if Labour has a successful GB campaign . The serious possibility of Labour ousting the Tories from office at Westminster would be likely to have an impact on how the anti-Tory vote falls in Scotland. Were we to be faced with a scenario where the Tories look likely to win comfortably across GB, Labour would find itself in a far weaker position in Scotland.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I can see the similarities. The largest party might well be determined by the outcome of the SNP v Labour battle in Scotland. I still expect Labour gains there in a Westminster election - despite Labour having a poor local by election result in Strathclyde this week.
Clackmannanshire Central is in Strathclyde (which no longer exists as a region) the same way that Richard Leonard is a charismatic politician with a mind of his own.
Of course you can have parties where the MP just does whatever he is ordered by a tiny minority but ask yourself whether that is what is best in Parliamentary democracy and whether it is likely to attract voters - uncommitted ones - to your party. And when considering this look at the parties that normally adopt this approach - usually Far Left parties - and ask whether this is how the Tories ought to be behaving.
I notice also that this zeal for having MPs represent their constituents does not extend to all those Brexiteer MPs representing Remain constituencies. They are not being called to account. Funny that.
Didn't Edmund Burke get defeated after his speech ?
As I said earlier if Grieve is held in as high regard as people claim then he will be able to find another Conservative constituency party more in agreement with his views.
But the philosophy you are preaching that MPs should be able to do as they want with local memberships being servile cheerleaders is repellent and reeks of 'people like them should not tell people like me what to do'.
Actions have consequences - something which needs to apply to politicians as it does to the rest of us.
He is a Remain MP representing a Remain constituency. Perhaps it is the constituency party which is out of touch.
I am not preaching a philosophy of MPs being able to do what they want without consequences. You seem to forget that we have elections and the voters of his constituency will be able to pass judgment on him at the next GE.
I don't expect local constituency parties to be servile cheerleaders either. But I do question whether some of those so anxious to get Grieve are in fact genuine Tory party members or in fact entryists trying to turn the Conservative party into something it has never been.
An intelligent constituency party would understand that it is better to have as your MP an intelligent thoughtful person who uses their judgment, even if that means there is disagreement, rather than a nodding donkey who just does what he or she is told. The Tories seem to be preferring the latter and they come across to me - someone who is not committed to any party - as repellently sectarian, stupid and unhinged. And willing to destroy not only their own party but the country too.
But, hey, it's your party, so do with it what you want. But don't assume that the rest of us will join in or give you the unlimited power you seem to crave. The 2017 election result should have been a bloody great clue. Rather than learning from that the Tories are doubling down on precisely the sort of behaviour which put so many people off them then.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I can see the similarities. The largest party might well be determined by the outcome of the SNP v Labour battle in Scotland. I still expect Labour gains there in a Westminster election - despite Labour having a poor local by election result in Strathclyde this week.
Whilst all sorts of strange things could happen if a GE were to be held this year, I think one of the few confident predictions we can make is that there will not be a Labour surge in Scotland.
In theory, a large number of SNP seats in the central belt are vulnerable to Labour on small swings. In practice, it's rather more likely that the SNP will be making advances. From what I understand of the situation up there (which is very limited) Corbyn has gone down like a cup of cold sick; the SNP are the natural repository for strong Remainer sentiment in Scotland; and, to the extent that there's any discernible trend in Scotland only polls since GE2017, it appears to show the SNP and the LDs firming up marginally and the Tories and Labour creeping backwards.
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the government like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Jon Snow is a fully paid up Corbynista. Apparently Channel 4 have apologised for his comments - but he hasn’t, yet.
Wow he really is losing it then ! Lol
Seriously though , I did have one of those , did he really say that moments when I was watching Channel 4 News .
He really should apologize but I doubt he will . Overall though I like Channel 4 News and think they do a much better job of holding the government to account .
I thought BOTH the leave and the remain marches in London were very white to be fair. ME people have better things to do on a friday.
He has been prepared to risk absolutely everything to achieve what he wants. His mildness of tone and intelligence do not disguise that he would be content see everything burn to achieve his
He's more effective than them and a damn sight more likable, but he's the flip side of the coin - obsessive (as I am about him because people given him a free pass), uncaring of the risk to the country if he cannot get what he wants, and fanatically certain in the moral mission he is undertaking.
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood. I'd find that strange to describe as fanaticism.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
The Beaconsfield Conservatives owe no obligation to Dominic Grieve to keep him as their candidate.
MPs are in effect contracted workers for the following parliament.
There needs to be no obligation to offer a new contract if they have failed to give satisfaction or if there are doubts as to how well they will be perform in the future.
Its a pity more are not cleared out on a regular basis.
I think the party system, coupled with FPTP, is the reason so many of our MPs are mediocre. Although very MP is in theory selected every 5 years by the electorate, in reality most are in safe seats and are chosen by a very small, often quite extreme, group of activists - a system which both Labour and the Tories have seen is susceptible to entryism.
Clackmannanshire Central is in Strathclyde (which no longer exists as a region) the same way that Richard Leonard is a charismatic politician with a mind of his own.
Justin knows better than Scottish Labour.
From today's Times.
Labour would be wiped out in Scotland if Theresa May calls a general election, party insiders have warned.
The party holds seven seats in Scotland and it is unlikely that Mr Corbyn could win the keys to No 10 without them. However, insiders fear that all its Scottish seats would be lost if the prime minister called an election in an attempt to break the Brexit deadlock.
“Scotland is a massive problem for the party. We could be wiped out in Scotland. We could lose every single seat,” a source said.
A number of Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies are concerned that the party leadership believes the seats could be let go and that senior figures are preparing for a deal with the Scottish National Party. This month Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, did not rule out a Westminster coalition with Labour.
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the government like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Jon Snow is a fully paid up Corbynista. Apparently Channel 4 have apologised for his comments - but he hasn’t, yet.
Wow he really is losing it then ! Lol
Seriously though , I did have one of those , did he really say that moments when I was watching Channel 4 News .
He really should apologize but I doubt he will . Overall though I like Channel 4 News and think they do a much better job of holding the government to account .
I thought BOTH the leave and the remain marches in London were very white to be fair. ME people have better things to do on a friday.
It's true, and reflects the support bases of each group. Shires and towns, in the case of Leave , well off urban areas in the case of Remain.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
What's the difference between Grieve wanting to have his say on Brexit and Beaconsfield Conservatives wanting to have their say on Grieve ?
An MP represents all his constituents not simply the 300 or so members of the local party, assuming they are all genuine Conservatives (which may not necessarily be the case - the Tories seem very relaxed about the possibility of UKIP entryism). He is not a delegate - see Edmund Burke etc. They are acting against him because he won't simply parrot their lines but uses his judgment - on the basis of the facts before him now, which were not anticipated 3 years ago.
Of course you can have parties where the MP just does whatever he is ordered by a tiny minority but ask yourself whether that is what is best in Parliamentary democracy and whether it is likely to attract voters - uncommitted ones - to your party. And when considering this look at the parties that normally adopt this approach - usually Far Left parties - and ask whether this is how the Tories ought to be behaving.
I notice also that this zeal for having MPs represent their constituents does not extend to all those Brexiteer MPs representing Remain constituencies. They are not being called to account. Funny that.
Indeed, but the constituency association has the right to select and deselect its candidates and rightly so. Or are you claiming that once in situ, MPs are unsackable and untouchable except at election time, regardless of their actions.
I think control of candidates centrally, perhaps through a national selection committee itself elected by individual constituency associations, would provide better protection against entryism. Such a committee would no doubt currently reviewing Grieve and asking him to account for his actions but equally the ERG rebels would be under scrutiny.
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the government like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Jon Snow is a fully paid up Corbynista. Apparently Channel 4 have apologised for his comments - but he hasn’t, yet.
Jon Snow used to be centre-left. Maybe he's moved further to the left recently.
No one would agree on who could receive a coronation to lead them into another one.
Maybe they should go into the upcoming GE with no leader at all, send a poster with the Tory logo to the leaders' debates - Corbyn would be flummoxed.
Having lost a 20% lead in the polls last time, it would be electoral suicide to repeat it.
Not disagreeing. I think a GE is an astoundingly stupid idea for the Tories, and a very bad idea for the country, nothing more than an epic can kicking exercise, with all the supposed chance of resolution people expect from it dependent on such a GE going exactly as they want, and ignoring the riven state of the Tories in particular.
Unless they truly, deeply believe that a sub-optimal Brexit outcome is worth fighting at every cost (and there are some who think that) the rest of the party should do whatever it takes - CU, referemdum, whatever - to avoid going to a GE this year.
But so many seem to want it now.
I assume May, whose credibility is non existent, is trying to scare a few more rebels into supporting her woeful deal with talk of an election. A soft Brexit is not a long term solution for anyone because it has no wororthwile benefits in their own right. For Remainers it’s just a temporary stop on the way to re-entry. For Leavers, there is no realistic exit out - just back in.
Elections can give really strange results due to the operation of FPTP. It's not unusual for one main party to get fewer votes and more seats than the other one. In Scotland the SNP could wipe Labour out with very little change in the vote.
So it might be tempting to a PM. Electoral calculus is still predicting a Tory majority of 8, although I think these were a series of good polls for the Tories. She could take us out on 39% of the vote. A referendum wouldn't allow that.
Electoral calculus predicted a 100 + majority last time and look how that worked out. Without boundary changes, which are long overdue, and a party leader defined by a single issue where she has abjectly failed and with all the charisma of a dead fish, she’d be insane. It’s not as though Labour are led by moderates.
Wouldn't Electoral Calculus be based on polls that have tried to correct for the 2017 errors?
She might be desperate enough and, as I said, it's a gamble that could pay off under FPTP. 39% of the votes gets the UK out. A referendum to do the same needs 51% = about three million extra people.
I hold no special remit for Dominic Grieve but it seems to me that a party that can't withstand the criticism of a former Attorney General on a single issue, however important, diminishes itself and risks becoming a narrow sect and not a broad based political party.
A huge number of Conservative MP's down the ages have been rebels, some rather distinguished - what say you Winston? - others have been "bastards" - what say you IDS? ....
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
SNIP
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I can see the similarities. The largest party might well be determined by the outcome of the SNP v Labour battle in Scotland. I still expect Labour gains there in a Westminster election - despite Labour having a poor local by election result in Strathclyde this week.
You are clueless about Scotland. labour will be lucky to have one left if any. They are as popular as dog sh** on your shoe.
Labour is polling better in Scotland than was the case in April/May 2017 when they were below 15% in some polls. On 8th June they emerged with over 27% and six gains to give them a total of seven - unexpected by Labour itself. Latest polls place them in the 23% - 26% range, and I would expect them to build on that - as happened in 2017 - if Labour has a successful GB campaign . The serious possibility of Labour ousting the Tories from office at Westminster would be likely to have an impact on how the anti-Tory vote falls in Scotland. Were we to be faced with a scenario where the Tories look likely to win comfortably across GB, Labour would find itself in a far weaker position in Scotland.
The latest poll had them down 8% from a low level, they are only just above the pathetic 15% they were at under previous hapless leader. They now have one that is ten times worse, where even 40% of labour voters could not name him. Corbyn has done nothing and is disliked intensely, given his insults etc, they are doomed.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
What's the difference between Grieve wanting to have his say on Brexit and Beaconsfield Conservatives wanting to have their say on Grieve ?
I notice also that this zeal for having MPs represent their constituents does not extend to all those Brexiteer MPs representing Remain constituencies. They are not being called to account. Funny that.
Indeed, but the constituency association has the right to select and deselect its candidates and rightly so. Or are you claiming that once in situ, MPs are unsackable and untouchable except at election time, regardless of their actions.
I think control of candidates centrally, perhaps through a national selection committee itself elected by individual constituency associations, would provide better protection against entryism. Such a committee would no doubt currently reviewing Grieve and asking him to account for his actions but equally the ERG rebels would be under scrutiny.
The national party, already controls the candidates list so you are advocating stripping members of all rights. Not much of an advert for joining and it’s members who do all the hard work fundraising, canvassing etc
As for entryism, what’s the attraction of denying membership to anyone who has been a member of another political party. Doesn’t say much for your powers of persuasion. Lots of Tories left to join UKIP and then rejoined. I prefer the prodigal son approach than once out, never forgiven. After all, Carswell is in Downing St now. Your approach would leave him unemployed. Can’t see May going for that.
He is a Remain MP representing a Remain constituency. Perhaps it is the constituency party which is out of touch.
I am not preaching a philosophy of MPs being able to do what they want without consequences. You seem to forget that we have elections and the voters of his constituency will be able to pass judgment on him at the next GE.
I don't expect local constituency parties to be servile cheerleaders either. But I do question whether some of those so anxious to get Grieve are in fact genuine Tory party members or in fact entryists trying to turn the Conservative party into something it has never been.
An intelligent constituency party would understand that it is better to have as your MP an intelligent thoughtful person who uses their judgment, even if that means there is disagreement, rather than a nodding donkey who just does what he or she is told. The Tories seem to be preferring the latter and they come across to me - someone who is not committed to any party - as repellently sectarian, stupid and unhinged. And willing to destroy not only their own party but the country too.
But, hey, it's your party, so do with it what you want. But don't assume that the rest of us will join in or give you the unlimited power you seem to crave. The 2017 election result should have been a bloody great clue. Rather than learning from that the Tories are doubling down on precisely the sort of behaviour which put so many people off them then.
Its not my party and never has been.
Grieve can do what he thinks best as an MP and the Beaconsfield Conservatives can do as they think best with Grieve.
And if the Beaconsfield Conservatives don't want him he can try to find the equivalent job elsewhere - as the rest of us have to do.
As for coming across as unhinged I'm afraid that's what you are doing and I say that as someone who has always admired your articles on PB. Now that's perhaps understandable given the way MPs have been behaving but you are defending, as kle4 points out, one of the most fanatical of those MPs.
BTW if the likes of Chris Chope are deselected by the Conservatives will you be writing so passionately on their behalf ?
Even I was shocked by Jon Snows comments ! He really needs to stop and think about how that came across . Putting that aside the fact Channel 4 doesn’t arse lick the government like the BBC News should be welcomed .
Jon Snow is a fully paid up Corbynista. Apparently Channel 4 have apologised for his comments - but he hasn’t, yet.
Jon Snow used to be centre-left. Maybe he's moved further to the left recently.
He was filmed chanting Corbynista slogans when Corbyn graced Glastonbury with his presence a couple of years back.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I.
Whilst all sorts of strange things could happen if a GE were to be held this year, I think one of the few confident predictions we can make is that there will not be a Labour surge in Scotland.
In theory, a large number of SNP seats in the central belt are vulnerable to Labour on small swings. In practice, it's rather more likely that the SNP will be making advances. From what I understand of the situation up there (which is very limited) Corbyn has gone down like a cup of cold sick; the SNP are the natural repository for strong Remainer sentiment in Scotland; and, to the extent that there's any discernible trend in Scotland only polls since GE2017, it appears to show the SNP and the LDs firming up marginally and the Tories and Labour creeping backwards.
But you are ignoring the fact that in polling in the range of 22% - 26% , Labour is well above its ratings there as recorded back in April/May 2017.In the immediate aftermath of the election announcement Panelbase came out with SNP 44 Lab 13 Con 33 LD 5. The outcome on June 8th was SNP 36.9 Lab 27.1 Con 28.6 LD 6.8. My own prediction was to the effect that the SNP would struggle to hold 40 seats and that Labour might have managed 4 or 5. What were you expecting?
He is a Remain MP representing a Remain constituency. Perhaps it is the constituency party which is out of touch.
I am not preaching a philosophy of MPs being able to do what they want without consequences. You seem to forget that we have elections and the voters of his constituency will be able to pass judgment on him at the next GE.
I don't expect local constituency parties to be servile cheerleaders either. But I do question whether some of those so anxious to get Grieve are in fact genuine Tory party members or in fact entryists trying to turn the Conservative party into something it has never been.
An intelligent constituency party would understand that it is better to have as your MP an intelligent thoughtful person who uses their judgment, even if that means there is disagreement, rather than a nodding donkey who just does what he or she is told. The Tories seem to be preferring the latter and they come across to me - someone who is not committed to any party - as repellently sectarian, stupid and unhinged. And willing to destroy not only their own party but the country too.
But, hey, it's your party, so do with it what you want. But don't assume that the rest of us will join in or give you the unlimited power you seem to crave. The 2017 election result should have been a bloody great clue. Rather than learning from that the Tories are doubling down on precisely the sort of behaviour which put so many people off them then.
Its not my party and never has been.
Grieve can do what he thinks best as an MP and the Beaconsfield Conservatives can do as they think best with Grieve.
And if the Beaconsfield Conservatives don't want him he can try to find the equivalent job elsewhere - as the rest of us have to do.
As for coming across as unhinged I'm afraid that's what you are doing and I say that as someone who has always admired your articles on PB. Now that's perhaps understandable given the way MPs have been behaving but you are defending, as kle4 points out, one of the most fanatical of those MPs.
BTW if the likes of Chris Chope are deselected by the Conservatives will you be writing so passionately on their behalf ?
The problem with the argument that Grieve is a fanatic is that he has always been fanatical about process rather than policy. His main contribution has been allowing parliamentarians of all stripes, at times even including groups like the ERG, more say in the process.
And one could also add, as the government's own internal Brexit process has been so shockingly inept, it's very surprising that MP's from other parties didn't originally step forward to join him in this role.
Clackmannanshire Central is in Strathclyde (which no longer exists as a region) the same way that Richard Leonard is a charismatic politician with a mind of his own.
Justin knows better than Scottish Labour.
From today's Times.
Labour would be wiped out in Scotland if Theresa May calls a general election, party insiders have warned.
The party holds seven seats in Scotland and it is unlikely that Mr Corbyn could win the keys to No 10 without them. However, insiders fear that all its Scottish seats would be lost if the prime minister called an election in an attempt to break the Brexit deadlock.
“Scotland is a massive problem for the party. We could be wiped out in Scotland. We could lose every single seat,” a source said.
A number of Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies are concerned that the party leadership believes the seats could be let go and that senior figures are preparing for a deal with the Scottish National Party. This month Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, did not rule out a Westminster coalition with Labour.
Makes sense. If Labour think they're going to need to treat with the SNP in any event, then there is very little point in Corbyn worrying about his Scottish branch. Under such circumstances, an SNP MP is as good as a Scottish Labour MP (in fact, if the Scottish Labour vote were to go down the toilet then it might even be to his advantage, *IF* more of it went to the SNP than went to the surviving unionist parties.)
Grieve has almost single-handedly ensured parliament a greater say in a project which the executive has almost catastrophically failed to implement, failed to reach a clear position on - the barely agreed WA is no clear position - and never fully understood.
To outsiders like me, the Tories are coming across as repellent and unhinged. Their treatment of Grieve epitomises this. He is trying to get MPs to have their say - an uncontroversial demand, one would have thought, in a Parliamentary democracy.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
The Beaconsfield Conservatives owe no obligation to Dominic Grieve to keep him as their candidate.
Of course. I am not questioning their right to do what they are doing but their wisdom in doing so.
A party which prefers an ignoramus like Andrea Jenkyns to a distinguished former Attorney-General who does actually understand what he is talking about is one which is, IMO, acting unwisely.
And the Tories' actions in behaving thus will have consequences, despite all the smugness on here about how they will win the next GE, Corbyn won't win or will be dependant on the SNP blah blah. Were the Tories wise they would think about the face they are presenting to the world - Mark Francois coming across like a bad bit part actor in a poor remake of Dad's Army, Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker with his hysterical speeches, etc etc - the faces on our screens are of people as ignorant as they are arrogant and utterly unconcerned with the interests of the vast majority of people in this country.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
SNIP
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
You are clueless about Scotland. labour will be lucky to have one left if any. They are as popular as dog sh** on your shoe.
Labour is polling better in Scotland than was the case in April/May 2017 when they were below 15% in some polls. On 8th June they emerged with over 27% and six gains to give them a total of seven - unexpected by Labour itself. Latest polls place them in the 23% - 26% range, and I would expect them to build on that - as happened in 2017 - if Labour has a successful GB campaign . The serious possibility of Labour ousting the Tories from office at Westminster would be likely to have an impact on how the anti-Tory vote falls in Scotland. Were we to be faced with a scenario where the Tories look likely to win comfortably across GB, Labour would find itself in a far weaker position in Scotland.
The latest poll had them down 8% from a low level, they are only just above the pathetic 15% they were at under previous hapless leader. They now have one that is ten times worse, where even 40% of labour voters could not name him. Corbyn has done nothing and is disliked intensely, given his insults etc, they are doomed.
I am not aware of any poll that has Labour as low as 15% in Scotland in respect of Westminster voting intentions. I would be happy to see the details - if you have them.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or one of the Lambeth seats would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
Clackmannanshire Central is in Strathclyde (which no longer exists as a region) the same way that Richard Leonard is a charismatic politician with a mind of his own.
Justin knows better than Scottish Labour.
From today's Times.
Labour would be wiped out in Scotland if Theresa May calls a general election, party insiders have warned.
The party holds seven seats in Scotland and it is unlikely that Mr Corbyn could win the keys to No 10 without them. However, insiders fear that all its Scottish seats would be lost if the prime minister called an election in an attempt to break the Brexit deadlock.
“Scotland is a massive problem for the party. We could be wiped out in Scotland. We could lose every single seat,” a source said.
A number of Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies are concerned that the party leadership believes the seats could be let go and that senior figures are preparing for a deal with the Scottish National Party. This month Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, did not rule out a Westminster coalition with Labour.
Given Corbyn will almost certainly only become PM with SNP support it makes no difference in reality if Labour is wiped out in Scotland unless some of the seats Scottish Labour loses go to the Scottish Tories rather than the SNP
Clackmannanshire Central is in Strathclyde (which no longer exists as a region) the same way that Richard Leonard is a charismatic politician with a mind of his own.
Justin knows better than Scottish Labour.
From today's Times.
Labour would be wiped out in Scotland if Theresa May calls a general election, party insiders have warned.
The party holds seven seats in Scotland and it is unlikely that Mr Corbyn could win the keys to No 10 without them. However, insiders fear that all its Scottish seats would be lost if the prime minister called an election in an attempt to break the Brexit deadlock.
“Scotland is a massive problem for the party. We could be wiped out in Scotland. We could lose every single seat,” a source said.
A number of Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies are concerned that the party leadership believes the seats could be let go and that senior figures are preparing for a deal with the Scottish National Party. This month Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, did not rule out a Westminster coalition with Labour.
Trouble is Corbynistas have no fears of bad polling or a scottish wipeout. Both were either predicted or raised as very serious possibilities and yet the bad polling was overcome and there was no scottish wipeout.
No guarantee for the future, but it means I can see why the leadership will never worry about it, even if the report that they might even let those seats go, as it were, is not true.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
An election now will lead to a parliament even more remainey than the one we have now. Anti-Brexit campaigns, fired up by their recent successes, will promote tactical voting against Brexiters and this could well lead to a number of prominent Brexiters losing their seats, Bojo and IDS are particularly vulnerable. Labour and all other opposition parties will make commitments involving a second referendum, however qualified. So the likelihood is that a new parliament will contain a majority of MPs elected on the promise of a second vote. And leave voters, angry and demoralised, will drift away from a Tory party that many will say cannot be trusted to deliver, toward the Farage/Brexit party. So an early election is likely to lead ultimately to remain.
Boris is likely to win regardless, Hillingdon voted Leave and Labour would only win Uxbridge if they won a clear overall majority. IDS is more vulnerable as Chingford and Woodford Green is in Waltham Forest which voted Remain and Labour could gain Chingford even if they fall short of an overall majority
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after they've settled into the job and had the opportunity to create a good - or bad - impression.
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
Grieve can do what he thinks best as an MP and the Beaconsfield Conservatives can do as they think best with Grieve.
And if the Beaconsfield Conservatives don't want him he can try to find the equivalent job elsewhere - as the rest of us have to do.
As for coming across as unhinged I'm afraid that's what you are doing and I say that as someone who has always admired your articles on PB. Now that's perhaps understandable given the way MPs have been behaving but you are defending, as kle4 points out, one of the most fanatical of those MPs.
BTW if the likes of Chris Chope are deselected by the Conservatives will you be writing so passionately on their behalf ?
The problem with the argument that Grieve is a fanatic is that he has always been fanatical about process rather than policy. His main contribution has been allowing parliamentarians of all stripes, at times even including groups like the ERG, more say in the process.
And one could also add, as the government's own internal Brexit process has been so shockingly inept, it's very surprising that MP's from other parties didn't originally step forward to join him in this role.
Grieve voted for A50 but doesn't seem to be in favour of any manner of actually exiting the EU - the logical conclusion of which is either No Deal or revoking A50.
I find that difficult to equate with comments about him being 'mild' and 'thoughtful'.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
If she lost, Corbyn and McDonnell would be in Downing St and Brexit would be irrelevant because we’d all be in deep in the mire.
Sturgeon would almost certainly be the Kingmaker in reality and she would water down the socialism while ratcheting up the BINO
I continue to be surprised with how easily it is that, even after all we have learned about opinion polling and its fallibility, people are convinced that surveys like this offer some kind of precious insight into the thoughts and feelings of the electorate. Best next leader polls are little more than an exercise in name recognition, and they tell us nothing at all about how well any successor might be received after tds was a significant possibility.
I think Trump's election victory somewhat disproves that
What's Donald Trump got to do with any of this?
name recognition who won
Doesn't mean that Boris will follow suit. Besides anything else (the small fact of our system being very different to that of the US for starters,) he is a long-established political actor with suitcases full of baggage to match.
If the Conservatives could win a General Election just by fielding somebody famous as Prime Minister then, following your logic, they would be much better off drafting a popular TV personality (possibly someone who plays one of the more likeable characters in a major soap opera,) parachuting the individual in question into a safe seat helpfully vacated by an elderly Tory who was planning to retire at the next election anyway, and then installing said person as leader by acclamation.
Celebrity alone does not win you elections, ask Katie Price who stood in the 2001 election and lost heavily, however to be a celebrity you tend to need to have charisma and that is a help in winning elections especially if it comes with a message that fires up your supporters
Grieve can do what he thinks best as an MP and the Beaconsfield Conservatives can do as they think best with Grieve.
And if the Beaconsfield Conservatives don't want him he can try to find the equivalent job elsewhere - as the rest of us have to do.
As for coming across as unhinged I'm afraid that's what you are doing and I say that as someone who has always admired your articles on PB. Now that's perhaps understandable given the way MPs have been behaving but you are defending, as kle4 points out, one of the most fanatical of those MPs.
BTW if the likes of Chris Chope are deselected by the Conservatives will you be writing so passionately on their behalf ?
I am pointing out how the Tories are coming across to one non-Tory voter - me. If that makes me unhinged so be it.
I have always admired Grieve: he was a good Attorney-General and Cameron sacking him was a foolish mistake. His successors have not distinguished themselves in the role. He is giving MPs a role and I admire that because I find the way May has tried to sideline Parliament utterly contemptible. It is not the fact that he is pro-Remain which is important to me but that he is trying to ensure that Parliament has a say, much as Oliver Letwin is doing. Quite why this is seen as objectionable by people who wittered on during the referendum campaign about Parliamentary sovereignty I don't know.
As for Chope, the only thing I know about him is that he objects to Private Members' bills being passed through on the nod without scrutiny. That seemed to be a principled - if eccentric - point of view. Until it came out that he did so selectively so he was not principled at all. And, furthermore, that those bills he objected to were ones which sought to prevent harm to women. So I do criticise his judgment in making those choices.
If he were to be criticised for not simply doing what he was told but for exercising his judgment I would ask the same question: is this wise? MPs should not be delegates and should not just represent a small number of activists within a party, IMO.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Oh park your false indignation. Virtually all candidates on the candidates list go to seats that safe for another party before they get a winnable seat. JRM did the same. Grieve did nothing exceptional and is not entitled to exceptional treatment now.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
Quite plausible I think. Something about your election predictions somehow seems to ring true ; although we are in wildly unpredictable territory, ofcourse.
I have a feeling we are in February 1974 territory and May is Heath but we will see
I can see the similarities. The largest party might well be determined by the outcome of the SNP v Labour battle in Scotland. I still expect Labour gains there in a Westminster election - despite Labour having a poor local by election result in Strathclyde this week.
I would agree with that but being largest party is only a moral win if you do not have the numbers to win a confidence vote and form a government
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Oh park your false indignation. Virtually all candidates on the candidates list go to seats that safe for another party before they get a winnable seat. JRM did the same. Grieve did nothing exceptional and is not entitled to exceptional treatment now.
But you were talking rubbish, thanks for clearing that up.
How often have you called for the deselection of serial rebels like Bridgen, Jenkyns, Baker et al?
Grieve can do what he thinks best as an MP and the Beaconsfield Conservatives can do as they think best with Grieve.
And if the Beaconsfield Conservatives don't want him he can try to find the equivalent job elsewhere - as the rest of us have to do.
As for coming across as unhinged I'm afraid that's what you are doing and I say that as someone who has always admired your articles on PB. Now that's perhaps understandable given the way MPs have been behaving but you are defending, as kle4 points out, one of the most fanatical of those MPs.
BTW if the likes of Chris Chope are deselected by the Conservatives will you be writing so passionately on their behalf ?
The problem with the argument that Grieve is a fanatic is that he has always been fanatical about process rather than policy. His main contribution has been allowing parliamentarians of all stripes, at times even including groups like the ERG, more say in the process.
And one could also add, as the government's own internal Brexit process has been so shockingly inept, it's very surprising that MP's from other parties didn't originally step forward to join him in this role.
Grieve voted for A50 but doesn't seem to be in favour of any manner of actually exiting the EU - the logical conclusion of which is either No Deal or revoking A50.
I find that difficult to equate with comments about him being 'mild' and 'thoughtful'.
He's the mirror image of Mogg.
I wouldn't see it like that all. His voting on A50 in fact tallies with much else of his voting record, and in fact points to a striking reality - that by instinct he's actually a wet tory tribal loyalist, not a rebel. He engineered the meaningful votes at a point of vacuum and confusion last year, when no negotiated deal - as now, but for different reasons - seemed a real possibility. His main legacy has been empowering a range of parlamentary views rather than simply remain. Mogg has no such diverse legacy.
Clackmannanshire Central is in Strathclyde (which no longer exists as a region) the same way that Richard Leonard is a charismatic politician with a mind of his own.
Justin knows better than Scottish Labour.
From today's Times.
Labour would be wiped out in Scotland if Theresa May calls a general election, party insiders have warned.
The party holds seven seats in Scotland and it is unlikely that Mr Corbyn could win the keys to No 10 without them. However, insiders fear that all its Scottish seats would be lost if the prime minister called an election in an attempt to break the Brexit deadlock.
“Scotland is a massive problem for the party. We could be wiped out in Scotland. We could lose every single seat,” a source said.
A number of Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies are concerned that the party leadership believes the seats could be let go and that senior figures are preparing for a deal with the Scottish National Party. This month Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, did not rule out a Westminster coalition with Labour.
Given Corbyn will almost certainly only become PM with SNP support it makes no difference in reality if Labour is wiped out in Scotland unless some of the seats Scottish Labour loses go to the Scottish Tories rather than the SNP
But to have any chance of a majority Labour needs to recover ground lost to the SNP. I am not persuaded that the personality of the Scottish Labour Leader is so important at a Westminster election, and strongly suspect that it was the Corbyn surge across GB which boosted Labour there in 2017 - rather than a sudden rise in the popularity of Kezia Dugdale. Corbyn's ratings are poor GB wide at the moment , but if an election campaign gives him real momentum - similar to 2017 - I will be surprised if that fails to come through in Scotland too.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Don't nearly all MPs do that? I'd assume you have to be very lucky or well connected to not have to fight a no hoper first before you get a crack at a winnable or safe seat? Seems like a sensible way to do it, to see what they can do in a tough seat, test their campaigning skills, hopefully note any concerns that they might turn a safe seat non safe.
Boris joint top even on that poll on agree he has what it takes to be PM.
Javid may have the best net rating of all voters with Mori but most of the disagree voters will never vote Tory anyway
Perhaps Texit really is like Brexit. There'll be lots of infighting before the Tory party realises that none of the alternatives are better than the status quo, and they'll beg for a May extension.
I think May leads the Tories into the next general election which maybe within weeks, if she wins she has a mandate for her Deal and stays PM and Tory leader, if she loses the Tories pick a hard Brexiteer as leader of the Opposition
If she lost, Corbyn and McDonnell would be in Downing St and Brexit would be irrelevant because we’d all be in deep in the mire.
Sturgeon would almost certainly be the Kingmaker in reality and she would water down the socialism while ratcheting up the BINO
I am not convinced she would water anything down. Scottish politics is more left wing than Britain’s currently and all she wants is a second Independence referendum which would be her price for supporting Corbyn.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Bercow’s constituency will need someone soonish.
I look forward to how he will act in the Lords when he gets there. If he gets there, given his own dislike of precedent, in some cases.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Don't nearly all MPs do that? I'd assume you have to be very lucky or well connected to not have to fight a no hoper first before you get a crack at a winnable or safe seat? Seems like a sensible way to do it, to see what they can do in a tough seat, test their campaigning skills, hopefully note any concerns that they might turn a safe seat non safe.
George Osborne didn't.
Prime Minister in waiting Jeremy Hunt didn't either nor did Gove.
I'm sure there are others but those are the three that came to mind first.
I completely forgot how soon upon us the Newport by-election is. Should presumably be a comfortableish Lab hold (so we can expect the usual by-election talk about how it shows the government has lost its mandate etc etc) - is the Lab candidate especially Corbynisty?
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Don't nearly all MPs do that? I'd assume you have to be very lucky or well connected to not have to fight a no hoper first before you get a crack at a winnable or safe seat? Seems like a sensible way to do it, to see what they can do in a tough seat, test their campaigning skills, hopefully note any concerns that they might turn a safe seat non safe.
Without looking these fought a 'no-hoper':
Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Hague, Howard.
Technically Cameron stood in Conservative Stafford in 1997 but it was an inevitable certain defeat given the national circumstances.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Oh park your false indignation. Virtually all candidates on the candidates list go to seats that safe for another party before they get a winnable seat. JRM did the same. Grieve did nothing exceptional and is not entitled to exceptional treatment now.
But you were talking rubbish, thanks for clearing that up.
How often have you called for the deselection of serial rebels like Bridgen, Jenkyns, Baker et al?
I'd say they should absolubtely be subject to a constituency no confidence vote.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Bercow’s constituency will need someone soonish.
I look forward to how he will act in the Lords when he gets there. If he gets there, given his own dislike of precedent, in some cases.
He will use it for Brand Bercow - we already know that. It has always been about him.
Which is why he has abused process to ensure his own conduct has never been properly investigated.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Oh park your false indignation. Virtually all candidates on the candidates list go to seats that safe for another party before they get a winnable seat. JRM did the same. Grieve did nothing exceptional and is not entitled to exceptional treatment now.
But you were talking rubbish, thanks for clearing that up.
How often have you called for the deselection of serial rebels like Bridgen, Jenkyns, Baker et al?
I'd say they should absolubtely be subject to a constituency no confidence vote.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Oh park your false indignation. Virtually all candidates on the candidates list go to seats that safe for another party before they get a winnable seat. JRM did the same. Grieve did nothing exceptional and is not entitled to exceptional treatment now.
But you were talking rubbish, thanks for clearing that up.
How often have you called for the deselection of serial rebels like Bridgen, Jenkyns, Baker et al?
We’ll have to agree to disagree on who was talking rubbish. As for the others you mention, that’s a matter for Bridgen’s, Jenkyn’s, Baker’s constituency associations as is Grieve’s.
My MP is a total muppet in my view but the association seem to like her and that’s their privilege. I don’t agitate to get shot of her.
If Grieve gets deslected he might surely just as well join the ChangeUK mob now.
That would be an admittance that no other Conservative association would want him.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
I am sure constituencies like Glasgow Central, Sunderland South or Lambeth would take him. As for an association in a safe seat, which he would presumably want, anything else being beneath his dignity, that’s rather different.
You really are talking bollocks.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
Oh park your false indignation. Virtually all candidates on the candidates list go to seats that safe for another party before they get a winnable seat. JRM did the same. Grieve did nothing exceptional and is not entitled to exceptional treatment now.
But you were talking rubbish, thanks for clearing that up.
How often have you called for the deselection of serial rebels like Bridgen, Jenkyns, Baker et al?
I'd say they should absolubtely be subject to a constituency no confidence vote.
Indeed.
There needs to be a general clearout of deadwood and morons as well.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex
I assume that male testosterone levels might have been falling too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40719743
The success or otherwise of the next Conservative leader will depend upon whatever good qualities they bring to the job, not on their being a celebrity before they start out. And besides, these polls only ever ask about a few of the most prominent cabinet ministers (which is logical: they can't offer every single eligible MP as an option, as people would run away screaming if confronted with a list of over 300 names, and they wouldn't know who most of the figures listed were in any event.)
Theresa May's successor might not be on the list, and might not even come from within the cabinet at all. Indeed, with the hash that the Government has made of Brexit to date, one would've thought that a decision to skip a whole generation and go for a fresher face and a clean (or, at any rate, less dirty) pair of hands was a significant possibility.
Anyway, the current Tory party does not seem to want my vote. So be it. They won't get it. Not next time and not for a long time thereafter, if ever. They've also lost my husband's vote - and he used to vote Tory. He lives in a Tory constituency - one with a very small majority and which used to be Labour. He was nonetheless pleased that in 2017 they did not get a humungous majority because he thought that it made them arrogant and that being a bit humbled would force them to behave themselves. Instead of which they have behaved like arrogant idiots who did have a 140 seat majority.
The Tories are now behaving like Labour in the early 1980's. It will not end well for them or for the country.
So it might be tempting to a PM. Electoral calculus is still predicting a Tory majority of 8, although I think these were a series of good polls for the Tories. She could take us out on 39% of the vote. A referendum wouldn't allow that.
In 2015 Dave's lead over Ed was a pointer to a Tory majority and the VI polls being wrong.
Ditto in 1992.
Also Mrs May's collapsing ratings in 2017 were a huge pointer that she was about to screw the pooch.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/871434971797475328
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/871432155330744320
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/06/04/the-polling-that-should-worry-mrs-may-and-all-tories/
Do you have the current Mori net satisfaction ratings for May and Corbyn ?
"Who do you want to run Brexit?"
"Not you"
Corbyn's net ratings are minus 50%
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/worst-public-satisfaction-ratings-any-government-john-major
Of course you can have parties where the MP just does whatever he is ordered by a tiny minority but ask yourself whether that is what is best in Parliamentary democracy and whether it is likely to attract voters - uncommitted ones - to your party. And when considering this look at the parties that normally adopt this approach - usually Far Left parties - and ask whether this is how the Tories ought to be behaving.
I notice also that this zeal for having MPs represent their constituents does not extend to all those Brexiteer MPs representing Remain constituencies. They are not being called to account. Funny that.
If the Conservatives could win a General Election just by fielding somebody famous as Prime Minister then, following your logic, they would be much better off drafting a popular TV personality (possibly someone who plays one of the more likeable characters in a major soap opera,) parachuting the individual in question into a safe seat helpfully vacated by an elderly Tory who was planning to retire at the next election anyway, and then installing said person as leader by acclamation.
2015 Cameron leads by 17%, Conservatives lead by 7%
2017 May leads by 4%, Conservatives lead by 2%
So a 14% May lead should equate to a 6% Conservative lead at the ballot box.
But only if the pattern holds and there are no subsequent changes in the satisfaction ratings.
We are all really aware this is the key bit and it was the campaigns wot dunnit. One awful, one magical (but not in that sense, no).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47760355
I'm aware from numerous past discussions on PB that some evidence exists of the predictive value of long-established trend surveys of the ratings of sitting major party leaders in terms of forecasting GE results. The fact that these indicate that Corbyn is received even more badly than May is almost the only crumb of comfort currently available to Conservative supporters: it indicates that a 1997-style wipeout probably isn't on the cards and, if they manage to change leaders and find a better replacement before the next GE rolls around, they could well do a great deal better than prevailing circumstances might otherwise suggest.
On the other hand, standard voting intention polls have a chequered record to say the least, and I see little if any value in attempts to rate the popularity of theoretical future leaders, for reasons previously described.
There were no shortage of people who thought that Theresa May was just the ticket when she took over the reins. This confidence did not survive her first significant collision with the electorate.
He was telling me about his little pond, but then mentioned he had a rowing boat on it to reach an island.
How big is this pond I ask?
oh - about 4 acres he says......
As I said earlier if Grieve is held in as high regard as people claim then he will be able to find another Conservative constituency party more in agreement with his views.
But the philosophy you are preaching that MPs should be able to do as they want with local memberships being servile cheerleaders is repellent and reeks of 'people like them should not tell people like me what to do'.
Actions have consequences - something which needs to apply to politicians as it does to the rest of us.
They really are in deep shit. Call for Boris.
Seriously though , I did have one of those , did he really say that moments when I was watching Channel 4 News .
He really should apologize but I doubt he will . Overall though I like Channel 4 News and think they do a much better job of holding the government to account .
There needs to be no obligation to offer a new contract if they have failed to give satisfaction or if there are doubts as to how well they will be perform in the future.
Its a pity more are not cleared out on a regular basis.
I am not preaching a philosophy of MPs being able to do what they want without consequences. You seem to forget that we have elections and the voters of his constituency will be able to pass judgment on him at the next GE.
I don't expect local constituency parties to be servile cheerleaders either. But I do question whether some of those so anxious to get Grieve are in fact genuine Tory party members or in fact entryists trying to turn the Conservative party into something it has never been.
An intelligent constituency party would understand that it is better to have as your MP an intelligent thoughtful person who uses their judgment, even if that means there is disagreement, rather than a nodding donkey who just does what he or she is told. The Tories seem to be preferring the latter and they come across to me - someone who is not committed to any party - as repellently sectarian, stupid and unhinged. And willing to destroy not only their own party but the country too.
But, hey, it's your party, so do with it what you want. But don't assume that the rest of us will join in or give you the unlimited power you seem to crave. The 2017 election result should have been a bloody great clue. Rather than learning from that the Tories are doubling down on precisely the sort of behaviour which put so many people off them then.
In theory, a large number of SNP seats in the central belt are vulnerable to Labour on small swings. In practice, it's rather more likely that the SNP will be making advances. From what I understand of the situation up there (which is very limited) Corbyn has gone down like a cup of cold sick; the SNP are the natural repository for strong Remainer sentiment in Scotland; and, to the extent that there's any discernible trend in Scotland only polls since GE2017, it appears to show the SNP and the LDs firming up marginally and the Tories and Labour creeping backwards.
I wish I knew what the solution to that was.
From today's Times.
Labour would be wiped out in Scotland if Theresa May calls a general election, party insiders have warned.
The party holds seven seats in Scotland and it is unlikely that Mr Corbyn could win the keys to No 10 without them. However, insiders fear that all its Scottish seats would be lost if the prime minister called an election in an attempt to break the Brexit deadlock.
“Scotland is a massive problem for the party. We could be wiped out in Scotland. We could lose every single seat,” a source said.
A number of Labour MPs in Scottish constituencies are concerned that the party leadership believes the seats could be let go and that senior figures are preparing for a deal with the Scottish National Party. This month Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, did not rule out a Westminster coalition with Labour.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/brexit-snap-poll-risks-wiping-out-labour-in-scotland-gc8wdpsq7
“If you believe in Leave, don’t vote Grieve.”
Well it wasn't wrong to be fair !
I think control of candidates centrally, perhaps through a national selection committee itself elected by individual constituency associations, would provide better protection against entryism. Such a committee would no doubt currently reviewing Grieve and asking him to account for his actions but equally the ERG rebels would be under scrutiny.
She might be desperate enough and, as I said, it's a gamble that could pay off under FPTP. 39% of the votes gets the UK out. A referendum to do the same needs 51% = about three million extra people.
A huge number of Conservative MP's down the ages have been rebels, some rather distinguished - what say you Winston? - others have been "bastards" - what say you IDS? ....
Both become Conservative party leader.
As for entryism, what’s the attraction of denying membership to anyone who has been a member of another political party. Doesn’t say much for your powers of persuasion. Lots of Tories left to join UKIP and then rejoined. I prefer the prodigal son approach than once out, never forgiven. After all, Carswell is in Downing St now. Your approach would leave him unemployed. Can’t see May going for that.
Grieve can do what he thinks best as an MP and the Beaconsfield Conservatives can do as they think best with Grieve.
And if the Beaconsfield Conservatives don't want him he can try to find the equivalent job elsewhere - as the rest of us have to do.
As for coming across as unhinged I'm afraid that's what you are doing and I say that as someone who has always admired your articles on PB. Now that's perhaps understandable given the way MPs have been behaving but you are defending, as kle4 points out, one of the most fanatical of those MPs.
BTW if the likes of Chris Chope are deselected by the Conservatives will you be writing so passionately on their behalf ?
And one could also add, as the government's own internal Brexit process has been so shockingly inept, it's very surprising that MP's from other parties didn't originally step forward to join him in this role.
A party which prefers an ignoramus like Andrea Jenkyns to a distinguished former Attorney-General who does actually understand what he is talking about is one which is, IMO, acting unwisely.
And the Tories' actions in behaving thus will have consequences, despite all the smugness on here about how they will win the next GE, Corbyn won't win or will be dependant on the SNP blah blah. Were the Tories wise they would think about the face they are presenting to the world - Mark Francois coming across like a bad bit part actor in a poor remake of Dad's Army, Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker with his hysterical speeches, etc etc - the faces on our screens are of people as ignorant as they are arrogant and utterly unconcerned with the interests of the vast majority of people in this country.
Now that doesn't mean that either Grieve and/or the Conservative party is at fault merely that they have irreconcilable views on what they regard as fundamental issues.
No guarantee for the future, but it means I can see why the leadership will never worry about it, even if the report that they might even let those seats go, as it were, is not true.
He stood in a Labour seat before he won Beaconsfield.
I find that difficult to equate with comments about him being 'mild' and 'thoughtful'.
He's the mirror image of Mogg.
I have always admired Grieve: he was a good Attorney-General and Cameron sacking him was a foolish mistake. His successors have not distinguished themselves in the role. He is giving MPs a role and I admire that because I find the way May has tried to sideline Parliament utterly contemptible. It is not the fact that he is pro-Remain which is important to me but that he is trying to ensure that Parliament has a say, much as Oliver Letwin is doing. Quite why this is seen as objectionable by people who wittered on during the referendum campaign about Parliamentary sovereignty I don't know.
As for Chope, the only thing I know about him is that he objects to Private Members' bills being passed through on the nod without scrutiny. That seemed to be a principled - if eccentric - point of view. Until it came out that he did so selectively so he was not principled at all. And, furthermore, that those bills he objected to were ones which sought to prevent harm to women. So I do criticise his judgment in making those choices.
If he were to be criticised for not simply doing what he was told but for exercising his judgment I would ask the same question: is this wise? MPs should not be delegates and should not just represent a small number of activists within a party, IMO.
How often have you called for the deselection of serial rebels like Bridgen, Jenkyns, Baker et al?
Prime Minister in waiting Jeremy Hunt didn't either nor did Gove.
I'm sure there are others but those are the three that came to mind first.
Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Hague, Howard.
Technically Cameron stood in Conservative Stafford in 1997 but it was an inevitable certain defeat given the national circumstances.
Which is why he has abused process to ensure his own conduct has never been properly investigated.
He is a stain on public life.
My MP is a total muppet in my view but the association seem to like her and that’s their privilege. I don’t agitate to get shot of her.
There needs to be a general clearout of deadwood and morons as well.
“Hard Remain: Align with other EU countries and adopt Schengen and the euro.”
Might take a while to get to 6m though.