Andrea Leadsom MP ✔ @andrealeadsom Just handed in my nomination papers - thanks so much to all those supporting! Looking forward to the campaign launch 9.45am tomorrow
Oh, piss off Andrea.
Somewhat lacking in chivalry. Though I too would have been content to see her price fly out to 1000.
A certain lack of chivalrousness is, to a limited extent, perfectly acceptable when describing someone as ghastly as Ms Loathsome.
Serial adulterer, liar, possible racist, charlatan, incompetent, suchthings are not obstacles to high office any more, here or in the US. I am all for being progressive, but FFS people, can't we find someone better than him?
I do hope so. It's about the person not the policies for me. Boris Johnson is manifestly unfit for (and not up to the demands of) the highest elected office in our country. It would make me feel down in the dumps if it comes to pass.
There was a time when, despite him being the clear favourite, I would have been confident that he will not be the ultimate choice. Why would I have been confident? Precisely BECAUSE he is so clearly unsuitable. A charlatan and a chancer with no soul, a bad heart and a complete absence of personal integrity. A person such as this, I would assure myself, cannot be elected to lead a major Western democracy. It is not possible. Ergo however likely it might look, it will not happen.
But that was then. That was before 9 November 2016. That was the day I wised up.
Hunt is clearly the Establishment's chosen "Stop Boris" candidate.
Lose to Boris candidate. They need two stop Boris candidates to actually stop him. Also the idea he is not establishment is just silly, we need to stop indulging that talk. Even within the tory party he is an establishment figure, he just founded out of the cabinet.
Andrea Leadsom MP ✔ @andrealeadsom Just handed in my nomination papers - thanks so much to all those supporting! Looking forward to the campaign launch 9.45am tomorrow
Isn't that the fault of the Scots having a half hearted devolution system rather than proper independence. Another good reason to let them go their own way so they can make their own decisions about tax and let England do likewise.
The 2016 Scotland Act had around 120 proposed amendments (over 40 by the SNP afaicr), they were all voted down by a government composed mainly of English Tory MPs. I certainly think they share some of the fault for the current half hearted devolution system, English votes for Scottish devolution as it were.
Boris has sent a proxy on to PM to speak for him. Lo! It is Mark Francois! Who is totally and utterly unwilling to answer any policy questions of any kind whatsoever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Which is probably the right decision.
Serial adulterer, liar, possible racist, charlatan, incompetent, suchthings are not obstacles to high office any more, here or in the US. I am all for being progressive, but FFS people, can't we find someone better than him?
I do hope so. It's about the person not the policies for me. Boris Johnson is manifestly unfit for (and not up to the demands of) the highest elected office in our country. It would make me feel sad and empty, generally down in the dumps, if it comes to pass.
And there was a time when, despite him being the clear favourite, I would have been confident that he will not be the ultimate choice. Why would I have been confident? Precisely BECAUSE he is so clearly unsuitable. A charlatan and a chancer with no soul, a bad heart and a complete absence of personal integrity. A person such as this, I would assure myself, cannot be elected to lead a major Western democracy. It is not possible. Ergo however likely it might look, it will not happen.
But that was then. That was before 9 November 2016. That was the day I wised up.
To be honest I can forgive him much of what is laid against him in terms of character flaws. I have no illusions about our politicians or about the effects of power. It is one reason amongst many that I never trust any of them.
But what I cannot forgive him is the combination of incompetence and laziness. These make him utterly unsuited for office, either high or low.
Serial adulterer, liar, possible racist, charlatan, incompetent, suchthings are not obstacles to high office any more, here or in the US. I am all for being progressive, but FFS people, can't we find someone better than him?
I do hope so. It's about the person not the policies for me. Boris Johnson is manifestly unfit for (and not up to the demands of) the highest elected office in our country. It would make me feel sad and empty, generally down in the dumps, if it comes to pass.
And there was a time when, despite him being the clear favourite, I would have been confident that he will not be the ultimate choice. Why would I have been confident? Precisely BECAUSE he is so clearly unsuitable. A charlatan and a chancer with no soul, a bad heart and a complete absence of personal integrity. A person such as this, I would assure myself, cannot be elected to lead a major Western democracy. It is not possible. Ergo however likely it might look, it will not happen.
But that was then. That was before 9 November 2016. That was the day I wised up.
To be honest I can forgive him much of what is laid against him in terms of character flaws. I have no illusions about our politicians or about the effects of power. It is one reason amongst many that I never trust any of them.
But what I cannot forgive him is the combination of incompetence and laziness. These make him utterly unsuited for office, either high or low.
Well put. On that Richard, we are (once again) agreed.
Andrea Leadsom MP ✔ @andrealeadsom Just handed in my nomination papers - thanks so much to all those supporting! Looking forward to the campaign launch 9.45am tomorrow
Andrea flying under the radar...
It's actually quite difficult to pick up a broomstick on radar. Something to do with the bristles.
Andrea Leadsom MP ✔ @andrealeadsom Just handed in my nomination papers - thanks so much to all those supporting! Looking forward to the campaign launch 9.45am tomorrow
Andrea flying under the radar...
It's actually quite difficult to pick up a broomstick on radar. Something to do with the bristles.
Boris has sent a proxy on to PM to speak for him. Lo! It is Mark Francois! Who is totally and utterly unwilling to answer any policy questions of any kind whatsoever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Which is probably the right decision.
Are you serious? He sent mark Francois to speak for him? Are there no depths to his incompetence? It is the equivalent of sending John Prescot to an elocution competition.
Boris has sent a proxy on to PM to speak for him. Lo! It is Mark Francois! Who is totally and utterly unwilling to answer any policy questions of any kind whatsoever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Which is probably the right decision.
Are you serious? He sent mark Francois to speak for him? Are there no depths to his incompetence? It is the equivalent of sending John Prescot to an elocution competition.
If he has, then how can any of his backers pretend that the plan is not full on no deal, which is what Francois wants, and therefore an election first. Fine if that is the plan, but let's be clear.
Gosh, the stock for volatility is Gove! Out to nearly 40 this morning, now steamed right back in to 16. Was his campaign launch this afternoon utterly brilliant? I guess it must have been.
Gyimah said he had 8 names - why was he lieing :O ?
Isn't he rather dependent now on providing the names he thinks he had, to confirm he is choosing to withdraw not failing to make the cut? Otherwise, yes, he is just a liar.
The only candidate who might struggle to get the names in (If Mark Harper can do it, anyone can) is Gyimah I think.
He seems to be the sole representative among ~13 of 'normal' pre-1979 Tories. It was his party that took us into the EEC with some Labour support from people like Jenkins, Williams, Wilson but also against Labour opposition.
Stewart seems a decent bloke but wants to leave the EU despite the UK's clear inability to negotiate a decent withdrawal agreement. He's being more loyal to his party than the country. If we end up needing a national government, that's not good position.
Boris has sent a proxy on to PM to speak for him. Lo! It is Mark Francois! Who is totally and utterly unwilling to answer any policy questions of any kind whatsoever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Which is probably the right decision.
To be fair to Francois - he obviously thought Boris’s tax plan was bonkers.
Gyimah said he had 8 names - why was he lieing :O ?
Isn't he rather dependent now on providing the names he thinks he had, to confirm he is choosing to withdraw not failing to make the cut? Otherwise, yes, he is just a liar.
Hang on, perhaps he had his 8 names but withdrew because he didn't think he'd get many more.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Unlikely to be good for the Tories among older voters. Will Labour promise to reverse this?
I believe Farage wants free tv licences for all - by abolishing the licence entirely!
Why in 2019 should anyone be forced to pay for the BBC when they can watch ITV and loads of other channels on free view funded by adverts.
Why not let people or at least over 75s choose in a free market - BBC if you want it for £160 a year and zero if you don’t. Love island, Corrie and Britain’s got Talent will still be free for everyone!
Agreed.
The government should not be in the providing TV service business, especially in a world where an increasing number of people have simply given up on broadcast TV.
If there is "market failure", i.e. certain types of programming are not being made for financial reasons (such as Welsh language, or educational, or arts) then surely it would be better for the government to simply commission their production directly.
What irritates me most is when the Beeb interviews someone from Russia Today about how, being a state owned broadcaster, they are necessarily a tool of the state.
Russia today is of course free on freeview. Your choice to watch it or not but you don’t have to pay for it if you don’t.
I noticed that the man who attacked the stage at McVey's do, seemed to be filming himself doing it on mobile.
Unfortunately mobile video and social media are just encouraging these people, who think they can get a few minutes of fame, even if only in their little club of whackos.
Gyimah said he had 8 names - why was he lieing :O ?
Isn't he rather dependent now on providing the names he thinks he had, to confirm he is choosing to withdraw not failing to make the cut? Otherwise, yes, he is just a liar.
Hang on, perhaps he had his 8 names but didn't think he'd get many more.
Boris has sent a proxy on to PM to speak for him. Lo! It is Mark Francois! Who is totally and utterly unwilling to answer any policy questions of any kind whatsoever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Which is probably the right decision.
Are you serious? He sent mark Francois to speak for him? Are there no depths to his incompetence? It is the equivalent of sending John Prescot to an elocution competition.
Well. I would assume he would have had a veto. Francois didn't just rock up of his own volition. It is worth catching btw. A masterclass in blatantly ignoring the questions asked.
I suspect Hunt might have lent Rory a couple of MPs if he'd been in trouble. Some of Hunt's Remainer/May's Deal MPs might have wanted to anyway, and Rory's open attacks on Johnson help Hunt so it would have been worth having him in the debate.
But tbh I think Stewart has impressed enough people to make it through by himself. If Clarke and Gauke back him in public another few people are likely to in private.
Gyimah said he had 8 names - why was he lieing :O ?
Isn't he rather dependent now on providing the names he thinks he had, to confirm he is choosing to withdraw not failing to make the cut? Otherwise, yes, he is just a liar.
Hang on, perhaps he had his 8 names but withdrew because he didn't think he'd get many more.
That's why I said he should provide the names he thought he had. Otherwise who will know if he was lying or not and is just saving face now.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Unlikely to be good for the Tories among older voters. Will Labour promise to reverse this?
I believe Farage wants free tv licences for all - by abolishing the licence entirely!
Why in 2019 should anyone be forced to pay for the BBC when they can watch ITV and loads of other channels on free view funded by adverts.
Why not let people or at least over 75s choose in a free market - BBC if you want it for £160 a year and zero if you don’t. Love island, Corrie and Britain’s got Talent will still be free for everyone!
Agreed.
The government should not be in the providing TV service business, especially in a world where an increasing number of people have simply given up on broadcast TV.
If there is "market failure", i.e. certain types of programming are not being made for financial reasons (such as Welsh language, or educational, or arts) then surely it would be better for the government to simply commission their production directly.
What irritates me most is when the Beeb interviews someone from Russia Today about how, being a state owned broadcaster, they are necessarily a tool of the state.
Russia today is of course free on freeview. Your choice to watch it or not but you don’t have to pay for it if you don’t.
But you still need to pay for your BBC licence as you need it to watch any live broadcast TV not just the BBC.
Just got an email from the BBC saying they are going to charge over-75s for TV licences from June 2020 unless they receive pension credit.
This will hit me as I'm 76 and don't receive pension credit, but I agree with it 100%.
I think fairly wealthy pensioners have had a very good deal from governments looking for their votes, at the expense of poorer people who tend not to vote.
Next I'd like to see NI extended to pensioners. It won't affect those on low incomes but will help pay for social care.
Unlikely to be good for the Tories among older voters. Will Labour promise to reverse this?
I believe Farage wants free tv licences for all - by abolishing the licence entirely!
Why in 2019 should anyone be forced to pay for the BBC when they can watch ITV and loads of other channels on free view funded by adverts.
Why not let people or at least over 75s choose in a free market - BBC if you want it for £160 a year and zero if you don’t. Love island, Corrie and Britain’s got Talent will still be free for everyone!
Agreed.
The government should not be in the providing TV service business, especially in a world where an increasing number of people have simply given up on broadcast TV.
If there is "market failure", i.e. certain types of programming are not being made for financial reasons (such as Welsh language, or educational, or arts) then surely it would be better for the government to simply commission their production directly.
What irritates me most is when the Beeb interviews someone from Russia Today about how, being a state owned broadcaster, they are necessarily a tool of the state.
Russia today is of course free on freeview. Your choice to watch it or not but you don’t have to pay for it if you don’t.
Whereas we had the bright idea of cutting the World Service.
To be honest I can forgive him much of what is laid against him in terms of character flaws. I have no illusions about our politicians or about the effects of power. It is one reason amongst many that I never trust any of them.
But what I cannot forgive him is the combination of incompetence and laziness. These make him utterly unsuited for office, either high or low.
I guess bad character is more forgivable given great ability, yes.
Although I'm different to you in that I would rather have a PM of high character and low ability than the reverse.
Again, that's the Trump effect on me. I would probably have (like you) thought the opposite before 'he' happened.
Boris has sent a proxy on to PM to speak for him. Lo! It is Mark Francois! Who is totally and utterly unwilling to answer any policy questions of any kind whatsoever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Which is probably the right decision.
Are you serious? He sent mark Francois to speak for him? Are there no depths to his incompetence? It is the equivalent of sending John Prescot to an elocution competition.
Well. I would assume he would have had a veto. Francois didn't just rock up of his own volition. It is worth catching btw. A masterclass in blatantly ignoring the questions asked.
Seek first to understand, so says Stephen Covey, and it is an instruction beyond the ken of people as thick as Mark Francois!
Mr. Borough, be fair. Corbyn was an outsider who squeaked onto the shortlist because Labour MPs were daft. Boris, assuming he be the fellow to whom you refer, is easily on the ballot anyway.
That's why I said he should provide the names he thought he had. Otherwise who will know if he was lying or not and is just saving face now.
It should be no hardship to do that.
He doesn't need to go around proving he's not a liar. No-one is suggesting that he is (well, no-one sensible).
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the problem. People are not supposed to put themselves forward just to raise their profile or for an ego boost, if he has sufficient support to enter the contest and thinks the view he offers is one that should be considered he should have stood. He surely never thought he would win anyway, his entering the contest was not about winning, it must have been about offering choice and seeing how much backing that view had, and if he had the numbers he is blowing apart his own reasons for announcing in the first place. Or he never had the numbers.
I see absolutely no issue doubting he had the numbers if he cannot prove he had the numbers. It means he was just pissing everybody about. "I had the numbers but decided not to go through with it" is not a credible response 5 minutes before the announced candidates - why not on Friday, first thing, or a week ago?
Put yourself forward and I think you can reasonable face criticism for pulling out, particularly when your reasoning does not match your previous words.
Perhaps it is the only way to ease the pain of Brexit. "Here you are Mr Foremain, take this straw and get some of that up your hooter, you will be happy before you can say "will-o-the-people.""
That's why I said he should provide the names he thought he had. Otherwise who will know if he was lying or not and is just saving face now.
It should be no hardship to do that.
He doesn't need to go around proving he's not a liar. No-one is suggesting that he is (well, no-one sensible).
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the problem. People are not supposed to put themselves forward just to raise their profile or for an ego boost, if he has sufficient support to enter the contest and thinks the view he offers is one that should be considered he should have stood, he never thought he would win anyway. I see absolutely no issue doubting he had the numbers if he cannot prove he had the numbers. It means he was just pissing everybody about.
Most likely he did have the numbers but became worried not all the sponsors would vote for him. That would be the ultimate humiliation.
BBC claims some MPs have said they are voting tactically at the first stage to get more candidates in the field
I thought the purpose of having 8 names was to ensure fewer candidates in the field? The churlish might conclude the Tories don't know what they're doing.
That's why I said he should provide the names he thought he had. Otherwise who will know if he was lying or not and is just saving face now.
It should be no hardship to do that.
He doesn't need to go around proving he's not a liar. No-one is suggesting that he is (well, no-one sensible).
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the problem. People are not supposed to put themselves forward just to raise their profile or for an ego boost, if he has sufficient support to enter the contest and thinks the view he offers is one that should be considered he should have stood, he never thought he would win anyway. I see absolutely no issue doubting he had the numbers if he cannot prove he had the numbers. It means he was just pissing everybody about.
Most likely he did have the numbers but became worried not all the sponsors would vote for him. That would be the ultimate humiliation.
And Mr Nabavi thinks it unfair to question his poor reasons for pulling out for some reason.
Let's see, he entered to 'broaden the debate and bring the views of millions on Brexit to the fore'. I am supposed to believe that he had the numbers to ensure that broad debate and stand for the views of millions, but decided not to? His own reason for standing makes clear it was to broaden debate, not merely to win, and he has now ensured he cannot broaden the debate.
Either he did so by choice, which is idiotic given his reason for standing, or he had no choice and is lying.
So was he lying about wanting to broaden the debate or lying about having the numbers?
BBC banging on about the horrible weather today. Strangely, it has been beautiful up here. Even stranger, it was, apparently, a nice day on Saturday, when I recall it pissing down all day and having to put the central heating on. Can't think why folk think they are an out of touch London elite.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1138108507985723392
(Asking for a friend with a very lopsided book).
There was a time when, despite him being the clear favourite, I would have been confident that he will not be the ultimate choice. Why would I have been confident? Precisely BECAUSE he is so clearly unsuitable. A charlatan and a chancer with no soul, a bad heart and a complete absence of personal integrity. A person such as this, I would assure myself, cannot be elected to lead a major Western democracy. It is not possible. Ergo however likely it might look, it will not happen.
But that was then. That was before 9 November 2016. That was the day I wised up.
Which is probably the right decision.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/1138064641890902017
But what I cannot forgive him is the combination of incompetence and laziness. These make him utterly unsuited for office, either high or low.
If so, the term 'White Pendragons' appears to conflate that with the white dragon of England, which is akin to the red dragon of Wales, I think.
It is a silly name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjoYpUnY-Tk
Only Jeremy Hunt has the competence and experience to be Prime Minister.
Only Jeremy Hunt has the talent and experience to heal the country and the party.
#TeamHunt
(This post has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I tipped Hunt at 100/1 and 66/1)
Stewart seems a decent bloke but wants to leave the EU despite the UK's clear inability to negotiate a decent withdrawal agreement. He's being more loyal to his party than the country. If we end up needing a national government, that's not good position.
So membership should be in conflict with Tory membership.
Mr. Eagles, one would be quite pleased if Hunt won.
But I think that requires Boris failing to make the final two.
Unfortunately mobile video and social media are just encouraging these people, who think they can get a few minutes of fame, even if only in their little club of whackos.
It is worth catching btw. A masterclass in blatantly ignoring the questions asked.
But tbh I think Stewart has impressed enough people to make it through by himself. If Clarke and Gauke back him in public another few people are likely to in private.
It should be no hardship to do that.
Honest, guv
Although I'm different to you in that I would rather have a PM of high character and low ability than the reverse.
Again, that's the Trump effect on me. I would probably have (like you) thought the opposite before 'he' happened.
9/11 - the 2016 one - changed me a lot.
But most of them are just offering lies and unicorns to keep feeding the membership's fantasies of WTO exit.
I see absolutely no issue doubting he had the numbers if he cannot prove he had the numbers. It means he was just pissing everybody about. "I had the numbers but decided not to go through with it" is not a credible response 5 minutes before the announced candidates - why not on Friday, first thing, or a week ago?
Put yourself forward and I think you can reasonable face criticism for pulling out, particularly when your reasoning does not match your previous words.
The churlish might conclude the Tories don't know what they're doing.
Let's see, he entered to 'broaden the debate and bring the views of millions on Brexit to the fore'. I am supposed to believe that he had the numbers to ensure that broad debate and stand for the views of millions, but decided not to? His own reason for standing makes clear it was to broaden debate, not merely to win, and he has now ensured he cannot broaden the debate.
Either he did so by choice, which is idiotic given his reason for standing, or he had no choice and is lying.
So was he lying about wanting to broaden the debate or lying about having the numbers?
Makes my vote even easier - if I get the chance.
Can't think why folk think they are an out of touch London elite.