BBC says Hancock may be on the point of pulling out.
Telegraph understands he will back Javid.
Hancock dropping out and endorsing Javid could mean both Javid and Raab overtake Hunt and Gove next week if McVey and Leadsom voters go to Raab with Stewart eliminated
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Boris will be tolerable as premier only if he delegates wisely and efficiently to a string of very talented number twos.
That’s why his mayoralty was a success.
Funny view of success. The money he wasted was truly shocking.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
If people don't agree Boris is clever they have lost their sense of perspective? If they dont think his being interesting matters vs how he would actually do as leader they have lost their sense of perspective?
Perhaps you could explain the logic of that to me, as otherwise I'd look in the mirror before getting huffy about people losing their sense of perspective.
He is 'colour in a world of black and white'. What a load of nonsense that is, and who cares if he is?
I'd point out I've not called him a monster or underestimated how well he would do in the contest, though I dislike him, but your annoyance at others going Corbyn esque heavy on the dislike people have of him has been far more over the top.
Colour in a world of black and white my arse. So are most of the biggest dicks in politics, and I doubt you get concerned at all of them being mocked and attacked.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
For decades the UK has been a net financial contributor to the EU, had net migration from the EU and run a trade deficit with the EU.
That's been the power politics reality of life in the EU.
Perhaps you could turn your ire on those politicians and Sir Humphreys who got the UK into that position.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Boris will be tolerable as premier only if he delegates wisely and efficiently to a string of very talented number twos.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Certainly I dislike Boris, but I am green on him. He is just completely unsuited to the job. I felt the same, and was green on Corbyn too.
Your faint praise of Boris would be a good case for employing him as an after dinner speaker to a well oiled audience, much less so as a leader of a divided nation.
May tried to be Maggie and failed, Boris is even more delusional, fancying himself as a second Churchill, but without putting in the hard yards.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Boris will be tolerable as premier only if he delegates wisely and efficiently to a string of very talented number twos.
That’s why his mayoralty was a success.
I would agree with you, except I cannot get over the Garden Bridge. Thankfully . It was an indefensible idea (which is why he didn't even try to defend it), hideously mismanaged, that cost the taxpayer millions, to the advantage of his chums.
The Olympics was the high point of his mayoralty, although it can be argued that most of its success was not down to him. The Garden Bridge was a hideous lowpoint.
I fear we'll see more of the latter with him as PM.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
There are plenty of people in jobs who are not fit to do them.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Certainly I dislike Boris, but I am green on him. He is just completely unsuited to the job. I felt the same, and was green on Corbyn too.
Your faint praise of Boris would be a good case for employing him as an after dinner speaker to a well oiled audience, much less so as a leader of a divided nation.
May tried to be Maggie and failed, Boris is even more delusional, fancying himself as a second Churchill, but without putting in the hard yards.
BBC says Hancock may be on the point of pulling out.
Telegraph understands he will back Javid.
Hancock dropping out and endorsing Javid could mean both Javid and Raab overtake Hunt and Gove next week if McVey and Leadsom voters go to Raab with Stewart eliminated
Or it *could* mean something completely different. So what?
One argument for Boris as PM ( for me, anyway ) is that in his journalism he is fairly consistently on the side of civil liberties. In the letterbox article, for example, he came out against a ban on the burqa.
BBC says Hancock may be on the point of pulling out.
Telegraph understands he will back Javid.
Hancock dropping out and endorsing Javid could mean both Javid and Raab overtake Hunt and Gove next week if McVey and Leadsom voters go to Raab with Stewart eliminated
Or it *could* mean something completely different. So what?
Telegraph has wargamed various options. Not sure I am any the wiser for reading it.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Given how powerful the PM has become with the death of Cabinet government, there is a strong argument for having an automatic GE whenever there is a change in PM.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
You can lay Andrea Leadsom, who is now out of the leadership race, at a shorter price than Matt Hancock, who is still in it.
Lolz.
The Leadsom betting price is the funniest thing all year. Now out the race and the bot still thinks she has a chance !
It's a real puzzle.
We've had instances before of supporters manipulating the betting markets in the hope of creating an illusion of support. One of the earliest and most famous of these involved Clement Freud during a Liberal Party Leadership contest. More spectacularly, the Romney team primed Intrade during his contest with Obama, allowing many on here to arb happily with the prices on Betfair.
The Leadsome case is a bit odd though. She never had the faintest chance, and it would have been an expensive way to create support. Few people outside this niche Site would have noticed the betting anomoly and it's hard to believe more than a tiny handful of people would have been misled or inflenced by her absurd price.
Somebody must have a lot more money than sense, or there are more crap punters out there than we thought.
Changed my mind again. It's just moron punters, peopled were simply fooled by her last 2 place in 2016 is the most likely explination.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Certainly I dislike Boris, but I am green on him. He is just completely unsuited to the job. I felt the same, and was green on Corbyn too.
Your faint praise of Boris would be a good case for employing him as an after dinner speaker to a well oiled audience, much less so as a leader of a divided nation.
May tried to be Maggie and failed, Boris is even more delusional, fancying himself as a second Churchill, but without putting in the hard yards.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Certainly I dislike Boris, but I am green on him. He is just completely unsuited to the job. I felt the same, and was green on Corbyn too.
Your faint praise of Boris would be a good case for employing him as an after dinner speaker to a well oiled audience, much less so as a leader of a divided nation.
May tried to be Maggie and failed, Boris is even more delusional, fancying himself as a second Churchill, but without putting in the hard yards.
It’s like a bad tribute act on its swan song.
Rory Stewart reminds me of Disraeli.
Disraeli backed the Corn Laws and tariffs and opposed Peel but did eventually lead the Tories back to Government as the first 'One Nation' Tory
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
Though Trump received fewer votes than Clinton, and Johnson is probably about to become PM on the votes of perhaps a hundred thousand members of the Conservative party.
And if we really have three parties capable of contending for power at the next election, FPTP is wholly inadequate, if the aim of our democracy is to give voters what they want.
Now we've got a genuine choice and people are up in arms! You can have proper socialism. You can have a right wing government. Hell you can even have a party that accepts capitalism but wants it to be a bit fairer (LDs... and don't tell me it's a wasted vote, they were in power 4 years ago). So is it really that bad? Or is the rhetoric more divisive because people now have a real choice?
I know, but I STILL meet voters who say "all the parties are the same"!
Whenever you hear that you know you are dealing with a weak and lazy mind.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
I dont have a problem with her taking that view but the rest have accepted doing it so have conceded the interference . They also happily rely on polling involving more than just party members if it suits so it is selective if and when the wider public matters to them, especially when they might claim to be able to appeal beyond the party. Prove it then.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Certainly I dislike Boris, but I am green on him. He is just completely unsuited to the job. I felt the same, and was green on Corbyn too.
Your faint praise of Boris would be a good case for employing him as an after dinner speaker to a well oiled audience, much less so as a leader of a divided nation.
May tried to be Maggie and failed, Boris is even more delusional, fancying himself as a second Churchill, but without putting in the hard yards.
It’s like a bad tribute act on its swan song.
Rory Stewart reminds me of Disraeli.
You knew Disraeli?
Yeah, one hell of a guy. The things he could do with a pencil.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
Though Trump received fewer votes than Clinton, and Johnson is probably about to become PM on the votes of perhaps a hundred thousand members of the Conservative party.
And if we really have three parties capable of contending for power at the next election, FPTP is wholly inadequate, if the aim of our democracy is to give voters what they want.
Could be four.
The inadequacies of FPTP have never been so apparent, but it's hard to see the system changing.
Reading all of this, it's a serious case of 'grass is always greener'. 2010-2015 was rife with complaints about identikit politicians you couldn't get a cigarette paper between. Does anyone remember the name of that 40-something, fresh faced, sharp suited, media trained, Oxbridge educated, metropolitan liberal who led that major party back then?? Think it was something like Cameronleggiband?
Now we've got a genuine choice and people are up in arms! You can have proper socialism. You can have a right wing government. Hell you can even have a party that accepts capitalism but wants it to be a bit fairer (LDs... and don't tell me it's a wasted vote, they were in power 4 years ago). So is it really that bad? Or is the rhetoric more divisive because people now have a real choice?
Ah, but people generally want the extra choice to be on their side of the political divide not the other. In that way it's like compromise, which everyone is in favour of other people doing more of.
There's the added component that the advocates for each side have personal weaknesses that obscure any attempt to engage in genuine policy debate.
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
There are plenty of people in jobs who are not fit to do them.
Yes, some spend work hours looking at PB for a start, I'd call that unfit
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
The stand-out stat for me in the Ipsos-Mori polling was just how narrow Johnson's lead was over Corbyn. Six points is nothing compared to the big leads Theresa may and Don't Know have enjoyed over him on a regular basis.
Corbyn and Johnson are two peas in a pod.
That's a rather simplistic view - I think they're very different. Corbyn is driven by an underlying ideology: a disastrous and diseased ideology that has led him into the depths of anti-Semitism, but an ideology nonetheless.
Boris's ideology is Boris Johnson. He will do whatever he thinks is best for Boris Johnson and his friends, not the country. Hence the Garden Bridge debacle.
Both Corbyn and Boris are dangerous to the country in different ways. Boris does have the advantage of being outwardly likeable to many, though.
Yep, the motivations are different. The end result is the same. Both are happy to pander to racists to achieve their aims. Both avoid scrutiny. Both are prepared to see their supporters harry and harass the media. Both are going to inflict significant damage on the UK, perhaps to the point of destroying it. They are two British versions of Trump - and are just as divisive and destructive. It is true, though, that Johnson does seem to inspire slightly more affection among slightly more people than Corbyn. But far less than he used to.
Oh come on, they’re clearly not the same.
Agreed. Boris & Jeremy are not the same.
They are also not British versions of Trump.
Jeremy is also not anti-semitic. Boris is also not a racist.
Unfortunately, Brexit and Corby-mania has driven Southam completely mad.
I am very far from sure I would say Boris is 'not a racist.'
Even allowing for an element of hatchet jobbing, this is a pretty damning list:
As for Corbyn, he thinks he is not an anti-Semite. That is not altogether the same thing.
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
First "new" trigger ballot casualty in London Assembly Labour reselections
The Lambeth & Streatham AM, Florence Eshalomi, has lost the automatic reselection vote in Camberwell & Peckham CLP last night. Summed with having lost it in Streatham (even if there may be a procedural challenge to that result), she is at 2 wins (Dulwich and Vauxhall) and 2 losses with only 1 CLP left to vote. Even if she wins the latter, 3 to 2 would mean open full selection as more than 2/3 of party branches are now required.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
There's an argument for doing as you're told to avoid a beating, but it tends not to inspire affection towards the party doing the beating.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Simple. All leadership contenders must agree to televised debates. Failure to do so invalidates the candidature.
One argument for Boris as PM ( for me, anyway ) is that in his journalism he is fairly consistently on the side of civil liberties. In the letterbox article, for example, he came out against a ban on the burqa.
How does anybody know what he thinks? He changes his views to suit his audience and his ambitions.
It is questionable whether he actually has any beliefs, and if he has, they are almost certainly for sale.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
James Callaghan was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Wilson retired. Gordon Brown was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Blair resigned. Any demand for an immediate election for the voters to endorse either of them was ignored.
One argument for Boris as PM ( for me, anyway ) is that in his journalism he is fairly consistently on the side of civil liberties. In the letterbox article, for example, he came out against a ban on the burqa.
Indeed. Johnston said people could wear what they want, including the burqa, though they looked like letterboxes.
He is actually more liberal on this that the pb trinity of holies -- the EU & Emmanuel Macron & the Belgian Government.
All of whom have said, or legislated, the opposite.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
There's an argument for doing as you're told to avoid a beating, but it tends not to inspire affection towards the party doing the beating.
True but we will invited the beating on ourselves....
Worse than that the EU may not neccessarily do anything themselves it will just happen as disaster 14 collides with entirely separate disaster 15...
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
Though Trump received fewer votes than Clinton, and Johnson is probably about to become PM on the votes of perhaps a hundred thousand members of the Conservative party.
And if we really have three parties capable of contending for power at the next election, FPTP is wholly inadequate, if the aim of our democracy is to give voters what they want.
I've been an open advocate for STV and multi-member constituencies for 25 years. I am not arguing at all that FPTP is a good system. But democracy IS, even if sometimes we get interesting people elected.
An example. In the next town to me a man got elected to council who when he previously ran for UKIP declared that storms were God's response to Gay Marriage. As a recently out member of the LGBTetc community I find his comments to be stupid and pig ignorant.
But he won. Thats what local voters wanted. Are his pig ignorant views getting him elected his fault? Or the voters? People get what they vote for.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
There's an argument for doing as you're told to avoid a beating, but it tends not to inspire affection towards the party doing the beating.
Especially if you've been getting a beating for years.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Simple. All leadership contenders must agree to televised debates. Failure to do so invalidates the candidature.
If the EU refuses to give us a decent deal then what are we supposed to do?
If the EU says you can Brexit and we can give you a trade deal but you must sign up that you will follow our laws in full, you won't get a say in them and there is no way out of this agreement then are we just supposed to sign that?
If they said you can exit but instead of paying £9bn per annum we now want you to pay £18bn are we just supposed to sign that?”
Welcome to the world of power politics where the stronger party imposes its will on the weaker party if it has something which the latter wants. What you describe are known as trade offs. They were pointed out to the Brexiteers both before and after the referendum result. They chose to sack those who did the pointing out and have had a prolonged tantrum ever since at the fact that Britain does not get its way. They have resorted instead to living in a fantasy world and, judging by what the likely candidates for leadership are saying, are still in that fantasy world.
As a result at some point soon the brutal realities of power politics will be felt by this country.
We could do without a FTA with the EU but this will likely have serious economic consequences for the country. Is that what people wanted? Or was it for a deal which could be signed in an afternoon?
It’s too much to expect, I suppose, for a party seemingly intent on electing a habitual liar as leader to be honest with the voters.
For decades the UK has been a net financial contributor to the EU, had net migration from the EU and run a trade deficit with the EU.
That's been the power politics reality of life in the EU.
Perhaps you could turn your ire on those politicians and Sir Humphreys who got the UK into that position.
It’s British people buying European goods and British manufacturers not selling enough British goods to Europeans who cause a trade deficit not the Sir Humphrey’s of this world.
Still, with a load of tariffs on our goods and no FTA, that should help matters, no?
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
American voters did. America is a federation of States not a single uniform State.
The fact Californians overwhelmingly love the Democratic Party doesn't change the fact the founders deliberately didn't want to manifest too much power in individual States. It is working as designed.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
James Callaghan was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Wilson retired. Gordon Brown was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Blair resigned. Any demand for an immediate election for the voters to endorse either of them was ignored.
It's the system. Want it changed? Get elected....
Major 90-92 waited until the last moment to hold an election, and May's instinct was not to hold an election to win a mandate. It was for brexit reasons that she called an election.
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
Boris will be tolerable as premier only if he delegates wisely and efficiently to a string of very talented number twos.
That’s why his mayoralty was a success.
I would agree with you, except I cannot get over the Garden Bridge. Thankfully . It was an indefensible idea (which is why he didn't even try to defend it), hideously mismanaged, that cost the taxpayer millions, to the advantage of his chums.
The Olympics was the high point of his mayoralty, although it can be argued that most of its success was not down to him. The Garden Bridge was a hideous lowpoint.
I fear we'll see more of the latter with him as PM.
The one area of the Olympics in which Johnson had direct responsibility was the post-games fate of the stadium. Needless to say, he messed it up:
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
I don't think that's wrong for Boris he has never had to take a step in the shoes of any of the groups he cheerfully disparages, depending as you say on what audience he has that day.
As for Corbyn, if the leader of a political party tolerates anti-semitism in their party then I think that pretty much makes them an anti-semite also.
Looking at the cricket WC scores the highest score achieved to chase down a target is New Zealand's 248/8 to beat Bangladesh.
With seven higher first innings scores proving match winning.
It does suggest batting first may be the way to go in this tournament and that any target over 300 will be very hard to reach.
Punters have got carried away with England scoring over 300 regularly and there's even been wild talk of 500 being achieved at some point during the competition.
A score of 300 is a stiff target on any surface, any time. I expect low scores today at Southanpton, and WIndies are great value at 3.35.
Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson are not the same, just as Ebola and anthrax are not the same. That doesn’t mean that I’d be rushing to contract either of them.
Anthrax can be managed... Ebola you just hope and pray.
I leave it up to you to determine which is which 😆
As for Corbyn, he thinks he is not an anti-Semite. That is not altogether the same thing.
Really, is writing a poem about Erdogan having sex with a goat racist ? Or quoting Kipling ?
I don't want to end up defending Boris (someone I rather dislike), but much of that list is just flimsy.
There is also a danger if terms like "racism" or "antisemitism" are weakened to meaninglessness, in my opinion.
To the first, couldn't care less about Erdogan. He deserves it. In that context, yes, to the second. As for what he called the Africans or Papua New Guineans...
Kipling .. I think Foxy has it right in his description of Boris as entitled public school privilege.
"Let me show you I know Kipling off by heart. You don't know it do you. Jolly good stuff."
I'd describe that attitude as insensitive, childish, & egocentric.
Rory Stewart also went to Eton
Don’t tar all OEs by suggesting Boris is the epitome of what they seek to achieve
The usual completely over the top nonsense about Johnson this morning. Is this a competition and if so what's the prize? If its just virtue signalling its getting a tad tedious.
You'd be in a horrible place in the Tory betting if you'd followed all the above the line advice on Boris, especially if you missed the Hunt tip !
Indeed. I read several forecasts yesterday morning that his votes were going to be below the declared supporters. Its not analysis, its plain dislike and bias. Previously we were repeatedly told that he would not make the final 2 and that he would be blocked by Tory MPs. Hey ho.
Boris is not a monster. He has many faults but he is also clever, witty, a reasonable delegator and someone not frightened of ideas. He is colour in a world of black and white. That has drawbacks sometimes but it is also interesting in a way that most politicians aren't. There are several others in this leadership race that I would prefer but this site is losing its sense of perspective.
There are a limited number of perma-posters. I presume they are paid by somebody (why?), retired or magnificently underworked.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
This is nowhere near evidence that PBers "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs". It might be duboius evidence that PBers are basically LDs. The original claim is blatantly anti-democratic.
One argument for Boris as PM ( for me, anyway ) is that in his journalism he is fairly consistently on the side of civil liberties. In the letterbox article, for example, he came out against a ban on the burqa.
How does anybody know what he thinks? He changes his views to suit his audience and his ambitions.
It is questionable whether he actually has any beliefs, and if he has, they are almost certainly for sale.
My point is that he clearly does have beliefs. Broadly, and consistently on the libertarian side.
If he really such a psycho as his detractors suggest he would be much more measured and less controversial. Hide in plain sight etc.
Why can’t people accept that things can’t be just as they micromanage them in their minds rather than having to cast everyone who they wish wasn’t in a powerful position as the devil? It’s like being at play school
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
American voters did. America is a federation of States not a single uniform State.
The fact Californians overwhelmingly love the Democratic Party doesn't change the fact the founders deliberately didn't want to manifest too much power in individual States. It is working as designed.
Sure, but most Americans voted against Trump being their president. Thus, Americans did not judge him fit to lead. Enough Americans in enough of the right places did.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
This is nowhere near evidence that PBers "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs". It might be duboius evidence that PBers are basically LDs. The original claim is blatantly anti-democratic.
There are plenty of us who want a broad centrist party that is not the LDs. Radical, challenging and reforming.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
My experience of PB-ers through the years is that many want the LDs to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories AND at the same time to support Tory policies.
An aspiriation to become the opposition is not "100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
Given the dramatic age profile, I suspect you are wrong. There aren't many "rich" young people.
His minders can hinder Johnson from making a tit of himself during the Tory leadership contest, but they cannot change his basic personality. Once elected, the inner-Boris will out. The man is a buffoon.
Yes, his victory is inevitable as long as the minders succeed in protecting him from himself,
No, he is not a vote winner, because the finest minders in the world cannot erect an impregnable barrier around him.
He’s only a winner because people are assuming name recognition in polling as something more than that. Come any election and the truth will quickly be revealed.
Boris will crash and burn like May during a GE, but unlike May his denouement will come pre-GE. He won’t survive PMQs or the most rudimentary journalist quizzing without the truth being revealed.
One argument for Boris as PM ( for me, anyway ) is that in his journalism he is fairly consistently on the side of civil liberties. In the letterbox article, for example, he came out against a ban on the burqa.
How does anybody know what he thinks? He changes his views to suit his audience and his ambitions.
It is questionable whether he actually has any beliefs, and if he has, they are almost certainly for sale.
My point is that he clearly does have beliefs. Broadly, and consistently on the libertarian side.
If he really such a psycho as his detractors suggest he would be much more measured and less controversial. Hide in plain sight etc.
And I repeat, how do you know what his beliefs are? With most people you can accept they mean what they say and there is a level of consistency that makes that a reasonable assumption. There is no such consistency with him, so you are guessing.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
American voters did. America is a federation of States not a single uniform State.
The fact Californians overwhelmingly love the Democratic Party doesn't change the fact the founders deliberately didn't want to manifest too much power in individual States. It is working as designed.
Sure, but most Americans voted against Trump being their president. Thus, Americans did not judge him fit to lead. Enough Americans in enough of the right places did.
Americans have chosen through the centuries to keep the system the founders chose, though they have updated parts over time (eg changing how Veep gets elected) that part and the fact they are separate states has been kept sacrosanct. So yes Americans did.
Californians didn't. New Yorkers didn't. But overall tragically Americans did. The numbers game is immaterial.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
The median person is now a remainer. (even SeanT is having a go at being a remainer (if not very convincingly)
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
This is nowhere near evidence that PBers "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs". It might be duboius evidence that PBers are basically LDs. The original claim is blatantly anti-democratic.
I like the idea of a 'median PBer'! Who is he? Or she? We should be told.
On reflection, I suppose it must be a gender-neutral poster.
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
James Callaghan was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Wilson retired. Gordon Brown was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Blair resigned. Any demand for an immediate election for the voters to endorse either of them was ignored.
It's the system. Want it changed? Get elected....
I give you Boris Johnson's words from 2007:
"It is the arrogance. It is the contempt. That is what gets me. It's Gordon Brown's apparent belief that he can trample on the democratic will of the British people. It's at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting a gigantic fraud... They voted for Tony, and they now get Gordon, and a transition about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero. It is a scandal. Why are we all conniving in this stitch up? This is nothing less than a palace coup... No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister."
That list could also be consistent with Boris being an out and out wanker who goes for the easy laugh
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
That is setting the bar for being a racist way too high: basically if you're not Enoch Powell or a member of Combat-18 it's just bantz. You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist. But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
James Callaghan was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Wilson retired. Gordon Brown was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Blair resigned. Any demand for an immediate election for the voters to endorse either of them was ignored.
It's the system. Want it changed? Get elected....
I give you Boris Johnson's words from 2007:
"It is the arrogance. It is the contempt. That is what gets me. It's Gordon Brown's apparent belief that he can trample on the democratic will of the British people. It's at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting a gigantic fraud... They voted for Tony, and they now get Gordon, and a transition about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero. It is a scandal. Why are we all conniving in this stitch up? This is nothing less than a palace coup... No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister."
So MarqueeMark, it's not the cocaine, it's the hypocrisy.
An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time: Labour 38,000 Conservative 12,000 LibDems 3,500
The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.
You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
As did the German Democratic Republic. Outside the US "Democratic" is a weasel word. It is one of those words that if you have to say it then it probably isn't true.
I haven't seen much evidence that the LDs are Liberal either.
Liberal means so many different things that the term has become meaningless or at least confusing.
I agree that the DDR's use of the word democratic was rediculous. Everything on the political level of the DDR could be called a joke, except that the actions of the Stasi and the border controll killed.
But I disagree with the main complaint that most LD members are anti-democratic (disclosure I am not a member and only occasional LD voter)
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
It depends on what you mean by rich. Retired homeowners were strongly Leave, and have secured their wealth. Millenials may well have higher incomes, but also higher outgoings and often little capital, and strongly Remain.
Age and assets are quite heavily correlated in the UK.
Rory Stewart will be out by Tuesday, he is basically a Lib Dem
British voters: 25% Genuine Conservative (vote Brexit Party etc) 20% Genuine Labour (like Corbyn etc) 55% Basically LibDems
Fair enough, the problem is some on PB want 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs (plus of course it depends on the issue on crime, immigration etc voters tend to take a harder line then the LDs and they also back renationalising the railways etc unlike the LDs)
Can you tell us who you think on PB "wants 100% of our political parties to basically be LDs"? I haven't had this impression in over 10 years of reading the comments.
It would have to be a pretty rare person who is interested in politics, their opinions lie in the middle or staddle the political spectrum and then be against the exixstence of parties to the left or the right. The LDs even have "democrats" in their name.
The strong support for Kendall in 2015 and Rory Stewart now and the fact the median PBer is a Remainer
Probably because many of us are not tribally affiliated to a party and would like both the person we choose to vote for and the alternative to not be bad options.
For me, this was true in 1997 (Tories were a mess, but Major was not a nutter), 2001 (Hague was too green, but later developed, likely he would have been ok), 2005 (at a push, I didn't much like Howard, but he would have been no disaster), 2010 both main contenders fine, serious people, 2015 likewise - I had preferences, but a disaster was not on the ballot paper. At the next election we may just be asked to choose our disaster, or turn our backs in sufficient numbers on the two main parties.
PS: I thought Kendall was a bit too much on the right for Labour, with Cameron Con leader at the time - I do want some choice! Maybe if Labour had a moderate I'd think the same (well, reverse) about Stewart, but he doesn't come across to me as particularly left, just not insane on Brexit and an all round sensible, serious person.
His minders can hinder Johnson from making a tit of himself during the Tory leadership contest, but they cannot change his basic personality. Once elected, the inner-Boris will out. The man is a buffoon.
Yes, his victory is inevitable as long as the minders succeed in protecting him from himself,
No, he is not a vote winner, because the finest minders in the world cannot erect an impregnable barrier around him.
He’s only a winner because people are assuming name recognition in polling as something more than that. Come any election and the truth will quickly be revealed.
Boris will crash and burn like May during a GE, but unlike May his denouement will come pre-GE. He won’t survive PMQs or the most rudimentary journalist quizzing without the truth being revealed.
What on earth are Conservative MPs thinking?
I'm not sure. Unless HIGNFY is entirely scripted - and it isn't - he is extremely gifted at thinking on his feet. I would back myself in a live debate with Corbyn, but I'd concede immediately to Johnson. As for debates, provided you actually turn up to them they don't change minds, they largely just confirm the prejudices of the audience. The only *losing* strategy is not to play - a principle we might describe as May's Law.
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Simple. All leadership contenders must agree to televised debates. Failure to do so invalidates the candidature.
Sorted.
Make it pay per view and fill the party coffers.
If you pay people to watch you may get an audience...
His minders can hinder Johnson from making a tit of himself during the Tory leadership contest, but they cannot change his basic personality. Once elected, the inner-Boris will out. The man is a buffoon.
Yes, his victory is inevitable as long as the minders succeed in protecting him from himself,
No, he is not a vote winner, because the finest minders in the world cannot erect an impregnable barrier around him.
He’s only a winner because people are assuming name recognition in polling as something more than that. Come any election and the truth will quickly be revealed.
Boris will crash and burn like May during a GE, but unlike May his denouement will come pre-GE. He won’t survive PMQs or the most rudimentary journalist quizzing without the truth being revealed.
What on earth are Conservative MPs thinking?
Boris is the Conservative party comfort blanket. They cling to a childhood notion that this blanket will insulate them from reality and wish their problems away.
Eventually adulthood will intrude. For Boris the eternal teenager and his gang it'll be a rude awakening.
The basic rule of politics is that we always get the correct result because thats what people chose to vote for. I know that I am a better person than my main opponent in the locals, but they won, we lost, so people get what they want.
Boris is all of the criticisms and accusations that get thrown at him. But so what if thats what people want. This was my point about the Trump visit - I may find him reprehensible but he was elected President so its not for me to say Americans are wrong if thats what they want.
Right now the Tory party has (largely) forgotten what "Conservative" means. If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
Though Trump received fewer votes than Clinton, and Johnson is probably about to become PM on the votes of perhaps a hundred thousand members of the Conservative party.
And if we really have three parties capable of contending for power at the next election, FPTP is wholly inadequate, if the aim of our democracy is to give voters what they want.
I've been an open advocate for STV and multi-member constituencies for 25 years. I am not arguing at all that FPTP is a good system. But democracy IS, even if sometimes we get interesting people elected.
An example. In the next town to me a man got elected to council who when he previously ran for UKIP declared that storms were God's response to Gay Marriage. As a recently out member of the LGBTetc community I find his comments to be stupid and pig ignorant.
But he won. Thats what local voters wanted. Are his pig ignorant views getting him elected his fault? Or the voters? People get what they vote for.
This chimes with what I have been saying recently but I always qualify this for FPTP, which I see as a balanced system. Some people vote for who they want perhaps to big parties supporters but other vote against what they don’t want and this means votes coalesce around expected results. This is why the Lib Dem’s were hit so hard in South of England. In lots of places outside the cities Labour are nowhere and Libdems borrowed votes to defeat the Tories which they lost in 2015.
So we do get what we vote for but we don’t always vote for what we want.
An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time: Labour 38,000 Conservative 12,000 LibDems 3,500
The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.
You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.
How they voted last time might not be the best guide here, the LDs have made a big resurgence and Labour have tanked. Also, the move is from TIG, the Centrist messiahs, to LD
An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time: Labour 38,000 Conservative 12,000 LibDems 3,500
The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.
You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.
O'Flynn doesn't exhibit much expertise in identifying election-winning decisions; he could easily have joined the BXP but ended up in the SDP.
An explanation which is hard to square with how Streatham voted last time: Labour 38,000 Conservative 12,000 LibDems 3,500
The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.
You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.
How they voted last time might not be the best guide here, the LDs have made a big resurgence and Labour have tanked. Also, the move is from TIG, the Centrist messiahs, to LD
Yes the LDs got 33% in the European Parliament elections in Lambeth containing Streatham to just 23% for Labour
Well, she's right. The electorate is only party members. There will be hustings around the country for them (I can't see Rory withdrawing for a coronation even if Boris is miles ahead, which may get him some more support). The choice of the membership will be put to the voters in a general election, probably in fairly short order.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Them’s the rules for a Tory party leadership contest.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
James Callaghan was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Wilson retired. Gordon Brown was "imposed" on us for 3 years when Blair resigned. Any demand for an immediate election for the voters to endorse either of them was ignored.
It's the system. Want it changed? Get elected....
I give you Boris Johnson's words from 2007:
"It is the arrogance. It is the contempt. That is what gets me. It's Gordon Brown's apparent belief that he can trample on the democratic will of the British people. It's at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting a gigantic fraud... They voted for Tony, and they now get Gordon, and a transition about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero. It is a scandal. Why are we all conniving in this stitch up? This is nothing less than a palace coup... No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister."
Boris likely will face a membership vote unlike Brown
If they want Johnson then great - he's fit to lead the party. If Johnson then wins an election he's fit to lead the country.
Thats what democracy is.
That is demonstrably fallacious.
Corbyn is not fit to lead Labour. With almost any other leader they would be miles ahead.
Trump is not fit to lead America. He's doing it, but that doesn't make him fit.
But he is fit to lead. As judged by American voters. Thats my point - you may think him unfit. I certainly do. But its not my call to make...
American voters did not judge him fit to lead. he got three million fewer votes than Clinton.
In a system like ours where the national vote tally is irrelevant. He won the election - the election not being who got the most votes.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
Leave beat Remain in 2016 under any measure you care to use, yet we are still in the EU, and people who moan about the unfairness of Trumps victory are not moaning about that
I hope Boris wins. The 'Hartlepudlyisation' of this country has happened and it's irreversable. No use trying to fight against it. Best to let it run it's course and if it becomes intolerable go to live somewhere else.
Except financially challenged Leavers are more likely to have swung behind Remain than comfortably off ones. In fact Leave voters are slightly more comfortably off than Remain voters on average.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
I think the rich do quite heavily favour Remain. The merely comfortably off are more divided.
It depends on what you mean by rich. Retired homeowners were strongly Leave, and have secured their wealth. Millenials may well have higher incomes, but also higher outgoings and often little capital, and strongly Remain.
Age and assets are quite heavily correlated in the UK.
The Rich usually means people richer than you are and can hope to be.
His minders can hinder Johnson from making a tit of himself during the Tory leadership contest, but they cannot change his basic personality. Once elected, the inner-Boris will out. The man is a buffoon.
Yes, his victory is inevitable as long as the minders succeed in protecting him from himself,
No, he is not a vote winner, because the finest minders in the world cannot erect an impregnable barrier around him.
He’s only a winner because people are assuming name recognition in polling as something more than that. Come any election and the truth will quickly be revealed.
Boris will crash and burn like May during a GE, but unlike May his denouement will come pre-GE. He won’t survive PMQs or the most rudimentary journalist quizzing without the truth being revealed.
What on earth are Conservative MPs thinking?
I'm not sure. Unless HIGNFY is entirely scripted - and it isn't - he is extremely gifted at thinking on his feet. I would back myself in a live debate with Corbyn, but I'd concede immediately to Johnson. As for debates, provided you actually turn up to them they don't change minds, they largely just confirm the prejudices of the audience. The only *losing* strategy is not to play - a principle we might describe as May's Law.
Presiding over a TV show with a silenced audience is hardly the comparison, though, is it? I'd expect someone as you describe to revel in the chance to take on his (or her) opponents and demonstrate their grip and ability. Like Mrs T, Blair, or his hero Churchill. Yet Boris spent his mayoralty trying to dodge and avoid any scrutiny and is now doing the same with the media and his colleagues.
It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?
Comments
Perhaps you could explain the logic of that to me, as otherwise I'd look in the mirror before getting huffy about people losing their sense of perspective.
He is 'colour in a world of black and white'. What a load of nonsense that is, and who cares if he is?
I'd point out I've not called him a monster or underestimated how well he would do in the contest, though I dislike him, but your annoyance at others going Corbyn esque heavy on the dislike people have of him has been far more over the top.
Colour in a world of black and white my arse. So are most of the biggest dicks in politics, and I doubt you get concerned at all of them being mocked and attacked.
More likely air or cruise missile strikes than full ground invasion though
That's been the power politics reality of life in the EU.
Perhaps you could turn your ire on those politicians and Sir Humphreys who got the UK into that position.
Your faint praise of Boris would be a good case for employing him as an after dinner speaker to a well oiled audience, much less so as a leader of a divided nation.
May tried to be Maggie and failed, Boris is even more delusional, fancying himself as a second Churchill, but without putting in the hard yards.
.
It was an indefensible idea (which is why he didn't even try to defend it), hideously mismanaged, that cost the taxpayer millions, to the advantage of his chums.
The Olympics was the high point of his mayoralty, although it can be argued that most of its success was not down to him. The Garden Bridge was a hideous lowpoint.
I fear we'll see more of the latter with him as PM.
Thems the rules. What would you change?
Rory Stewart reminds me of Disraeli.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/13/happens-next-tory-leadership-race-boriss-rivals-could-still/
And if we really have three parties capable of contending for power at the next election, FPTP is wholly inadequate, if the aim of our democracy is to give voters what they want.
But they’re proposing to impose him on us as PM. If he (and they) had any sense of honour and really meant what they say about wanting to unite the nation, blah, blah, he would take his case to the country and debate with the others and show us - not have his minions tell us - that he’s the right leader.
Instead, he looks entitled, arrogant and contemptuous of voters and those trying to protect him from himself are giving the game away - that under pressure he really may not be as good as they claim. A more confident politician would welcome every chance of a debate.
The inadequacies of FPTP have never been so apparent, but it's hard to see the system changing.
With seven higher first innings scores proving match winning.
It does suggest batting first may be the way to go in this tournament and that any target over 300 will be very hard to reach.
There's the added component that the advocates for each side have personal weaknesses that obscure any attempt to engage in genuine policy debate.
Repeatedly characterising the whole thing simply as the fault of those horrible working classes is simply wrong headed and unworthy of a natural Labour supporter.
By that I mean that for someone to be a racist they have a consistent worldview and some kind of hierarchy in their mind.
I think Boris is an supremely self-interested opportunist. Often that has meant him playing the jester because it unifies the group behind him and cruelly laughing at someone else.
Appreciate that’s the same argument as to whether Corbyn is an anti-Semite vs tolerant of anti-Semites.
The Lambeth & Streatham AM, Florence Eshalomi, has lost the automatic reselection vote in Camberwell & Peckham CLP last night. Summed with having lost it in Streatham (even if there may be a procedural challenge to that result), she is at 2 wins (Dulwich and Vauxhall) and 2 losses with only 1 CLP left to vote. Even if she wins the latter, 3 to 2 would mean open full selection as more than 2/3 of party branches are now required.
There is another AM at risk.
Sorted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/bM5diyl48K/alcock
It is questionable whether he actually has any beliefs, and if he has, they are almost certainly for sale.
It's the system. Want it changed? Get elected....
He is actually more liberal on this that the pb trinity of holies -- the EU & Emmanuel Macron & the Belgian Government.
All of whom have said, or legislated, the opposite.
Worse than that the EU may not neccessarily do anything themselves it will just happen as disaster 14 collides with entirely separate disaster 15...
An example. In the next town to me a man got elected to council who when he previously ran for UKIP declared that storms were God's response to Gay Marriage. As a recently out member of the LGBTetc community I find his comments to be stupid and pig ignorant.
But he won. Thats what local voters wanted. Are his pig ignorant views getting him elected his fault? Or the voters? People get what they vote for.
Still, with a load of tariffs on our goods and no FTA, that should help matters, no?
The fact Californians overwhelmingly love the Democratic Party doesn't change the fact the founders deliberately didn't want to manifest too much power in individual States. It is working as designed.
https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/mayor-london/our-publications/independent-review-olympic-stadium
As for Corbyn, if the leader of a political party tolerates anti-semitism in their party then I think that pretty much makes them an anti-semite also.
A score of 300 is a stiff target on any surface, any time. I expect low scores today at Southanpton, and WIndies are great value at 3.35.
I leave it up to you to determine which is which 😆
Don’t tar all OEs by suggesting Boris is the epitome of what they seek to achieve
If he really such a psycho as his detractors suggest he would be much more measured and less controversial. Hide in plain sight etc.
Not 100% sure what the mechanism for that would be.
This is a chink in his otherwise meticulously logical, up front campaign. Well, I say chink but probably not a chink for Cons members.
What on earth are Conservative MPs thinking?
Californians didn't. New Yorkers didn't. But overall tragically Americans did. The numbers game is immaterial.
On reflection, I suppose it must be a gender-neutral poster.
Is it stupid? Yes sir it is. Is that what Americans want? Yes sir!
Its the same as my response to the latest American gun crazy shooting up a school/office/whatever. Psychotic gun violence is what Americans want as thats what they keep voting to maintain.
"It is the arrogance. It is the contempt. That is what gets me. It's Gordon Brown's apparent belief that he can trample on the democratic will of the British people. It's at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting a gigantic fraud... They voted for Tony, and they now get Gordon, and a transition about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero. It is a scandal. Why are we all conniving in this stitch up? This is nothing less than a palace coup... No one elected Gordon Brown as Prime Minister."
You are what you do. If you consistently disparage people on the grounds of race as Johnson has then you are a racist.
But I would go beyond that. If you are not part of Johnson's gilded world - if you are black, a Muslim, a woman, a Liverpudlian, then you are fair game. Sadly it is a common, albeit by no means universal, affliction among people from his background.
Labour 38,000
Conservative 12,000
LibDems 3,500
The LibDems barely got more votes than Plaid Cymru and they don't stand in South London.
You could argue that Chuka joined the LibDems to make it easier to get a winnable seat in the future but that would imply a greater degree of foresight than the former TIGger and CUKer has shown so far.
I agree that the DDR's use of the word democratic was rediculous. Everything on the political level of the DDR could be called a joke, except that the actions of the Stasi and the border controll killed.
But I disagree with the main complaint that most LD members are anti-democratic (disclosure I am not a member and only occasional LD voter)
Age and assets are quite heavily correlated in the UK.
For me, this was true in 1997 (Tories were a mess, but Major was not a nutter), 2001 (Hague was too green, but later developed, likely he would have been ok), 2005 (at a push, I didn't much like Howard, but he would have been no disaster), 2010 both main contenders fine, serious people, 2015 likewise - I had preferences, but a disaster was not on the ballot paper. At the next election we may just be asked to choose our disaster, or turn our backs in sufficient numbers on the two main parties.
PS: I thought Kendall was a bit too much on the right for Labour, with Cameron Con leader at the time - I do want some choice! Maybe if Labour had a moderate I'd think the same (well, reverse) about Stewart, but he doesn't come across to me as particularly left, just not insane on Brexit and an all round sensible, serious person.
Eventually adulthood will intrude. For Boris the eternal teenager and his gang it'll be a rude awakening.
So we do get what we vote for but we don’t always vote for what we want.
It is surely weaknesses that he is trying to hide - not strengths?