For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
I think it’s fair to say that unsettled people are very numerous lately. Dave wasn’t much of a Conservative sea anchor, was he?
Yes - Blair destroyed Major’s vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
Cameron was lazy and complacent. He would have done great in Macmillan’s cabinet but wasn’t suitable for today
Blair destroyed Major's vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
How so? And for that matter what did Major ever do to implement his vision?
He accelerated the rate of change - the obvious example is “rubbing [the right’s] nose” in diversity via immigration
Immigration is a good thing economically. But if the rate of immigration is too high it causes cultural dislocation and is harder for the host country to absorb them
Immigration is as much an issue of quality as quantity.
Debatable.
But what is clear is that states with clean, decent media (eg Sweden) tolerate higher immigration than states with scumbag media (eg the Yookay).
Do they? The latest YouGov has 47% of Swedes saying immigration has harmed their nation more than helped it compared to just 37% of Britons and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats got almost 20% of the vote at their last general election
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it was a massive mistake for the UK to join the European Union, for the very reason that you think it was a great idea - that we are part of a project that requires us to forge a new country called Europe.
I just don't see how any Conservative could think that that was consistent with their principles.
But the UK union is? Why?
People have affection and loyalty towards it.
As you're discovering, people have affection and loyalty towards the European Union too. Is there a tipping point beyond which you would accept that membership of the EU should be regarded as a conservative principle?
A minority do, yes.
Suppose the EU was like the Roman Empire in 300 AD and I lived in Britain. I expect I'd be a Roman patriot, and see no reason to change things. I'd see it as working well.
But now, I'm being asked to give up an independence which I cherish, for reasons which seem trivial to me - a couple of extra points on GDP.
On that metaphor the Remainers are those Romano-Brits who kept writing letters to the Senate asking for help
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
Don't disclose the following numbers (because it's personal information and this is the internet!), but bank balance is not enough info to categorise wealth. Salary, positive equity and credit limit are also important, arguably more so.
I don’t have a credit limit. Does that make me deprived?
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
The true conservative answer to Brexit would have been 10 years of transition to an EFTA like state.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it .
I just don't see how any Conservative could think that that was consistent with their principles.
But the UK union is? Why?
People have affection and loyalty towards it.
As you're discovering, people have affection and loyalty towards the European Union too. Is there a tipping point beyond which you would accept that membership of the EU should be regarded as a conservative principle?
A minority do, yes.
Suppose the EU was like the Roman Empire in 300 AD and I lived in Britain. I expect I'd be a Roman patriot, and see no reason to change things. I'd see it as working well.
But now, I'm being asked to give up an independence which I cherish, for reasons which seem trivial to me - a couple of extra points on GDP.
On that metaphor the Remainers are those Romano-Brits who kept writing letters to the Senate asking for help
While Leavers were the Roman Brits that collapsed the economy and society into the dark ages over a couple of generations?
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
I think it’s fair to say that unsettled people are very numerous lately. Dave wasn’t much of a Conservative sea anchor, was he?
Yes - Blair destroyed Major’s vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
Cameron was lazy and complacent. He would have done great in Macmillan’s cabinet but wasn’t suitable for today
Blair destroyed Major's vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
How so? And for that matter what did Major ever do to implement his vision?
He accelerated the rate of change - the obvious example is “rubbing [the right’s] nose” in diversity via immigration
Immigration is a good thing economically. But if the rate of immigration is too high it causes cultural dislocation and is harder for the host country to absorb them
Immigration is as much an issue of quality as quantity.
Debatable.
But what is clear is that states with clean, decent media (eg Sweden) tolerate higher immigration than states with scumbag media (eg the Yookay).
Its not debatable at all - immigrants who have useful skill sets (including language ability) and a willingness to work and integrate will improve both their own prospects and those of the country they migrate to.
Those that haven't wont.
And given that governments have repeatedly lied about immigration levels and done sod all to make available the extra housing and public services required for them then I think British people have been remarkably tolerant.
According to this YouGov poll the UK is far more tolerant of immigration than Germany , France, Denmark, Finland ...
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Plenty of businesses voted Leave, especially small businesses, business is more than the CBI issuing warnings about Brexit as it did about not joining the Euro
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
I'd have thought that Farage's dream result is a Tory leader who solemnly and repeatedly promises a 31st October Brexit and then fails to deliver it, as Theresa May failed to deliver the 29th March. Which is probably what he will get.
It occurs to me that the EU could just about destroy the Tory Party by simply offering an indefinite extension to Article 50. It also occurs to me that there are probably elements within the EU who would not mind doing just that.
I think I'll go to bed with that thought. Nite nite.
I don't see why everyone is saying that nothing has changed. We've just had the EU elections and there's a completely new EU parliament.
Since the EU is democratic institution then this would naturally lead to a completely new direction for the Brexit negotiations and the EU in general.
So it makes perfect sense to try and reopen negotiations.
Welcome.
The EU essentially has three preconditions to negotiations. One, to do with citizen rights is uncontroversial to most people. The second is only money. The third the is the blocker. The Irish "backstop" - actually the requirement that Northern Ireland must not diverge from a Republic of Ireland in the EU.
The EU won't budge from these conditions. Everything else is up for negotiation. But it was anyway, with "May's Deal"
And if their conditions cannot be net then they are not negotiating in good faith
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
On this occasion it was correctly used
I disagree. Theresa May negotiated in extremely bad faith by agreeing the Backstop with the EU and then whipping against her own agreement in parliament. The EU have always been clear about what they wanted. Taking advantage of a strong negotiating position isn't bad faith, nor is perceived unreasonableness.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Plenty of businesses voted Leave, especially small businesses, business is more than the CBI issuing warnings about Brexit as it did about not joining the Euro
How many businesses support no deal? Got a poll to quote on that?
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Business is not some monolithic identical entity.
There's quite a few businesses which should be fucked.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Business is not some monolithic identical entity.
There's quite a few businesses which should be fucked.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
I'd have thought that Farage's dream result is a Tory leader who solemnly and repeatedly promises a 31st October Brexit and then fails to deliver it, as Theresa May failed to deliver the 29th March. Which is probably what he will get.
Indeed - his dreams are about to come true - but likely Boris will implode in next 4 weeks.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
I'd have thought that Farage's dream result is a Tory leader who solemnly and repeatedly promises a 31st October Brexit and then fails to deliver it, as Theresa May failed to deliver the 29th March. Which is probably what he will get.
It occurs to me that the EU could just about destroy the Tory Party by simply offering an indefinite extension to Article 50. It also occurs to me that there are probably elements within the EU who would not mind doing just that.
I think I'll go to bed with that thought. Nite nite.
Macron would veto that almost certainly and in any case provided the PM is committed to leaving Deal or No Deal after the failure of the latest Letwin Cooper attempt to enable legislation to stop it there is little that can be done to stop Brexit in October if the PM is committed to it
I do agree with c) though. If he does indeed find a cornucopia of magic unicorns, he will be living in La-La Land.
Won't we all?
But also, if he puts TMay's deal to a brexit-or-not referendum, ideally preceded by a round where the voters choose it as their favoured Brexit flavour over No Deal, and wins that referendum, he'll be in a good position. Several ifs in there, I know, but it's the only plausible path I've heard to getting all three of PM, party and economy through this in one piece.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
I think it’s fair to say that unsettled people are very numerous lately. Dave wasn’t much of a Conservative sea anchor, was he?
Yes - Blair destroyed Major’s vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
Cameron was lazy and complacent. He would have done great in Macmillan’s cabinet but wasn’t suitable for today
Blair destroyed Major's vision of “a country at peace with itself”.
How so? And for that matter what did Major ever do to implement his vision?
He accelerated the rate of change - the obvious example is “rubbing [the right’s] nose” in diversity via immigration
Immigration is a good thing economically. But if the rate of immigration is too high it causes cultural dislocation and is harder for the host country to absorb them
Immigration is as much an issue of quality as quantity.
Debatable.
But what is clear is that states with clean, decent media (eg Sweden) tolerate higher immigration than states with scumbag media (eg the Yookay).
Its not debatable at all - immigrants who have uate to.
Those that haven't wont.
And given that governments have repeatedly lied about immigration levels and done sod all to make available the extra housing and public services required for them then I think British people have been remarkably tolerant.
According to this YouGov poll the UK is far more tolerant of immigration than Germany , France, Denmark, Finland ...
I don't see why everyone is saying that nothing has changed. We've just had the EU elections and there's a completely new EU parliament.
Since the EU is democratic institution then this would naturally lead to a completely new direction for the Brexit negotiations and the EU in general.
So it makes perfect sense to try and reopen negotiations.
Welcome.
The EU essentially has three preconditions to negotiations. One, to do with citizen rights is uncontroversial to most people. The second is only money. The third the is the blocker. The Irish "backstop" - actually the requirement that Northern Ireland must not diverge from a Republic of Ireland in the EU.
The EU won't budge from these conditions. Everything else is up for negotiation. But it was anyway, with "May's Deal"
And if their conditions cannot be net then they are not negotiating in good faith
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
On this occasion it was correctly used
I disagree. Theresa May negotiated in extremely bad faith by agreeing the Backstop with the EU and then whipping against her own agreement in parliament. The EU have always been clear about what they wanted. Taking advantage of a strong negotiating position isn't bad faith, nor is perceived unreasonableness.
Although my admiration for the EU is highly qualified, I have to grant it negotiated honestly and in good faith. Its dismay when the British Government failed to deliver on its side of the proposed agreement is perfectly understandable.
It is for this reason if no other that it would be very surprising indeed if the EU were to give any further ground in negotiations. In fact it would be much less surprising if it took the proposed deal off the table entirely.
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
I'm too sheltered to know what 'flesh tunnels' are, but not so sheltered that I'm sure you're right that I'd hate them if I knew.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
I do agree with c) though. If he does indeed find a cornucopia of magic unicorns, he will be living in La-La Land.
Won't we all?
But also, if he puts TMay's deal to a brexit-or-not referendum, ideally preceded by a round where the voters choose it as their favoured Brexit flavour over No Deal, and wins that referendum, he'll be in a good position. Several ifs in there, I know, but it's the only plausible path I've heard to getting all three of PM, party and economy through this in one piece.
Nice try, Edmund, but it's late, and I have a unicorn waiting for me outside.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
So a revolution is fine when we don’t get our own way...?
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Business is not some monolithic identical entity.
There's quite a few businesses which should be fucked.
Which? Why?
Banks which play fast and loose in the belief they are too big to fail.
Asset strippers who dump the remains on the taxpayer.
Those who want to pay third world costs, charge first world prices and pay Monaco tax rates.
Ditto those who want to produce at third world environmental standards.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Indeed. The *intention* of Norman Cross was an enlightened prisoner of war camp. However, the reality was a concentration of human misery.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
I'd have thought that Farage's dream result is a Tory leader who solemnly and repeatedly promises a 31st October Brexit and then fails to deliver it, as Theresa May failed to deliver the 29th March. Which is probably what he will get.
Indeed - his dreams are about to come true - but likely Boris will implode in next 4 weeks.
The Tories are already in 4th place today with the Brexit Party first with YouGov, unless the Tories do elect a candidate who can win a general election and deliver Brexit ie Boris then Farage could well end up in Downing Street or else a Corbyn minority government
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
What does "bring you along" mean? Never heard that phrase. 3 and 4 are OK with me, normal linguistic evolution. I agree 6 is a bit pompous.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Business is not some monolithic identical entity.
There's quite a few businesses which should be fucked.
Which? Why?
Banks which play fast and loose in the belief they are too big to fail.
Asset strippers who dump the remains on the taxpayer.
Those who want to pay third world costs, charge first world prices and pay Monaco tax rates.
Ditto those who want to produce at third world environmental standards.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
I'd have thought that Farage's dream result is a Tory leader who solemnly and repeatedly promises a 31st October Brexit and then fails to deliver it, as Theresa May failed to deliver the 29th March. Which is probably what he will get.
Indeed - his dreams are about to come true - but likely Boris will implode in next 4 weeks.
The Tories are already in 4th place today with the Brexit Party first with YouGov, unless the Tories do fail to elect a candidate who can win a general election and deliver Brexit ie Boris then Farage could well end up in Downing Street or else a Corbyn minority government
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Part of the problem of the last 30 years is the Tories became the party of the banks and the multinationals. They should be the party of SMEs
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
I'm too sheltered to know what 'flesh tunnels' are, but not so sheltered that I'm sure you're right that I'd hate them if I knew.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
I googled it
Why would people do that to themselves?
Sometimes people go to extreme lengths to demonstrate their autonomy over themselves, even if it's purely symbolic and onlookers regard it as pointless self-mutilation.
The true conservative years of transition to an EFTA like state.
You confuse conservatism, after which the party is named, for economic liberalism, for which the party is not named.
The Conservatives will no longer win power by appealing to wealthy middle classes in the south east fretting about GDP figures effecting the purchase of their third rental property.
I guess what I am trying to say is, for many of us, there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
There's this weird belief among non-Conservatives that the Conservatives' job is to be the mouthpiece for big business and sod the rest.
Spot on. Many of the self-described Conservatives on here seem to be confused Liberal Democrats who just like paying less tax.
So what should/do they stand for then?
Tradition, independence, and democratic accountability.
If restoring Independence overrides the importance of preserving the status quo, why would they support the union?
I would take the view that it .
I just don't see how any Conservative could think that that was consistent with their principles.
But the UK union is? Why?
People have affection and loyalty towards it.
As you're discovering, people have affection and loyalty towards the European Union too. Is there a tipping point beyond which you would accept that membership of the EU should be regarded as a conservative principle?
A minority do, yes.
Suppose the EU was like the Roman Empire in 300 AD and I lived in Britain. I expect I'd be a Roman patriot, and see no reason to change things. I'd see it as working well.
But now, I'm being asked to give up an independence which I cherish, for reasons which seem trivial to me - a couple of extra points on GDP.
On that metaphor the Remainers are those Romano-Brits who kept writing letters to the Senate asking for help
While Leavers were the Roman Brits that collapsed the economy and society into the dark ages over a couple of generations?
No the RBs who fought valiantly to protect all they loved against Europeans
I don't see why everyone is saying that nothing has changed. We've just had the EU elections and there's a completely new EU parliament.
Since the EU is democratic institution then this would naturally lead to a completely new direction for the Brexit negotiations and the EU in general.
So it makes perfect sense to try and reopen negotiations.
Welcome.
The EU essentially has three preconditions to negotiations. One, to do with citizen rights is uncontroversial to most people. The second is only money. The third the is the blocker. The Irish "backstop" - actually the requirement that Northern Ireland must not diverge from a Republic of Ireland in the EU.
The EU won't budge from these conditions. Everything else is up for negotiation. But it was anyway, with "May's Deal"
And if their conditions cannot be net then they are not negotiating in good faith
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
On this occasion it was correctly used
I disagree. Theresa May negotiated in extremely bad faith by agreeing the Backstop with the EU and then whipping against her own agreement in parliament. The EU have always been clear about what they wanted. Taking advantage of a strong negotiating position isn't bad faith, nor is perceived unreasonableness.
They have a legal obligation to agree a deal. Setting preconditions they were told were unacceptable is not consistent with that
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Considering that the Boers ended up controlling the South Africa government by 1910 referring to it as a genocide is a bit silly.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Oh that’s alright then.
No. What happened was a tragedy. But it was not deliberate. @Stuart_Dickson phrasing misleads the reader
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Fuck business then.
Business is not some monolithic identical entity.
There's quite a few businesses which should be fucked.
Which? Why?
Banks which play fast and loose in the belief they are too big to fail.
Asset strippers who dump the remains on the taxpayer.
Those who want to pay third world costs, charge first world prices and pay Monaco tax rates.
Ditto those who want to produce at third world environmental standards.
I don't see why everyone is saying that nothing has changed. We've just had the EU elections and there's a completely new EU parliament.
Since the EU is democratic institution then this would naturally lead to a completely new direction for the Brexit negotiations and the EU in general.
So it makes perfect sense to try and reopen negotiations.
Welcome.
The EU essentially has three preconditions to negotiations. One, to do with citizen rights is uncontroversial to most people. The second is only money. The third the is the blocker. The Irish "backstop" - actually the requirement that Northern Ireland must not diverge from a Republic of Ireland in the EU.
The EU won't budge from these conditions. Everything else is up for negotiation. But it was anyway, with "May's Deal"
And if their conditions cannot be net then they are not negotiating in good faith
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
On this occasion it was correctly used
I disagree. Theresa May negotiated in extremely bad faith by agreeing the Backstop with the EU and then whipping against her own agreement in parliament. The EU have always been clear about what they wanted. Taking advantage of a strong negotiating position isn't bad faith, nor is perceived unreasonableness.
They have a legal obligation to agree a deal. Setting preconditions they were told were unacceptable is not consistent with that
The treaty explicitly provides for a No Deal outcome. They have no obligation to accept the departing states' conditions.
For the Conservative Party to throw away their USP is madness.
I expect Boris to rat and take the path of least resistance.
What is the Conservative Party really for? I used to know that in the 80s and 90s under Thatcher and Major (although I never supported them), and I still kind of get their (very niche) USP in Scotland. But what about England? Can anybody summarise the Con USP in one short paragraph? Important caveat: without mentioning Brexit.
Reform that you may preserve
Acting as a sea anchor on change so that it happens gradually and with deliberation rather than at a rate that unsettles people
And a No Deal Brexit is consistent with that how, exactly?
Spoiler: it isn't.
I know. I just wanted to know how @Charles reconciled the two.
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
So a revolution is fine when we don’t get our own way...?
There is a democratic instruction that must be complied with. It would be better to do with a deal but if that is not possible it must be done without
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Oh that’s alright then.
No. What happened was a tragedy. But it was not deliberate. @Stuart_Dickson phrasing misleads the reader
“Not deliberate” eh? You need to read up on this shameful period in Britain’s history. Of course it was deliberate.
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
I suspect the true heir to Blair is now Chuka Umunna rather than anyone in the current Labour Party and ironically the LDs are closer to New Labour now than Corbyn Labour is, despite the Kennedy LDs leading the opposition to the Iraq War
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
No, the mistake was made by the 36 MPs who nominated him in 2015:
Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Andrew Smith, Cat Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
Maybe but with the Tories 4th with YouGov today they have no choice but to roll the dice with Boris
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
As you're discovering, people have affection and loyalty towards the European Union too. Is there a tipping point beyond which you would accept that membership of the EU should be regarded as a conservative principle?
A minority do, yes.
Suppose the EU was like the Roman Empire in 300 AD and I lived in Britain. I expect I'd be a Roman patriot, and see no reason to change things. I'd see it as working well.
But now, I'm being asked to give up an independence which I cherish, for reasons which seem trivial to me - a couple of extra points on GDP.
It's curious that you say "give up" when referring to the status quo of over 45 years. Have you considered the possibility that the state of affairs which you cherish may depend to a greater extent than you realise on our (admittedly reluctant) participation in European integration, and that you're rolling the dice for no good reason?
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
What does "bring you along" mean? Never heard that phrase. 3 and 4 are OK with me, normal linguistic evolution. I agree 6 is a bit pompous.
For me it’s people who use words like vibe and genre and worst of all confirmatory votes!
What’s wrong with good old fashioned atmosphere, style and second referendums?
there are things more important than GDP figures and money in general. And it is about time we had a voice in this country.
That's very easy to say if you are already wealthy.
I actually grew up in and live in one of the most deprived seats in the country.
And now you are wealthy?
I have under £1,000 in my bank account, so no.
So you are saying your family is poor and deprived?
My point is that unless you are vulnerable to a recession, with no safety net, you have no place talking about how money is not important.
My family are in a good place, thankfully. But we're not swimming in cash.
My area voted 53% Leave. The working class deserve their voice to be heard, and not to be told by their multiple-home owning superiors in London that it'll knock GDP figures. GDP figures matter very little when you're just getting by.
Do you think these people are protesting about GDP figures?
Who knows why they love the EU - is it the mass youth unemployment in much of Southern Europe it has created to save the Euro, the indebtedness imposed on nations to bailout mostly German bankers and bondholders, the mass migration which has deprived nations in Eastern Europe of their youth so they can serve coffee to those marchers or the impact on increased pressure on local services and housing made worse by austerity in deprived communities in the UK or a wish to retire to Tuscany?
What I do know is the sneering contempt many really have for the working class, poorer and leave voting areas up north. They really think they are superior to them.
It’s no longer just about leaving the EU of course - it’s deeper than that on many levels. It’s essentially a culture and values war!
Are they actually pro-EU or are they anti-Farage and Boris? How many of them would be happy to sign up for the Euro? I suspect there may be around 20% of the population in the latter category but not much more.
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
Good point . Promising a week in a five star hotel in New York and then delivering two nights in a crappy B and B in Skegness will see things turning ugly very quickly .
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
Maybe but with the Tories 4th with YouGov today they have no choice but to roll the dice with Boris
Doing slightly better in Scotland: the Tories are in 3rd place, with Labour 5th. Ouch!
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
On this occasion it was correctly used
Ah, a narrative hook: how can I resist?
Back in the day, (say 20-30 years ago) the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" had a legal meaning: "in good faith" meant "you must provide all information requested" and "in utmost good faith" meant "you must provide all relevant information even if not requested". It was used in insurance when deciding risk coverage, and was drummed into me at the time that these terms had legal meaning and were not to be used imprecisely.
Fast-forward a couple of decades. Now people on this board are using it in the sense of "stringing the UK along" or "no intent for a deal". This usage confuses me because the EU has gone out of its way to be transparent and by the older definition is not just acting in good faith, it's acting in utmost good faith. But that definition seems to be in abeyance.
I think the new definition (if it has one!) has become a spacefiller, like "that's been thoroughly debunked" or "the first time in history" or "constitutional crisis", that is thrown into the conversation to add seeming weight but is not actually meaningful.
Come on Nick Palmer, you were an MP. You tell us just how transforming the Labour government was on people's lives. Just cos magic grandpa and his Stalinists says it's all bollocks - despite Angela Raynor demonstrating otherwise - doesn't mean it's true.
There is something deeply shameful about the cancer death cult and all it stands for
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
You should study the British Empire. It would horrify you. Might even cure you of your ailment.
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
Maybe but with the Tories 4th with YouGov today they have no choice but to roll the dice with Boris
Doing slightly better in Scotland: the Tories are in 3rd place, with Labour 5th. Ouch!
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
On this occasion it was correctly used
Ah, a narrative hook: how can I resist?
Back in the day, (say 20-30 years ago) the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" had a legal meaning: "in good faith" meant "you must provide all information requested" and "in utmost good faith" meant "you must provide all relevant information even if not requested". It was used in insurance when deciding risk coverage, and was drummed into me at the time that these terms had legal meaning and were not to be used imprecisely.
Fast-forward a couple of decades. Now people on this board are using it in the sense of "stringing the UK along" or "no intent for a deal". This usage confuses me because the EU has gone out of its way to be transparent and by the older definition is not just acting in good faith, it's acting in utmost good faith. But that definition seems to be in abeyance.
I think the new definition (if it has one!) has become a spacefiller, like "that's been thoroughly debunked" or "the first time in history" or "constitutional crisis", that is thrown into the conversation to add seeming weight but is not actually meaningful.
I use it in the sense that it is used in legal contracts - a requirement to negotiate fairly and with an objective or teaching an agreed deal
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
What would the mood in the party be like if Boris becomes leader and you're not 1st in the polls?
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
I'm too sheltered to know what 'flesh tunnels' are, but not so sheltered that I'm sure you're right that I'd hate them if I knew.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
I googled it
Why would people do that to themselves?
Sometimes people go to extreme lengths to demonstrate their autonomy over themselves, even if it's purely symbolic and onlookers regard it as pointless self-mutilation.
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
What would the mood in the party be like if Boris becomes leader and you're not 1st in the polls?
We will be however given we are 4th in the polls today even 2nd would be a significant improvement
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
You should study the British Empire. It would horrify you. Might even cure you of your ailment.
Do you find the British Empire especially horrifying ?
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
Maybe but with the Tories 4th with YouGov today they have no choice but to roll the dice with Boris
Doing slightly better in Scotland: the Tories are in 3rd place, with Labour 5th. Ouch!
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
The Scottish Lib Dems are currently polling over double the Scottish Labour VI. Early days yet, but that ought to terrify not only Labour but even Ruth’s team: it was the SCon annihilation of the SLD vote that enabled all her gains last time, so if that unwinds...
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
You should study the British Empire. It would horrify you. Might even cure you of your ailment.
Sadly I have to get up in the morning to pay my bills
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
What would the mood in the party be like if Boris becomes leader and you're not 1st in the polls?
A very interesting question. I expect a bounce. The issue is how long that lasts without any material change in the circumstances (and I can't see owt obvious). Which is why I am heavily on the instant GE.
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
I suspect the true heir to Blair is now Chuka Umunna rather than anyone in the current Labour Party and ironically the LDs are closer to New Labour now than Corbyn Labour is, despite the Kennedy LDs leading the opposition to the Iraq War
Blair was secretly hoping to forge an alliance with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 but when he won a massive majority the plan had to be shelved. But if it had taken place, people like Jeremy Corbyn probably would have walked out of the party in protest and he'd be a member of the Socialist Labour Party today.
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
I'm too sheltered to know what 'flesh tunnels' are, but not so sheltered that I'm sure you're right that I'd hate them if I knew.
However, I'm disappointed that you missed out "people who say 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested'."
I googled it
Why would people do that to themselves?
Sometimes people go to extreme lengths to demonstrate their autonomy over themselves, even if it's purely symbolic and onlookers regard it as pointless self-mutilation.
To @Sean_F - I notice you don’t answer my third question.
A vigorous democracy needs some sort of constitution or concept of basic inalienable rights, some idea of a rule of law to which even the rulers, however democratically elected they may be, are subject. Rules of the game, as it were.
Otherwise it is all too easy for a government to be democratically elected to do something morally outrageous. I am sure you can think of examples.
Constitutions and human rights, an idea which had its roots in English soil, even if best articulated by the US Founding Fathers, while not sufficient on their own are essential to the promotion and maintenance of a vigorous democracy.
Conservatives used to understand this. See, for instance, Hailsham on Elective Dictatorship. Modern-day Conservatives have forgotten this - or never understood it. Otherwise some of them would never have given a moment's thought to the idea of closing Parliament to push through a policy, an idea which would normally sit more happily with the Communists advising Corbyn.
That a candidate for PM advocates proroguing parliament in an attempt to force through a policy otherwise lacking support among MPs has got to be the most disgraceful episode in English politics since the invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war.
FWIW the *intention* behind the original “concentration camps” was as refugee camps not what was done in Europe
Yes, just as the *intention* that the Gulags protected the public from subversives.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
Don’t be facile.
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Funny how Conservatives, who state that they value tradition, are often so ignorant of history. One might even think they turn a blind eye.
I’ve never studied SA history - specialised in other aspects. The Empire never particularly interested me
You should study the British Empire. It would horrify you. Might even cure you of your ailment.
Sadly I have to get up in the morning to pay my bills
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
Maybe but with the Tories 4th with YouGov today they have no choice but to roll the dice with Boris
Doing slightly better in Scotland: the Tories are in 3rd place, with Labour 5th. Ouch!
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
The Scottish Lib Dems are currently polling over double the Scottish Labour VI. Early days yet, but that ought to terrify not only Labour but even Ruth’s team: it was the SCon annihilation of the SLD vote that enabled all her gains last time, so if that unwinds...
The SCons have mainly lost votes to the Brexit Party, Scottish Labour to the SLDs since 2017
Because we’ve tried hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement, but sometimes it’s just not possible. Conservatism is about values and culture not economics.
Top 11 things I hate about the 21st century =========================== . . . 11: the phrase "fair and equitable". OK, I give up: what does that mean?
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
I suspect the true heir to Blair is now Chuka Umunna rather than anyone in the current Labour Party and ironically the LDs are closer to New Labour now than Corbyn Labour is, despite the Kennedy LDs leading the opposition to the Iraq War
Blair was secretly hoping to forge an alliance with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 but when he won a massive majority the plan had to be shelved. But if it had taken place, people like Jeremy Corbyn probably would have walked out of the party in protest and he'd be a member of the Socialist Labour Party today.
I agree. I actually think it is quite possible the Labour Party will be in third in a decade behind the LDs and the Tories. The Tories are only really under threat of being overtaken as the main party of the right by the Brexit Party if they fail to deliver Brexit, Umunna though could well relaunch the LDs as the UK En Marche and complete the Blairite LD pact that failed to emerge in 1997 leaving Labour as a hard left Corbynite rump
Unbelievable that Tory whips are allegedly trying to arrange a Boris coronation.
Edit: just seen that TGOHF has said the same thing.
Not at all unbelievable. Some were predicting it earlier in the week. The very last thing the Tory Party wants is an open, honest and wide-ranging debate which exposes the fault lines in their Party. Ditto Labour, for balance.
In the words of the Stones
"You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, You just might find, You get what you need."
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
What would the mood in the party be like if Boris becomes leader and you're not 1st in the polls?
In the dark watches the long night, who do Corbyn and Farage in their heart of hearts want to win the Tory leadership? Who best assists their chances, aims and objectives? Answers on a postcard. Whatever are the true answers would tell us quite a lot.
Farage would clearly like a Remainer who would postpone Brexit indefinitely, possibly Stewart. That would give Farage a real shot at No 10.
Corbyn would like a controversial character who fails epically, making floating voters feel that getting rid of that person takes priority over their reservations about Corbyn. Boris might fit the bill, if he fails badly - but it's a roll of the dice. A quiet mainstream figure like Hunt would be quite hard to beat.
Corbyn would form a minority government v Hunt in the polling, the Brexit Party vote stays over 20% only Boris gets the Brexit Party well below 20% and would win a majority
Indeed. That's why it's a roll of the dice. If Boris finds his unicorns, he'll win big. If not, though, people will turn on him in a way they wouldn't with a more sober-looking figure, who could more easily say that nothing better was possible.
Maybe but with the Tories 4th with YouGov today they have no choice but to roll the dice with Boris
Doing slightly better in Scotland: the Tories are in 3rd place, with Labour 5th. Ouch!
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
The Scottish Lib Dems are currently polling over double the Scottish Labour VI. Early days yet, but that ought to terrify not only Labour but even Ruth’s team: it was the SCon annihilation of the SLD vote that enabled all her gains last time, so if that unwinds...
The SCons have mainly lost votes to the Brexit Party, Scottish Labour to the SLDs since 2017
Bit more complex than that. A fair bit of “churn”:
Yes, SCon to BRX and SLab to SLD
But also SLab to SCon and SNP. SNP to SLD and Grn. SCon to SNP and SLD. UKIP to SCon and BRX. Grn to SNP and SLD. SSP to SLab.
Unbelievable that Tory whips are allegedly trying to arrange a Boris coronation.
Edit: just seen that TGOHF has said the same thing.
Not at all unbelievable. Some were predicting it earlier in the week. The very last thing the Tory Party wants is an open, honest and wide-ranging debate which exposes the fault lines in their Party. Ditto Labour, for balance.
In the words of the Stones
"You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, You just might find, You get what you need."
The fault lines are already exposed. It's not an unbelievable plan, it's just incredibly dumb, naiive, and, for Boris backers, hypocritical as well given the moans when they feared he would not get to the members vote.
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
What would the mood in the party be like if Boris becomes leader and you're not 1st in the polls?
True . Domestically Labour did okay , but Corbyn and co seem to want to airbrush that out . I was totally against the Iraq War and that will be Blair’s legacy but on the home front they did try and improve things . Blair won 3 elections which will be 3 more than Corbyn wins.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
I am beginning to wonder whether his greatest domestic mistake was to indulge Jezza and not throw him out of the party in the late 90s.
I suspect the true heir to Blair is now Chuka Umunna rather than anyone in the current Labour Party and ironically the LDs are closer to New Labour now than Corbyn Labour is, despite the Kennedy LDs leading the opposition to the Iraq War
Blair was secretly hoping to forge an alliance with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 but when he won a massive majority the plan had to be shelved. But if it had taken place, people like Jeremy Corbyn probably would have walked out of the party in protest and he'd be a member of the Socialist Labour Party today.
I agree. I actually think it is quite possible the Labour Party will be in third in a decade behind the LDs and the Tories. The Tories are only really under threat of being overtaken as the main party of the right by the Brexit Party if they fail to deliver Brexit, Umunna though could well relaunch the LDs as the UK En Marche and complete the Blairite LD pact that failed to emerge in 1997 leaving Labour as a hard left Corbynite rump
Rather difficult to predict a month ahead right now, let alone a decade! A decade ago Brown was in No. 10.
Unbelievable that Tory whips are allegedly trying to arrange a Boris coronation.
Edit: just seen that TGOHF has said the same thing.
Not at all unbelievable. Some were predicting it earlier in the week. The very last thing the Tory Party wants is an open, honest and wide-ranging debate which exposes the fault lines in their Party. Ditto Labour, for balance.
In the words of the Stones
"You can't always get what you want. But, if you try sometimes, You just might find, You get what you need."
The fault lines are already exposed. It's not an unbelievable plan, it's just incredibly dumb, naiive, and, for Boris backers, hypocritical as well given the moans when they feared he would not get to the members vote.
Yes, but those fault lines. Best not mentioned. What's more they extend waaaaay beyond Brexit. They are economic and cultural too. If we Leave, with or without a WA, (and, even if we don't) they will still be there. Party of SME or finance? Of the left behind or wealthy? Of the hard working or comfortable in retirement? The social mores of today or 50 years ago? Of faith or secularism (especially re education)? Essentially of Cameron or Widdecombe socially?, of Thatcher or Major economically? Those are the real issues they don't want debated. Cos they are fundamentally split.
At least under Boris the Tories should be back to 1st in the UK and 2nd in Scotland, Labour though will still be facing a real challenge from the LDs in the UK and trail miles behind the SNP in Scotland
What would the mood in the party be like if Boris becomes leader and you're not 1st in the polls?
A very interesting question. I expect a bounce. The issue is how long that lasts without any material change in the circumstances (and I can't see owt obvious). Which is why I am heavily on the instant GE.
I also expect a bounce, but Johnson won't get nearly as long and easy a honeymoon as May.
The case for a GE makes a lot of sense, I'm just not sure Johnson has the cojones.
Things I really hate about the 21st century ================================== 1: tattoos 2: facial tattoos 3: people who say "thanks" when the mean "please" 4: people who say "are you alright" instead of "can I help you" 5: the phrase "bring you along" 6: the phrase "reach out" 7: the ability of people to alter others' behaviour by screaming on Twitter 8: vaping 9: the incorrect use of the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" 10: cheek piercing and flesh tunnels
What does "bring you along" mean? Never heard that phrase. 3 and 4 are OK with me, normal linguistic evolution. I agree 6 is a bit pompous.
"Bring you along" = "train you up" or "issue guidance to you until done"
It annoys the fuck out of me because many years ago in the 20th century it meant "wank you off". So now when people use it, it really throws me. I have similar problems with 3 and 4, and there's usually a slight pause whilst I unravel the syntax.
Comments
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/13/whats-impact-immigration-according-europeans-and-a
Those that haven't wont.
And given that governments have repeatedly lied about immigration levels and done sod all to make available the extra housing and public services required for them then I think British people have been remarkably tolerant.
According to this YouGov poll the UK is far more tolerant of immigration than Germany , France, Denmark, Finland ...
.. and Sweden.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/13/whats-impact-immigration-according-europeans-and-a
I think I'll go to bed with that thought. Nite nite.
There's quite a few businesses which should be fucked.
It is better not to be an apologist for the genocide of the Boers, whatever their faults.
It is for this reason if no other that it would be very surprising indeed if the EU were to give any further ground in negotiations. In fact it would be much less surprising if it took the proposed deal off the table entirely.
Why would people do that to themselves?
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/reconcentrado.htm
Nite nite.
Asset strippers who dump the remains on the taxpayer.
Those who want to pay third world costs, charge first world prices and pay Monaco tax rates.
Ditto those who want to produce at third world environmental standards.
Those who exploit the weak and vulnerable.
Does that excuse what we did in South Africa?
3 and 4 are OK with me, normal linguistic evolution. I agree 6 is a bit pompous.
And at least Blair would have put his heart and soul in fighting to keep the UK in the EU .
The purpose of concentrating population was to facilitate the distribution of food.?that is very different to what the Nazis intended
Thatcherism the reality or Thatcherism the myth ?
Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Andrew Smith, Cat Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West
What’s wrong with good old fashioned atmosphere, style and second referendums?
Back in the day, (say 20-30 years ago) the terms "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" had a legal meaning: "in good faith" meant "you must provide all information requested" and "in utmost good faith" meant "you must provide all relevant information even if not requested". It was used in insurance when deciding risk coverage, and was drummed into me at the time that these terms had legal meaning and were not to be used imprecisely.
Fast-forward a couple of decades. Now people on this board are using it in the sense of "stringing the UK along" or "no intent for a deal". This usage confuses me because the EU has gone out of its way to be transparent and by the older definition is not just acting in good faith, it's acting in utmost good faith. But that definition seems to be in abeyance.
I think the new definition (if it has one!) has become a spacefiller, like "that's been thoroughly debunked" or "the first time in history" or "constitutional crisis", that is thrown into the conversation to add seeming weight but is not actually meaningful.
#toughoncorbyntoughonthecausesofcorbyn
Come on Nick Palmer, you were an MP. You tell us just how transforming the Labour government was on people's lives. Just cos magic grandpa and his Stalinists says it's all bollocks - despite Angela Raynor demonstrating otherwise - doesn't mean it's true.
There is something deeply shameful about the cancer death cult and all it stands for
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1139603473031409665
Edit: just seen that TGOHF has said the same thing.
That's the Tory whips not you and TGOHF.
===========================
.
.
.
11: the phrase "fair and equitable". OK, I give up: what does that mean? At last we agree on something...
In the words of the Stones
"You can't always get what you want.
But, if you try sometimes,
You just might find,
You get what you need."
Yes, SCon to BRX and SLab to SLD
But also SLab to SCon and SNP. SNP to SLD and Grn. SCon to SNP and SLD. UKIP to SCon and BRX. Grn to SNP and SLD. SSP to SLab.
Party of SME or finance? Of the left behind or wealthy? Of the hard working or comfortable in retirement? The social mores of today or 50 years ago? Of faith or secularism (especially re education)? Essentially of Cameron or Widdecombe socially?, of Thatcher or Major economically?
Those are the real issues they don't want debated. Cos they are fundamentally split.
The case for a GE makes a lot of sense, I'm just not sure Johnson has the cojones.
It annoys the fuck out of me because many years ago in the 20th century it meant "wank you off". So now when people use it, it really throws me. I have similar problems with 3 and 4, and there's usually a slight pause whilst I unravel the syntax.