Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of leading a new centre-right One Nation Party if Boris is stupid enough to crash us out in chaos and thereby convert the Conservative Party into an unelectable death cult if it's not one already.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
Well a majority of Tory MPs at the time did vote for the Corn Laws and tariffs which was why the Peelites left to form the Liberals with the Whigs
One of
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct, that Ireland needed far fewer people working on the land, far more efficiently, with far bigger landholdings. Emigration was a sensible long-term policy. What was disgusting was their view that widespread starvation was the necessary means to achieve reform. Nassau Senior was disappointed to discover that "only" 900,000 Irish had starved, as that would be be insufficient to transform Irish agriculture.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
To be as charitable as possible, I don't think they appreciated just what an age of plenty would be created by industrialisation. Malthus perfectly described the world as it had been up to prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of leading a new centre-right One Nation Party if Boris is stupid enough to crash us out in chaos and thereby convert the Conservative Party into an unelectable death cult if it's not one already.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
Well a majority of Tory MPs at the time did vote for the Corn Laws and tariffs which was why the Peelites left to form the Liberals with the Whigs
ish.
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct, that Ireland needed far fewer people working on the land, far more efficiently, with far bigger landholdings. Emigration was a sensible long-term policy. What was disgusting was their view that widespread starvation was the necessary means to achieve reform. Nassau Senior was disappointed to discover that "only" 900,000 Irish had starved, as that would be be insufficient to transform Irish agriculture.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
It's possible for people to be enlightened on one issue, and completely blind on another. The same economists objected to laws banning the use of child labour, for example. We had to wait till 1886 before it became unlawful to employ children in brothels.
And, modern sex trafficking still goes on to this day.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
This is Gove-Vine's. They'll always consider the odds and do what's their best interests.
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
Yeah, if you exclude the times that wasn't the case. I don't remember people saying Cameron was to the right of Thatcher between 2007 and 2010, for instance. During the Coalition years you might have had a few people on the fringe say it. Was John Major reviled as further right than Thatcher? Don't think so.
And then you can flip it round: Brown was more extreme than Blair, Miliband more extreme than Brown, Corbyn more extreme than Miliband.
The last sentence is true, if you substitute left wing for extreme.
Blair was also more right wing than Smith who was more right wing than Kinnock who was more right wing than Foot, in turn.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Ironically, If I was Boris Johnson I would make Gove his deputy and leave him to do all the tedious, career tarnishing stuff. It would also neutralise the SNP's attack on Johnson being anti-Scottish.
I am disappointed Rory is out of the race. For me he was the only candidate being realistic about the challenges of Brexit.
And not just that. But about other challenges facing the country too.
Still, the Tory electorate - whether MPs or members - simply don't want to hear. So they will continue in La-La-Land, dragging us along as hostages, until reality finally hits them in the face.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Ironically, If I was Boris Johnson I would make Gove his deputy and leave him to do all the tedious, career tarnishing stuff. It would also neutralise the SNP's attack on Johnson being anti-Scottish.
But, as Boris will find out no doubt to his horror, as PM the buck will stop with him.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Ironically, If I was Boris Johnson I would make Gove his deputy and leave him to do all the tedious, career tarnishing stuff. It would also neutralise the SNP's attack on Johnson being anti-Scottish.
I'd tell him that NI is the key to resolving Brexit.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
dy.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
Well a majority of Tory MPs at the time did vote for the Corn Laws and tariffs which was why the Peelites left to form the Liberals with the Whigs
One of
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct, that Ireland needed far fewer people working on the land, far more efficiently, with far bigger landholdings. Emigration was a sensible long-term policy. What was disgusting was their view that widespread starvation was the necessary means to achieve reform. Nassau Senior was disappointed to discover that "only" 900,000 Irish had starved, as that would be be insufficient to transform Irish agriculture.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
To be as charitable as possible, I don't think they appreciated just what an age of plenty would be created by industrialisation. Malthus perfectly described the world as it had been up to prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
I am disappointed Rory is out of the race. For me he was the only candidate being realistic about the challenges of Brexit.
And not just that. But about other challenges facing the country too.
Still, the Tory electorate - whether MPs or members - simply don't want to hear. So they will continue in La-La-Land, dragging us along as hostages, until reality finally hits them in the face.
Yes - the Brexit Tories should know their place and bow to the great and superior EU masters...
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of leading a new centre-right One Nation Party if Boris is stupid enough to crash us out in chaos and thereby convert the Conservative Party into an unelectable death cult if it's not one already.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
Well a majority of Tory MPs at the time did vote for the Corn Laws and tariffs which was why the Peelites left to form the Liberals with the Whigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
It is much like the right wing perspective on climate change now, only the deaths will be further offshore. The price of saving lives is too high for them.
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
There is a world of difference between voluntary population control by contraception and female emancipification and population reduction from climate change induced famine, flooding and warfare.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
I am disappointed Rory is out of the race. For me he was the only candidate being realistic about the challenges of Brexit.
And not just that. But about other challenges facing the country too.
Still, the Tory electorate - whether MPs or members - simply don't want to hear. So they will continue in La-La-Land, dragging us along as hostages, until reality finally hits them in the face.
Reality hit them in the face at the end of March. They decided a new leader would alter reality. With ostensibly the very same policy, give or take. Threaten No Deal, to force a re-negotiation. As for other policies, none can be found. And those that there were are being dumped. Yet to hear why a new face changes the facts.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
Hopefully Boris will get rid of it. It's completely stupid.
He might. He might not. He's Boris. Who can tell...
I should imagine Boris enjoys a bit pornography!
In a hundred years time no doubt they will refer to Boris's weakness for female flesh as glowingly as Lloyd George's! At public schools pupils will refer to doing a 'Boris' as part of the fagging ritual of initiation! The definition of a Boris is still to be distilled and crystallised but I am sure it will stick around in the annals of history!
“I’m going to be straight with people,” he said. “I don’t think this is the time to be cutting taxes. I’m not thinking about the next 15 days, I’m thinking about the next 15 years.” The other four didn’t like that adult intervention one bit.
And -
"It is deeply alarming that Johnson has reportedly declined, in private, to rule out suspending Parliament if such a measure is necessary to force through Brexit by October 31.
Stewart is right to resist all such measures with every fibre of his being and to insist that — whatever his colleagues may wish to the contrary — Britain cannot, in practice, leave the European Union without the affirmation of the Commons.
It is extraordinary that a fundamental constitutional norm of this sort should have to be spelt out and defended in a Conservative leadership contest. But it does. It is breathtaking that senior Tories should need to be told that their fiscal sums have to add up as well as their polling numbers. But they do."
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
That isn't a left/right issue.
It was @MaxPB who said "By liberal these people mean "leftist"", not me.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
That isn't a left/right issue.
It was @MaxPB who said "By liberal these people mean "leftist"", not me.
Yes because of the rest of his sentence: more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of leading a new centre-right One Nation Party if Boris is stupid enough to crash us out in chaos and thereby convert the Conservative Party into an unelectable death cult if it's not one already.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
Well a majority of TWhigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
It is much like the right wing perspective on climate change now, only the deaths will be further offshore. The price of saving lives is too high for them.
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
There is a world of difference between voluntary population control by contraception and female emancipification and population reduction from climate change induced famine, flooding and warfare.
You achieve falling birth rates and female emancipation by moving from subsistence to intensive farming and industrialisation.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
You can be free, you can be equal, or you can be fair. Pick one of the three...
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
That isn't a left/right issue.
It was @MaxPB who said "By liberal these people mean "leftist"", not me.
Yes because of the rest of his sentence: more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
Do you support the state intervention that forces companies not to discriminate on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age?
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
dy.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
free trade? nterest groups?
s
One of
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct, that Ireland needed far fewer people working on the land, far more efficiently, with far bigger landholdings. Emigration was a sensible long-term policy. What was disgusting was their view that widespread starvation was the necessary means to achieve reform. Nassau Senior was disappointed to discover that "only" 900,000 Irish had starved, as that would be be insufficient to transform Irish agriculture.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
To be as charitable as possible, I don't think they appreciated just what an age of plenty would be created by industrialisation. Malthus perfectly described the world as it had been up to prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Which many Greens see as our biggest sin.
Among humankind's greatest sins* is our repeated failure to think through the potential consequences of our actions before rushing headlong into their implementation. Whether it is introducing invasive species, putting microbeads of plastic into toiletries or emitting god knows what crap into the atmosphere, we are now stuck with the consequences of human action. And we never seem to learn.
*Not that I agree with the notion of sin. Let's just say it is shorthand for a treatise on Kantian morality.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
You can be free, you can be equal, or you can be fair. Pick one of the three...
Probably 2 out of 3. Like Joseph Stiglitz's view that you can have any two of democracy, sovereignty, and economic integration but not all three.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
You can be free, you can be equal, or you can be fair. Pick one of the three...
Hopefully Boris will get rid of it. It's completely stupid.
Indeed. He isn't a nanny statist like May I'm hoping.
Generally it is a safe bet that people who decry state intervention in one or many areas, will nevertheless have some areas they are very keen for state intervention, even where none presently exists.. So i wouldn't bet on that.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
dy.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
free trade? nterest groups?
s
One of
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct, that Ireland needed far fewer people working on the land, far more efficiently, with far bigger landholdings. Emigration was a sensible long-term policy. What was disgusting was theirransform Irish agriculture.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
To be as charitable as possible, I don't think they appreciated just what an age of plenty would be created by industrialisation. Malthus perfectly described the world as it had been up to prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Which many Greens see as our biggest sin.
Among humankind's greatest sins* is our repeated failure to think through the potential consequences of our actions before rushing headlong into their implementation. Whether it is introducing invasive species, putting microbeads of plastic into toiletries or emitting god knows what crap into the atmosphere, we are now stuck with the consequences of human action. And we never seem to learn.
*Not that I agree with the notion of sin. Let's just say it is shorthand for a treatise on Kantian morality.
OTOH, we are good at solving problems, even if they are ones we have created.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of l
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
Well a majority of TWhigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
It is much like the right wing perspective on climate change now, only the deaths will be further offshore. The price of saving lives is too high for them.
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
There is a world of difference between voluntary population control by contraception and female emancipification and population reduction from climate change induced famine, flooding and warfare.
You achieve falling birth rates and female emancipation by moving from subsistence to intensive farming and industrialisation.
Greens have always stood for economic justice as part of climate justice.
You are getting away from my point with your whataboutery. The modern equivalent of the callousness shown in London to the Irish Potato Famine is much the same as the callousness that we see now to the victims in Lesser Developed Countries suffering, or about to suffer, the consequences of climate change.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
You can be free, you can be equal, or you can be fair. Pick one of the three...
Probably 2 out of 3. Like Joseph Stiglitz's view that you can have any two of democracy, sovereignty, and economic integration but not all three.
I'm not sure that's true. "Freedom" implies it is permissible to be unequal and unfair, "Equality" means it is impermissible to be free to prevent equality or use fairness as an excuse to deequalize, "Fairness" means it is impermissible to be free to prevent fairness or use equality as an excuse to impose unfairness.
Among humankind's greatest sins* is our repeated failure to think through the potential consequences of our actions before rushing headlong into their implementation. Whether it is introducing invasive species, putting microbeads of plastic into toiletries or emitting god knows what crap into the atmosphere, we are now stuck with the consequences of human action. And we never seem to learn.
*Not that I agree with the notion of sin. Let's just say it is shorthand for a treatise on Kantian morality.
Absolutely right. Who among us has not looked around and asked ourselves:
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
dy.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
free trade? nterest groups?
s
One of
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig ecoriculture.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
To be as charitable as possible, I don't think they appreciated just what an age of plenty would be created by industrialisation. Malthus perfectly described the world as it had been up to prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Which many Greens see as our biggest sin.
Among humankind's greatest sins* is our repeated failure to think through the potential consequences of our actions before rushing headlong into their implementation. Whether it is introducing invasive species, putting microbeads of plastic into toiletries or emitting god knows what crap into the atmosphere, we are now stuck with the consequences of human action. And we never seem to learn.
Not that I think it a very good corporate motto, but the Facebook ideal of 'Move fast and break things' seems like it applies generally to human nature (if we oversimplify, obviously). The advantage of rushed innovation generally outweighing not being so bold and risky without a thought for the consequences. So far at any rate.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of leading a new centre-right One Nation Party if Boris is stupid enough to crash us out in chaos and thereby convert the Conservative Party into an unelectable death cult if it's not one already.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
Well a majority of Tory MPs at the time did vote for the Corn Laws and tariffs which was why the Peelites left to form the Liberals with the Whigs
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
dy.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
free trade? nterest groups?
s
One of
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig ure.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
To be as charitable as possible, I don't think they appreciated just what an age of plenty would be created by industrialisation. Malthus perfectly described the world as it had been up to prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Which many Greens see as our biggest sin.
Among humankind's greatest sins* is our repeated failure to think through the potential consequences of our actions before rushing headlong into their implementation. Whether it is introducing invasive species, putting microbeads of plastic into toiletries or emitting god knows what crap into the atmosphere, we are now stuck with the consequences of human action. And we never seem to learn.
*Not that I agree with the notion of sin. Let's just say it is shorthand for a treatise on Kantian morality.
OTOH, we are good at solving problems, even if they are ones we have created.
Indeed. But why focus on that when it's easier to catastrophise?
Similar discussions in the 1980s would have focused on our imminent deaths from global nuclear war, or perpetual mass famines and poverty in the third world.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
dy.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
free trade? nterest groups?
s
One of
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
. Nassau Senior was disappointed to discover that "only" 900,000 Irish had starved, as that would be be insufficient to transform Irish agriculture.
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Malthusian?
To be as charitable as possible, I don't think they appreciated just what an age of plenty would be created by industrialisation. Malthus perfectly described the world as it had been up to prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Which many Greens see as our biggest sin.
Among humankind's greatest sins* is our repeated failure to think through the potential consequences of our actions before rushing headlong into their implementation. Whether it is introducing invasive species, putting microbeads of plastic into toiletries or emitting god knows what crap into the atmosphere, we are now stuck with the consequences of human action. And we never seem to learn.
*Not that I agree with the notion of sin. Let's just say it is shorthand for a treatise on Kantian morality.
It is easy to be wise after the event. Rabbits, for example, were introduced into Australia to supplement the food supplies of the settlers, whether free or convict. It wasn't, apparently realised that there were no natural predators.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
Hopefully Boris will get rid of it. It's completely stupid.
Indeed. He isn't a nanny statist like May I'm hoping.
Generally it is a safe bet that people who decry state intervention in one or many areas, will nevertheless have some areas they are very keen for state intervention, even where none presently exists.. So i wouldn't bet on that.
Yes. There are folk who would legislate to prevent you betting on it.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of l
Roty
He's anti
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
Sops?
Well a majority of TWhigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
ew.
Malthusian?
It is much like the right wing perspective on climate change now, only the deaths will be further offshore. The price of saving lives is too high for them.
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
There is a world of difference between voluntary population control by contraception and female emancipification and population reduction from climate change induced famine, flooding and warfare.
You achieve falling birth rates and female emancipation by moving from subsistence to intensive farming and industrialisation.
Greens have always stood for economic justice as part of climate justice.
You are getting away from my point with your whataboutery. The modern equivalent of the callousness shown in London to the Irish Potato Famine is much the same as the callousness that we see now to the victims in Lesser Developed Countries suffering, or about to suffer, the consequences of climate change.
Not really. We are not following a policy of causing mass starvation in pursuit of a broader objective, and all mainstream politicians in this country both agree climate change is a problem and have been taking steps over the last 20 years to mitigate it.
The current UK debate hinges on whether this can be done inside 6 years (extinction rebellion) or 31 years (the UK Government).
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of leading a new centre-right One Nation Party if Boris is stupid enough to crash us out in chaos and thereby convert the Conservative Party into an unelectable death cult if it's not one already.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
he Whigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
It is much like the right wing perspective on climate change now, only the deaths will be further offshore. The price of saving lives is too high for them.
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
There is a world of difference between voluntary population control by contraception and female emancipification and population reduction from climate change induced famine, flooding and warfare.
So far, more famines and wars have been stopped by economic growth than caused by climate change.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Alec Douglas Home was Foreign Sec under Heath. That was the last one I think.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Home served in Heaths cabinet as Foreign Secretary
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Alec Douglas-Home was Heath’s Foreign Secretary
Edit: at least I’m consistent with the earlier answers
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Alec Douglas Home was Foreign Sec under Heath. That was the last one I think.
Pff, he was barely PM, didn't even make a year!
But interesting, I did not realise it had happened even as recently as that.
Thatcher would have no time for Boris. Wouldn’t have made it to cabinet.
It's nice that you guys have all come round to accepting Thatcher's Unquestionable Greatness.
The liberal left hated Thatcher just as they hate Boris, did not stop Thatcher winning 3 general elections and will not stop Boris winning the next general election either
There are two constants with the liberal left in every age:-
(a) the Conservative party as it presently is is the most extreme it's ever been;
(b) it will invariably be contrasted with a far more liberal Conservative party in the past (in this case, the party of Margaret Thatcher) despite the fact that a previous generation of liberal left wingers reviled that party as being extreme.
You forgot c) meanwhile, society becomes ever more liberal
Does it?
I'm not seeing that with personal privacy, free speech or regulation.
By liberal these people mean "leftist" which is more government and more state intervention. Orwellian.
By liberal I mean: free from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age. Seems like a good thing to me.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
You can be free, you can be equal, or you can be fair. Pick one of the three...
Probably 2 out of 3. Like Joseph Stiglitz's view that you can have any two of democracy, sovereignty, and economic integration but not all three.
If you are the USA you can have all three. But you have to be big.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
There has been a bit of chatter about Boris and Cameron having regular meetings and the possibility of a Cabinet return for Cameron...
Can't see it though myself. Suspect they've just been meeting to work out how best to shaft Gove!
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
Or of leading a new centre-right One Nation Party if Boris is stupid enough to crash us out in chaos and thereby convert the Conservative Party into an unelectable death cult if it's not one already.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
He's anti stupid and irresponsible tax cuts, which is bang slap in the middle of Conservativism. And he's anti a chaotic ideologically-driven crash-out which would destroy jobs and disrupt citizens' lives, which is pure Conservativism.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
he Whigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
It is much like
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
The.
So far, more famines and wars have been stopped by economic growth than caused by climate change.
Will you still be saying that when Bangladesh and the Nile Delta are under water?
Economic growth without increasing CO2 emissions is perfectly possible. Indeed that is what we have done ourselves over recent years.
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
It last happened in the 1970s where Home (PM 1963-1964) served as Foreign Sec. to Heath who was of course PM. I suspect the differences between Boris and May are too great for them to co-exist in a Cabinet and after someone has had the top job do they really want to be subservient to someone they may have executed power and authority over in the past?
I was interested in the story David Cameron was reputed to want a shot at a Westminster seat recently in the press but why would he want to be in someone else's Cabinet when he has better skills than anyone else on offer IMO?
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Alec Douglas Home was Foreign Sec under Heath. That was the last one I think.
Pff, he was barely PM, didn't even make a year!
But interesting, I did not realise it had happened even as recently as that.
I think of anything pre 70s as the dark ages.
As discussed recently, I have fond memories of the 60's. And not for the usual reasons.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
There has been a bit of chatter about Boris and Cameron having regular meetings and the possibility of a Cabinet return for Cameron...
Can't see it though myself. Suspect they've just been meeting to work out how best to shaft Gove!
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
TBF, 18% was touching Hunt, not far from Boris and twice Gove and Javid (all from memory)
Rory has more chance of being the next Liberal PM than a Tory one
y.
Rory is anti tax cuts and anti hard Brexit, his agenda was more LD than Tory.
He may as well join Umunna in the LDs if he really wants to be PM, there is little room for a pro EU, anti tax cut 2nd Tory Party
.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
he Whigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
It is much like
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
The.
So far, more famines and wars have been stopped by economic growth than caused by climate change.
Will you still be saying that when Bangladesh and the Nile Delta are under water?
Economic growth without increasing CO2 emissions is perfectly possible. Indeed that is what we have done ourselves over recent years.
I'm not saying climate change isn't a problem. I'm contesting your charged rhetoric and its perspective.
Even in the most extreme scenario it doesn't threaten human extinction, although it would be very unpleasant with millions of unnecessary deaths, local wars over resources and mass migration.
What could threaten human extinction (or at least very high percentage of deaths) would be a antibiotic resistant super pandemic or a global event asteroid.
Do you support the state intervention that forces companies not to discriminate on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age?
Yes. I'm not an anarchist, I do believe in minimialist interventionism and that is part of the minimalist that I believe in.
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
TBF, 18% was touching Hunt, not far from Boris and twice Gove and Javid (all from memory)
It was roughly half of Boris.
And yes better than Gove or Javid but that is why they won't win either.
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
If the next election isn't until 2022 the next PM may be able to diffuse the issue before then by either getting it done in a non-disastrous way or cancelling it.
Much like the Tory leadership contest, I imagine a dumb, narcissistic blonde is a shoo in.
Gove Island
I see you’ve changed the ‘love’ to ‘Gove’, which is a play on words that sound almost (but not quite) the same, so making what you consider to be a mildly amusing reference to a political figure much in the news at present.
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
Interesting that winning 18% for the least experienced candidate in a five way contest (so for the ERG reader, average 20% each) is pathetic.
Is there a course where we can learn to speak ERG?
Hardline remainer = Someone who rules out remain and 2nd ref Very clever = Boris Johnson & Dominic Raab Reclaiming parliamentary sovereignty = Proroguing parliament
It would be very useful if those of us not in the ERG could get a copy of the latest re-definitions of the English language.
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
If the next election isn't until 2022 the next PM may be able to diffuse the issue before then by either getting it done in a non-disastrous way or cancelling it.
How do they diffuse it by cancelling it without alienating the majority who voted for it or the vast, vast majority of their own supporters who still back it?
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
There has been a bit of chatter about Boris and Cameron having regular meetings and the possibility of a Cabinet return for Cameron...
Can't see it though myself. Suspect they've just been meeting to work out how best to shaft Gove!
A Bullingdon cabinet. Any room for oiks?
GO could make it and turn it into the three amigo's! If you have ever seen the 1980s film, look at 49 secs into the film and imagine Boris, Cameron and GO doing the little jig:
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
Gove genuinely seems to be a useful Cabinet Minister, and one who gets stuck in (yes, for better or worse) even when it is an unglamourous position, compared to many of his colleagues. So I would think even if he is not in it right away, he might well find himself back in it later.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Alec Douglas Home was Foreign Sec under Heath. That was the last one I think.
Pff, he was barely PM, didn't even make a year!
But interesting, I did not realise it had happened even as recently as that.
I think of anything pre 70s as the dark ages.
Thatcher promised Heath that he’d be her Foreign Sec. but reneged. Apparently it was that, rather than the leadership, that brought about the legendary sulk.
You and Rory are really Peelite Liberals not Tories
So you are against Catholic Emancipation then? And in favour of starving the Irish? Against free trade? And in favour of subsidies to powerful interest groups?
he Whigs
One of the paradoxes of that time is .
It's hard to understand now, even by the standards of the time, why that was an acceptable policy in the UK.
Whig economists were undoubtedly correct,
I just struggle to understand that was serious in an age where Parliament had just voted to abolish slavery on moral grounds.
Being anti welfare and outdoor relief was a way of allowing market forces. The deaths were merely market mechanisms at work in the 19th Century Libertarian view.
Malthusian?
It is much like
I'd have thought it's the hardline Greens who would be most keen on population reduction, and oppose economic growth in poorer countries.
The.
So far, more famines and wars have been stopped by economic growth than caused by climate change.
Will you still be saying that when Bangladesh and the Nile Delta are under water?
Economic growth without increasing CO2 emissions is perfectly possible. Indeed that is what we have done ourselves over recent years.
I'm not saying climate change isn't a problem. I'm contesting your charged rhetoric and its perspective.
Even in the most extreme scenario it doesn't threaten human extinction, although it would be very unpleasant with millions of unnecessary deaths, local wars over resources and mass migration.
What could threaten human extinction (or at least very high percentage of deaths) would be a antibiotic resistant super pandemic or a global event asteroid.
Isn't a super pandemic more likely to be virus based and thus independent of antibiotic resistance?
Other possible causes of human extinction are nuclear holocaust or AI.
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
Interesting that winning 18% for the least experienced candidate in a five way contest (so for the ERG reader, average 20% each) is pathetic.
Is there a course where we can learn to speak ERG?
Hardline remainer = Someone who rules out remain and 2nd ref Very clever = Boris Johnson & Dominic Raab Reclaiming parliamentary sovereignty = Proroguing parliament
It would be very useful if those of us not in the ERG could get a copy of the latest re-definitions of the English language.
I'm not ERG but I do understand mathematics.
While 20% in a five-way contest is average, a potential leader should be better than average don't you think? Therefore it should be above 20%.
I'm not ERG but yes for anyone wanting to be leader they should be above 20%.
I haven't advocated proroguing Parliament and I would oppose it. My objection to the backstop is it is undemocratic and I object to proroguing Parliament for the same reason. I would back holding an early election if Parliament won't implement the decision and let the people decide that way.
Boris is a little older than I thought he was. Around 3 years over the average age for PMs in their first term it looks like, so about the right age as these things go. Pitt the Younger, what an overachiever.
Just think if Javid withdraws at 9am, Gove beats Hunt at 1pm and then Gove withdraws at 2pm (after being promised Number 11) Boris Johnson could be Prime Minister by this time tomorrow!
With the history between Gove and Johnson, is it really possible for Gove to be in his cabinet?
.
Thatcher and Heseltine never got on but Heseltine was still in her cabinet for 6 years! She always viewed him as a competitor and was wary of him, quite rightly as it turned out in 1990! Heseltine it has to be remembered did a lot of heavy lifting for Thatcher at Environment and then Defence. He dealt with the riots in the early 1980s in a way I doubt any other cabinet minister would have embarked. Again, when he was at Defence he took it to CND and managed to pave the way for the successful rollout of the Governments agenda. So, there are precedents for competitors to work together.
One day I would like to see a former PM serve in someone else's Cabinet. It's probably happened in the dark ages, and of course if you lose once it's usually all over for you, and if you stepped down why would you hang around in a reduced position in government, but I think it would be nice.
Alec Douglas Home was Foreign Sec under Heath. That was the last one I think.
Pff, he was barely PM, didn't even make a year!
But interesting, I did not realise it had happened even as recently as that.
I think of anything pre 70s as the dark ages.
Thatcher promised Heath that he’d be her Foreign Sec. but reneged. Apparently it was that, rather than the leadership, that brought about the legendary sulk.
The 1979 election coverage has a section in it where they hint to Heath he might be called upon and he said nothing to displace the theory he might get a job. I think she offered him something like ambassador to America, which she probably knew he would decline but it is better to be seen offering something than nothing at all!
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
Interesting that winning 18% for the least experienced candidate in a five way contest (so for the ERG reader, average 20% each) is pathetic.
Is there a course where we can learn to speak ERG?
Hardline remainer = Someone who rules out remain and 2nd ref Very clever = Boris Johnson & Dominic Raab Reclaiming parliamentary sovereignty = Proroguing parliament
It would be very useful if those of us not in the ERG could get a copy of the latest re-definitions of the English language.
I'm not ERG but I do understand mathematics.
While 20% in a five-way contest is average, a potential leader should be better than average don't you think? Therefore it should be above 20%.
I'm not ERG but yes for anyone wanting to be leader they should be above 20%.
I haven't advocated proroguing Parliament and I would oppose it. My objection to the backstop is it is undemocratic and I object to proroguing Parliament for the same reason. I would back holding an early election if Parliament won't implement the decision and let the people decide that way.
Re your last paragraph: What happens if Remain supporting parties win any your mooted early GE? Would that make it acceptable for them to revoke without a 2nd referendum in your opinion?
There is no candidate left who is prepared to work with the deal on the table. This makes both no deal Brexit and revoke more likely.
Who is going to lead any kind of drive to compromise now?
Oh I do hope we end up revoking. Just to teach the stupid malicious Brexiteers a lesson.
In that way can I hope we end up no dealing? Just to teach the stupid malicious Remainers a lesson.
The vast, vast majority of Leavers in Parliament backed the WA MV3. It failed because it was opposed by the vast, vast majority of Remainers. It is the Remainers who have thwarted the WA and it would be karmic justice if that leads to a harder Brexit.
Regarding the claim by OGH that Stewart "won" the debate [by getting 35%] it is worth looking at the breakdown and realising that the 35% he won were not the part of the public the Tories are targeting.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
Interesting that winning 18% for the least experienced candidate in a five way contest (so for the ERG reader, average 20% each) is pathetic.
Is there a course where we can learn to speak ERG?
Hardline remainer = Someone who rules out remain and 2nd ref Very clever = Boris Johnson & Dominic Raab Reclaiming parliamentary sovereignty = Proroguing parliament
It would be very useful if those of us not in the ERG could get a copy of the latest re-definitions of the English language.
I'm not ERG but I do understand mathematics.
While 20% in a five-way contest is average, a potential leader should be better than average don't you think? Therefore it should be above 20%.
I'm not ERG but yes for anyone wanting to be leader they should be above 20%.
I haven't advocated proroguing Parliament and I would oppose it. My objection to the backstop is it is undemocratic and I object to proroguing Parliament for the same reason. I would back holding an early election if Parliament won't implement the decision and let the people decide that way.
All the candidates can not be better than average, especially when there is an odds on fav going into the debates. They can still stand and are not pathetic for not all being above average. Given he has been in the cabinet for only a couple of months and few people would have heard of him before 2019 he has done remarkably well.
Comments
Albeit it is illegal.
Blair was also more right wing than Smith who was more right wing than Kinnock who was more right wing than Foot, in turn.
Still, the Tory electorate - whether MPs or members - simply don't want to hear. So they will continue in La-La-Land, dragging us along as hostages, until reality finally hits them in the face.
Then make him NI Secretary......
Yes - the Brexit Tories should know their place and bow to the great and superior EU masters...
What will the Mail make of it? Ignore it I guess.
Compare and contrast social attitudes and discriminatory laws of 60 years ago with today's attitudes and legal protections.
Threaten No Deal, to force a re-negotiation.
As for other policies, none can be found. And those that there were are being dumped.
Yet to hear why a new face changes the facts.
“I’m going to be straight with people,” he said. “I don’t think this is the time to be cutting taxes. I’m not thinking about the next 15 days, I’m thinking about the next 15 years.” The other four didn’t like that adult intervention one bit.
And -
"It is deeply alarming that Johnson has reportedly declined, in private, to rule out suspending Parliament if such a measure is necessary to force through Brexit by October 31.
Stewart is right to resist all such measures with every fibre of his being and to insist that — whatever his colleagues may wish to the contrary — Britain cannot, in practice, leave the European Union without the affirmation of the Commons.
It is extraordinary that a fundamental constitutional norm of this sort should have to be spelt out and defended in a Conservative leadership contest. But it does. It is breathtaking that senior Tories should need to be told that their fiscal sums have to add up as well as their polling numbers. But they do."
You achieve falling birth rates and female emancipation by moving from subsistence to intensive farming and industrialisation.
*Not that I agree with the notion of sin. Let's just say it is shorthand for a treatise on Kantian morality.
You are getting away from my point with your whataboutery. The modern equivalent of the callousness shown in London to the Irish Potato Famine is much the same as the callousness that we see now to the victims in Lesser Developed Countries suffering, or about to suffer, the consequences of climate change.
Why do we allow people to suffer like this?
L
Similar discussions in the 1980s would have focused on our imminent deaths from global nuclear war, or perpetual mass famines and poverty in the third world.
The current UK debate hinges on whether this can be done inside 6 years (extinction rebellion) or 31 years (the UK Government).
Edit: at least I’m consistent with the earlier answers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home
But interesting, I did not realise it had happened even as recently as that.
I think of anything pre 70s as the dark ages.
Can't see it though myself. Suspect they've just been meeting to work out how best to shaft Gove!
Economic growth without increasing CO2 emissions is perfectly possible. Indeed that is what we have done ourselves over recent years.
You can do it compulsorily by oppressive religious and social mores.
Or you can do voluntarily - by smartphones.
He won only 18% of Conservatives and only 16% of Leavers. That is pathetic for a leader of a Conservative Party seeking to Leave the EU.
He won 64% of Lib Dems, 49% of Labour voters and 57% of Remainers. However unless he implements a policy of Remaining are they going to vote for a Tory party he leads still leaving? Or would they vote for the Lib Dems or Labour?
Appealing to the "centre" is reasonable where the centre exists. It doesn't here. The nation is polarised and a Stewart-led Conservative Party would be rather dissociative. It would irritate both sides and appeal to none.
I was interested in the story David Cameron was reputed to want a shot at a Westminster seat recently in the press but why would he want to be in someone else's Cabinet when he has better skills than anyone else on offer IMO?
Even in the most extreme scenario it doesn't threaten human extinction, although it would be very unpleasant with millions of unnecessary deaths, local wars over resources and mass migration.
What could threaten human extinction (or at least very high percentage of deaths) would be a antibiotic resistant super pandemic or a global event asteroid.
https://twitter.com/AJMartinSky/status/1141430135905837057
https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1141428823260585985
And yes better than Gove or Javid but that is why they won't win either.
How clever and so original. Well done.
Is there a course where we can learn to speak ERG?
Hardline remainer = Someone who rules out remain and 2nd ref
Very clever = Boris Johnson & Dominic Raab
Reclaiming parliamentary sovereignty = Proroguing parliament
It would be very useful if those of us not in the ERG could get a copy of the latest re-definitions of the English language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUTl8DSYUQA
Other possible causes of human extinction are nuclear holocaust or AI.
While 20% in a five-way contest is average, a potential leader should be better than average don't you think? Therefore it should be above 20%.
I'm not ERG but yes for anyone wanting to be leader they should be above 20%.
I haven't advocated proroguing Parliament and I would oppose it. My objection to the backstop is it is undemocratic and I object to proroguing Parliament for the same reason. I would back holding an early election if Parliament won't implement the decision and let the people decide that way.
👀
The vast, vast majority of Leavers in Parliament backed the WA MV3. It failed because it was opposed by the vast, vast majority of Remainers. It is the Remainers who have thwarted the WA and it would be karmic justice if that leads to a harder Brexit.