politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 10 Tips for the Tory Leadership contest

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.

Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.

I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.

It's a damage limitation exercise and one where we may well have been better off avoiding.

I still don't think so. No buyers remorse here although I am disappointed to lose David Cameron as PM. I don't think any of the 5 are in his class to be frank.

Moses_ said:

volcanopete said:

It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.

I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.

It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.

Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.

However, what to do about a problem called Boris?

It's started already....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670751/MPs-say-ll-use-ancient-law-impeach-Tony-Blair-misleading-Parliament-Iraq-war-wake-Chilcot-report.html

.........maybe? In today's political turmoil who knows what might happen today let alone next week.

Impeachment? Is that different from an act of attainder?

malcolmg said:

MaxPB said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour leadership: Will it be @OwenSmith_MP who challenges Jeremy Corbyn rather than @angelaeagle? Yes, I'm told https://t.co/z1li8wCSf0

Fingers crossed.

If @OwenSmith_MP wins the Labour Leadership - that is a massive problem for the Conservatives.

Which is why we need to unite behind Theresa. Forget the vanity of electing some politically pure Brexit candidate, Labour might get their arse in gear and we may have a real fight on our hands for the next election.

It just shows how low this country has reached when May is the answer.

It is always a least worse choice. I worry about Mrs May's fence sitting on the referendum rather than taking up a full role for one or the other sides. In her favour is that I can see no role for Osborne with her as the PM but does she nurture talent or meddle too much?

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.

Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.

I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.

It's a damage limitation exercise and one where we may well have been better off avoiding.

I don't think any of the 5 are in his class to be frank.

I certainly hope not! Good days ahead.

JennyFreeman said:

p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.

Depended what level the coal stocks were at.

The smartest decision she made was to build up coal stocks in advance. The mistake Scargill made was to call a strike in the spring/early summer.

Don't know whether those were mistakes that Heath/the miners made in 1973/4

Part of the secret of success is knowing when to fight and when to tactically manoeuvre to better ground

Pulpstar said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour leadership: Will it be @OwenSmith_MP who challenges Jeremy Corbyn rather than @angelaeagle? Yes, I'm told https://t.co/z1li8wCSf0

Fingers crossed.

I hope he does challenge. That -£1050 on David Miliband isn't going to expire itself.

All those people taking Milliband at 8 must reckon Corbyn is going to hold on till 2020.

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

A record 682,000 EU immigrants came to Germany last year.

Germany now has 4.1 million EU migrants, UK 3.1 and France 2.2. The issue isnt going away.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/europaeische-union/zuwanderung-so-viele-eu-auslaender-wie-nie-ziehen-nach-deutschland-14320208.html

Which is why the whole continent needs a new settlement. Dave was stupid to try and get Britain some special status. He should have tried to reform the idea to shift it back to Labour and to exclude benefits for a year.

This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.

yes.

remainers might like to reflect on we're out of the EU because Dave couldnt be arsed to reform the social security system.

PlatoSaid said:

Nonsense - you're happy with May because you're happy being out of the EU - but want to stick with FoM et al because it personally suits you. That's fine for you - it doesn't work for a very large % of the population who believed they were voting for Out, not a subsection of it.

Good Lord, I'm agreeing with you again. The world has certainly changed.

Indeed, the real battle for the Conservative soul is now starting as those who want all the financial trappings of EU membership square off against those for whom said trappings aren't so much of a benefit.

For reasons I've explained elsewhere, I'm in the no Single Market, no Freedom of Movement camp. I realise that's not a pain-free option economically but we can negotiate solid bilateral deals with the EU on the Swiss model. The problem is too many people have enjoyed the benefits the Single Market and FoM has brought them while they have been insulated from the social and humanitarian consequences.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

MaxPB said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Jonathan said:

Scott_P said:

@chrisshipitv: Labour leadership: Will it be @OwenSmith_MP who challenges Jeremy Corbyn rather than @angelaeagle? Yes, I'm told https://t.co/z1li8wCSf0

Fingers crossed.

If @OwenSmith_MP wins the Labour Leadership - that is a massive problem for the Conservatives.

Which is why we need to unite behind Theresa. Forget the vanity of electing some politically pure Brexit candidate, Labour might get their arse in gear and we may have a real fight on our hands for the next election.

It just shows how low this country has reached when May is the answer.

It is always a least worse choice. I worry about Mrs May's fence sitting on the referendum rather than taking up a full role for one or the other sides. In her favour is that I can see no role for Osborne with her as the PM but does she nurture talent or meddle too much?

The was something (Spectator coffee house?) that said Ms May was a micro manager. But it's all third hand stuff.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

One thing that the Leave MPs will be acutely aware of is that the battle for Leave has been won but the war is not yet over. The form that Leave takes is still up for grabs. EEA or not, free movement or not, associate membership or not? There are a number of possible outcomes which will make some wonder if it was worth all the effort.

Of course that might be a good thing. It recognises that 48% of the country voted to remain and that we are pretty evenly divided on this. It may do the least economic damage. It keeps business as usual as much as that is possible.

I just think that those who think the referendum is not going to play a very big part in this are understating the issue. This government not only has to deliver Leave, it has to give it shape and substance in a way that the campaign itself did not. Given the importance of this to the country it will surely be the determining factor in many of the MPs and most of the members' choices. Not having a prominent Leaver on the list would be unacceptable.

It's a damage limitation exercise and one where we may well have been better off avoiding.

I still don't think so. No buyers remorse here although I am disappointed to lose David Cameron as PM. I don't think any of the 5 are in his class to be frank.

Im really really annoyed that Boris Johnson dropped out. I'd got "Hyperion to a satyr" lined up and ready to use.

Was the only reason I wanted Boris as PM, we would get a lot more classical history references and I could use some more of my brilliant Hellenic puns.

malcolmg said:

alex. said:

JennyFreeman said:

p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.

Er, but she 'did'. 1984-5 wasn't the first miners strike. It was just that that was the one she had prepared for and was able to stand her ground.

People still wear their Maggie rose tinted fantasy glasses.

From what I've read, it's true: the Thatcher government well remembered what happened to Heath, and put measures into place. They gave into the miners demands a couple of years before 1984 because they were not in a position to win.

During those couple of years, the government stockpiled massive amounts of coal at power stations and elsewhere, paid for some power stations to be converted to (also?) burn oil, and did deals with road hauliers in case the railway unions came out in sympathy.

Carwyn Jones must go.

He's spoiling the all woman line up

Head of state - Woman
PM - woman
FM Scotland - woman
FM N I - woman
FM Wales - man

he could at least declare himself transgender and not spoil the party.

Charles said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

I bring, for your delection, Ode to joy, played on an appropriately small Violin which meets an appropriate end

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnT7pT6zCcA

Why are you posting videos of Danny Alexander?

ROTFL

peter_from_putney said:

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

PlatoSaid said:

anotherDave said:

If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.

Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.

"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."

http://order-order.com/2016/07/01/may-supporters-plot-keep-gove-off-ballot/

Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.

The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.

She should turn down Aaron Banks's money

It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in

FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.

He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.

As you can imagine loads of people have been asking the "I've been here forever and a day" seniors about her time at BZW. So far the answer is solid but not memorable.

Agreed about the money. If she takes it then she loses.

That's consistent with what I'm hearing (from her time at Invesco)

BZW .....blimey, that's going back a bit, makes me think of all those blokes wearing striped blazers, she must have been the only woman working in the City then, although I do recall there was also that "Superwoman" Nicola Horlick, earning millions and bringing up umpteen children at the same time.

Nicola outsourced her children!

And she wasn't as good as her PR.

I must admit I'm surprised that someone as young as Max still remembers Breezy...

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.

Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.

Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)

Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.

Butler was dead long before that.

Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary

(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)

Macmillan's duplicity isn't really questionable. I would take issue that Butler's candidacy was dead though. Certainly it was misfiring (which was representative of the man as a potential leader) but until the last moment was in better shape than Home's - someone who was both a peer and who had already ruled himself out of running.

Alanbrooke said:

Carwyn Jones must go.

He's spoiling the all woman line up

Head of state - Woman
PM - woman
FM Scotland - woman
FM N I - woman
FM Wales - man

he could at least declare himself transgender and not spoil the party.

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.

Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.

Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)

Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.

Butler was dead long before that.

Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary

(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)

That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).

Basically Hailsham was popular with activists, but blew his chances among MPs by posing for a photograph with his new baby, which they thought undignified and tacky (how times change). They had never liked him much and this was the last straw. When this was related to Macmillan he realised Hailsham would be unable to block Butler and cast about for another candidate. Home happened to be the only one he thought might command wide support. He was at it happens wrong but the cabinet lacked the backbone to tell him to shove his silly prejudices for the good of the party.

Today Hailsham would have won easily as he was ahead of his time in many ways. But he seemed to want it too much and to be too clownish for most Tories.

It would be unfair to compare him to Boris ...but there is a certain parallel, is there not?

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

volcanopete said:

It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.

I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.

It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.

Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.

However, what to do about a problem called Boris?

It's started already....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670751/MPs-say-ll-use-ancient-law-impeach-Tony-Blair-misleading-Parliament-Iraq-war-wake-Chilcot-report.html

.........maybe? In today's political turmoil who knows what might happen today let alone next week.

Impeachment? Is that different from an act of attainder?

Impeach who? How?

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

volcanopete said:

It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.

I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.

It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.

Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.

However, what to do about a problem called Boris?

It's started already....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670751/MPs-say-ll-use-ancient-law-impeach-Tony-Blair-misleading-Parliament-Iraq-war-wake-Chilcot-report.html

.........maybe? In today's political turmoil who knows what might happen today let alone next week.

Impeachment? Is that different from an act of attainder?

Impeach who? How?

That Mail article on Blair.

Charles said:

Depended what level the coal stocks were at.

The smartest decision she made was to build up coal stocks in advance. The mistake Scargill made was to call a strike in the spring/early summer.

Don't know whether those were mistakes that Heath/the miners made in 1973/4

Part of the secret of success is knowing when to fight and when to tactically manoeuvre to better ground

Indeed, my recollection of the events of 1973/4 was that it built up slowly through November and early December and I remember watching Panorama which extrapolated coal stocks and usage and said we would be in trouble in the New Year which we were. The 3-day week was announced in mid December to start after Christmas but this was a dreadful blunder as it encouraged the miners to think they had the Government on the ropes.

The NUM rejected a final pay offer, called a strike ballot which they got and the all out strike began in early February by which time the 3-day week had been up and running for a little while with a programme of increasing rolling power cuts - I remember doing my homework by candle light on a number of occasions.

Counterfactual historians argue if Heath had called the election immediately after Christmas, he would have won but instead he waited until February 7th and called the election for three weeks later.

February 1974 was interesting in that BOTH the Conservatives and Labour lost votes - the former lost 8.5% and the latter 6% with the big winners being the Liberals and the Nationalists. Heath won the popular vote but Wilson won more seats.

F1: 50 minutes or so until P3 kicks off. Remember, kids, Vettel has a 5 place grid penalty and qualifying could see a thunderstorm.

Alanbrooke said:

Carwyn Jones must go.

He's spoiling the all woman line up

Head of state - Woman
PM - woman
FM Scotland - woman
FM N I - woman
FM Wales - man

he could at least declare himself transgender and not spoil the party.

Very sexist Welsh jokes about Valleys Labour being a lot of old women notwithstanding?

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.

Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies

Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.

Fair enough - but equally she only qualified in 1953 so I think "successful" is a stretch - she'd only just have been starting out on her career by the time she was elected (1959)

As I recall Mrs Thatcher's legal training was only pursued to further her political career. (Charles Moore's biography)

Charles said:

JennyFreeman said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

PlatoSaid said:

anotherDave said:

If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.

Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.

"Rumours are doing the rounds that several as yet undeclared Theresa May supporters are considering endorsing Andrea Leadsom in order to keep Michael Gove off the ballot."

http://order-order.com/2016/07/01/may-supporters-plot-keep-gove-off-ballot/

Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.

The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.

She should turn down Aaron Banks's money

It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in

FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.

He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.

Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.

She sparkled in the debates.

And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.

Thatcher was never a housewife. She was a professional politician.

Again, that wasn't what I wrote, or meant. She paraded herself as a housewife, or rather someone who would use the common sense of a household budget to sort out the nation's finances. It was a smart simple strategy which resonated with the post-IMF farce we were in. That ties in with your subsequent point about timing being everything.

Leadsom could be exactly right for the moment.

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

JennyFreeman said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

PlatoSaid said:

anotherDave said:

If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.

Guido says he's hearing May supporters are anti-Gove, so pro-Leadsom.

http://order-order.com/2016/07/01/may-supporters-plot-keep-gove-off-ballot/

Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.

The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.

She should turn down Aaron Banks's money

It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in

FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.

He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.

Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.

She sparkled in the debates.

And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.

A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.

Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies

Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.

There was no "bio" to her Chemistry, thank you very much...

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

A record 682,000 EU immigrants came to Germany last year.

Germany now has 4.1 million EU migrants, UK 3.1 and France 2.2. The issue isnt going away.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/europaeische-union/zuwanderung-so-viele-eu-auslaender-wie-nie-ziehen-nach-deutschland-14320208.html

Which is why the whole continent needs a new settlement. Dave was stupid to try and get Britain some special status. He should have tried to reform the idea to shift it back to Labour and to exclude benefits for a year.

This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.

People are now circling the elephant in the room.

One of the final acts that resulted in Brexit was Merkel's unilateral decision to invite all and sundry ( not just refugees) to Germany. She never consulted with the other leaders particularly the leaders of the countries through which these people would transit. She never prepared places for them to go or the finance and infrastructure to support them and she never considered that it would not be just refugees that would come. We then all saw what happened.

Cameron on the other hand realised the issues and went all out for help at the camps in safe areas something the UK had been financing pretty much itself for quite a while.

It was the failure of the EU to identify true refugees from simple economic migrants that caused much concern. The failure meant that the true refugees could not be targeted for the help and our protection they really desperately needed and more time was spent on building border, controls fences and picking up dead bodies from the Med.

It is completely ironic that the most democratic person who had the correct approach has now had to resign from office having been proved entirely correct. On the other hand the on who considers herself the leader of Europe remains in office along with the unelected sycophants in Brussels. They all failed those most in need when they needed it most and they will have to live with that though I suspect they don't really care.

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Butler was dead long before that.

Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary

(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)

That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).

Basically Hailsham was popular with activists, but blew his chances among MPs by posing for a photograph with his new baby, which they thought undignified and tacky (how times change). They had never liked him much and this was the last straw. When this was related to Macmillan he realised Hailsham would be unable to block Butler and cast about for another candidate. Home happened to be the only one he thought might command wide support. He was at it happens wrong but the cabinet lacked the backbone to tell him to shove his silly prejudices for the good of the party.

Today Hailsham would have won easily as he was ahead of his time in many ways. But he seemed to want it too much and to be too clownish for most Tories.

It would be unfair to compare him to Boris ...but there is a certain parallel, is there not?

He cheerfully acknowledged that he would have been terrible at the job. It was the betrayal by a friend that he resented. He was always a man of his word - and expected people to keep their promises.

(Kate - the baby in question - is an absolute star who I rate incredibly highly)

anotherDave said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.

Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies

Started as a biochemist, retrained as a barrister after she was married.

Fair enough - but equally she only qualified in 1953 so I think "successful" is a stretch - she'd only just have been starting out on her career by the time she was elected (1959)

As I recall Mrs Thatcher's legal training was only pursued to further her political career. (Charles Moore's biography)

Yes, I would agree with that. It didn't make her unsuccessful. Most barristers really struggle to make an impact. She was better than that, although she also had no money problems given Dennis' wealth.

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Successors in midstream since WW2:

Eden (previously Foreign Secretary)
Macmillan (previously Chancellor)
Home (previously Foreign Secretary)
Callaghan (previously Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary)
Major (previously Foreign Secretary and Chancellor)
Brown (previously Chancellor)

All the candidates other than Theresa May are woefully lacking in the necessary top level experience to take over the top job. The Conservatives are going to need a truly exceptional reason to pick anyone else. I can't see one.

Other than Macmillan, despite their experience, they were all disasters and completely useless Prime Ministers?

Callaghan received a poisoned chalice from Wilson. I'm not sure anybody else was going to do much better.

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

JennyFreeman said:

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

PlatoSaid said:

anotherDave said:

If Theresa May polls extremely strongly in the early rounds – on the current count, she has more backers than the rest put together, albeit with more than half the MPs still to declare – some may take the opportunity to try to lever an easier rival onto the members’ ballot paper.

Makes sense - Leadsom has a big following on social media. I don't expect that to influence too many Tory members, but it will have an impact on the MPs. IIRC Aaron Banks has offered to fund her campaign as a Brexiteer.

The stand-off between May vs Leadsom would be a cracking fight.

She should turn down Aaron Banks's money

It will gain her precisely zero (and possibly negative) credit in

FWIW I chatted yesterday to someone who knew her quite well when she was in the City. Verdict was that she was perfect competent but didn't sparkle. He feels that she only stands out because of the limitations of the current crowd - he didn't think that, in the abstract, she would have the capabilities to be PM.

He also noted that her roles in the City were one's that didn't really require her to make difficult judgement calls: they were process orientated.

Exactly the point I made yesterday. Corporate governance is a back room job which does not require dealing with difficult people or issues and does not require the sort of difficult judgment calls a PM has to make. Her City experience is limited, not front line and in a relatively genteel part of it. She may have potential but a PM is being chosen here not an intern.

She sparkled in the debates.

And actually a back room 'housewife' became this country's greatest prime minister since Winston Churchill, regardless of what you consider about her politics.

A successful barrister was merely a 'housewife'?! Good grief, my thus far blameless life has left me with a very wrong impression of our legal system. I thought they had to speak and argue and understand complex points of law and evidence and all that kind of thing.

Are you sure she was a barrister? I thought she was a candidate from about the age of 25, supporting herself working as a scientist in various chemical/food companies

Her first degree was in Chemistry but she later qualified and practiced as a barrister, though not for all that long as her marriage to Denis and the birth of her children meant that she didn't need the income and also had family commitments (the 1950s not being an age of return-to-work mums outside of the royal family).

PlatoSaid said:

kle4 said:

david_herdson said:

JennyFreeman said:

p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.

Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?

The legend of thatcher is all there is.

Ps Tories and labourites, except for really apt comparisons please stop talking about what thatcher woukd do.about things. Difficult I know, but we can do it gang! This message to pundits everywhere.

What makes a May vs Leadsom battle so intriguing is that demographically - they're very alike. Both grammar educated, both had significant careers before politics, similar age. Leadsom is a lot warmer, May seems more commanding but has inevitable baggage.

I hope it comes down to a fight between the two.

They're both strong candidates and if it was for LOTO I think would be evenly matched. But this is for PM. Also don't forget Leadsom's career comes with its own (perfectly legal) baggage too, Labour will enjoy reminding voters about.

JennyFreeman said:

malcolmg said:

JennyFreeman said:

Scott_P said:

@RupertMyers: I'm not sure you can avoid both a leadership contest and a snap general election. One or the other. https://t.co/tF4qdOfiCg

Again, nonsense.

We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.

They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.

No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.

Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.

The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.

Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.

If it looks like there's a realistic chance for the new PM to get a 40-50 seat majority while Labour is in such disarray, I think they should go for it.

PlatoSaid said:

kle4 said:

david_herdson said:

JennyFreeman said:

p.s. further to the 1970 point, Thatcher wouldn't have bottled it with the miners like that wimp Ted Heath did.

Or likethat wimp Thatcher did in 1981? You don't really know your history do you?

The legend of thatcher is all there is.

Ps Tories and labourites, except for really apt comparisons please stop talking about what thatcher woukd do.about things. Difficult I know, but we can do it gang! This message to pundits everywhere.

What makes a May vs Leadsom battle so intriguing is that demographically - they're very alike. Both grammar educated, both had significant careers before politics, similar age. Leadsom is a lot warmer, May seems more commanding but has inevitable baggage.

I hope it comes down to a fight between the two.

I agree 100%. I both hope and think (dangerous combo when betting) that it will be between those two.

I think Leadsom's best hope is if the MP vote goes two or three rounds i.e. the no hopers don't drop straight out. She could do with some momentum.

MikeK said:

JackW said:

MikeK said:

You are all forgetting that Cameron, himself, was completely unknown to the mass of party members and the general public before he was elected leader. True, he made a mess of it in the end.

Cameron was elected LotO. This is for PM.

Leadsom - the UKIP, Banks, MikeK and Daily Express favoured candidate. Four black spots !! ..

Don't forget IDS. What you will be electing in May is an Autocrat in the Tzarina mode; she will tramp allover the Tory party with her favourite slippers. You wait and see.

IDS .... couldn't hear him. Turn up the volume mate ....

I'm not "electing" anyone as indeed most of PB won't be, that is if the race even gets to the members stage.

I support May because of this field she is, by a distance, the standout candidate to become the best PM. It's a no brainer. Crabb and Leadsom are placing markers for the future. Brutus is a busted flush and Fox's candidature is a triumph of lunacy over reality.

CarlottaVance said:

There was no "bio" to her Chemistry, thank you very much...

Fair enough, my mistake, based on limited knowledge of her application (unsuccessful) to ICI.

The only biology involved was in getting the money to retrain as a barrister

Moses_ said:

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

A record 682,000 EU immigrants came to Germany last year.

Germany now has 4.1 million EU migrants, UK 3.1 and France 2.2. The issue isnt going away.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/europaeische-union/zuwanderung-so-viele-eu-auslaender-wie-nie-ziehen-nach-deutschland-14320208.html

Which is why the whole continent needs a new settlement. Dave was stupid to try and get Britain some special status. He should have tried to reform the idea to shift it back to Labour and to exclude benefits for a year.

This would be my way of doing it. Increase the waiting days from 90 to 360, NI numbers are only given to those who have confirmed jobs, waiting days start counting when the NI number is received. It's a fair solution whereby people can still work overseas, but the state isn't left subsidising low wages for foreign nationals.

People are now circling the elephant in the room.

One of the final acts that resulted in Brexit was Merkel's unilateral decision to invite all and sundry ( not just refugees) to Germany. She never consulted with the other leaders particularly the leaders of the countries through which these people would transit. She never prepared places for them to go or the finance and infrastructure to support them and she never considered that it would not be just refugees that would come. We then all saw what happened.

Cameron on the other hand realised the issues and went all out for help at the camps in safe areas something the UK had been financing pretty much itself for quite a while.

It was the failure of the EU to identify true refugees from simple economic migrants that caused much concern. The failure meant that the true refugees could not be targeted for the help and our protection they really desperately needed and more time was spent on building border, controls fences and picking up dead bodies from the Med.

It is completely ironic that the most democratic person who had the correct approach has now had to resign from office having been proved entirely correct. On the other hand the on who considers herself the leader of Europe remains in office along with the unelected sycophants in Brussels. They all failed those most in need when they needed it most and they will have to live with that though I suspect they don't really care.

I agree - when the history of what led to Brexit is written Cameron & Merkel's approaches to the refugee question will be seen as an important factor.

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Hailsham was stitched up by Macmillian, though, and there isn't anyone in a comparable position who could knife May.

Hailsham was blocked by MPs, not Macmillan. It was Butler Macmillan was trying to stitch up.

Macmillian promised Hailsham his full support 2 days before - and then persuaded Douglas Hume he should go for it (while simultaneously asking him to manage the sounding process)

Because in the interim it had become evident to Macmillan that Hailsham would be unable to form a cabinet. Home found it difficult enough. Not that either would have been in the running had Macmillan endorsed Butler. The whole charade was designed to keep Butler out of No. 10.

Butler was dead long before that.

Macmillian lied to Hailsham's face and then afterwards kept up protestations that he had supported Hailsham despite all evidence to the contrary

(Quintin was my mentor when I was growing up, so I acknowledge I may have only heard one side of the story!)

That's interesting and I had no idea Hogg was so bitter about it. Butler was certainly not dead at any point. Indeed, even after the Queen had appointed Home Butler's supporters nearly forced Home to turn down the commission in Butler's favour by refusing to serve (ironically it was Hailsham's decision to join the Home government that led Butler's faction to down arms).

Powell's critique of Butler's actions (or inactions) in opting to serve under Home (which Powell of course didn't, so hardly an unbiased source) is beautiful.

anotherDave said:

HYUFD said:

Polls have just closed in Australia in the general election there and election night coverage has started on ABC, link here
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/

I was astonished to read yesterday that Australia's had 5 PMs in 6 years. How did I miss that?

Is that including Kevin Rudd twice as he had two goes?

Quite a contrast to Howard's eleven years though.

GIN1138 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Successors in midstream since WW2:

Eden (previously Foreign Secretary)
Macmillan (previously Chancellor)
Home (previously Foreign Secretary)
Callaghan (previously Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary)
Major (previously Foreign Secretary and Chancellor)
Brown (previously Chancellor)

All the candidates other than Theresa May are woefully lacking in the necessary top level experience to take over the top job. The Conservatives are going to need a truly exceptional reason to pick anyone else. I can't see one.

Other than Macmillan, despite their experience, they were all disasters and completely useless Prime Ministers?

Douglas-Home is rather underrated as a prime minister. He only served for a year, so it's hardly surprising that he's forgotten, but in that time he stabilised the government and came close to winning an election which looked out of the question during the dog days of Macmillan's term. He certainly wasn't a failure. You could argue that Callaghan, given the circumstances bequeathed him, wasn't dissimilar.

peter_from_putney said:

We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think.
Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.

At PMQs, he faces Jeremy Corbyn (and various emailers) in a format that favours the Prime Minister in any case. Even against Ed Miliband, David Cameron looked less impressive. Will history be kind to him? Harold Wilson's stock has risen over recent years but not any others.

kle4 said:

GIN1138 said:

JennyFreeman said:

malcolmg said:

JennyFreeman said:

Scott_P said:

@RupertMyers: I'm not sure you can avoid both a leadership contest and a snap general election. One or the other. https://t.co/tF4qdOfiCg

Again, nonsense.

We don't need a GE. The country voted Brexit and it will now be the job of the administration to deliver it. There is no requirement or merit in a GE except if the Tories think they can rout Labour.

They will be forced into it, a PM chosen by a few blue rinse Tories will not go down well. People are most unhappy with politicians and having some nonentity foisted on them will not go down well. Given how perfidious the Tories are though, they may well brass neck it and wait till turfed out in 2020.

No they won't. There's absolutely no constitutional need whatsoever for a GE and, indeed, no legal likelihood of one.

Regardless of your wishes it won't happen. The Tories will rally round whoever is elected. Well, unless it's Crabb or Fox but they are no-hopers.

The main reason why I'd not rule out an election is to allow the Tories to increase their majority.

Remember Camerons majority is only 12 and we can assume BREXIT will need several votes in the Commons (we can also assume the HoL will attempt to block Brexit at every turn) A bigger majority than 12 would certainly help the government in what is likely to be a highly challenging and difficult Parliament.

The House of Lords blocking Brexit woukd see it forced through anyway and the immediate reformation of the chamber,

With the likes of Lord Mandelson and Lord Helseltine sitting in the Lords, I have absolutely no confidence they won't try and block Brexit whenever they can.

First results coming in from Australia - seats won so far L/NP 17 Lab 2 Oth 2

DecrepitJohnL said:

peter_from_putney said:

We're due another "Great Prime Minister" .... it's a once in a generation thing I rather think.
Cameron has been OK, but certainly not "great", absolutely brilliant at presentation ..... watching him at PMQs these days, it's like he's got hundreds of MPs of all parties in the palm of his hand, a truly masterful performer, totally on top of his brief, but otherwise he's just OK at best.

At PMQs, he faces Jeremy Corbyn (and various emailers) in a format that favours the Prime Minister in any case. Even against Ed Miliband, David Cameron looked less impressive. Will history be kind to him? Harold Wilson's stock has risen over recent years but not any others.

For the coalition years, yes I think Cameron's stock will rise

kle4 said:

david_herdson said:

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

volcanopete said:

It is absolutely crucial in the national interest that Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of The Opposition for the publication of Chilcot.I hope non-Corbyn supporters will agree,he is the right man,in the right place,at the right time to take truth to power.The country needs Jeremy Corbyn.

I have been convinced for some time Jez is going to do a spectacular at the despatch box. The recent pressure on him would make someone without such a mission throw in the towel long before now.

It's my thought that on publication of Chilcott he will stand at the despatch box and name Blair and call for his arrest. jeze's own life and being has been anti war and he is not Rooney and miss the absolutely massive opportunity of this open goal. He can also destroy the remaining Blairites by association. The party will spilt and you will have the extreme left and rump Labour.

Meanwhile, May will be elected as Tory leader and the second Female PM for the Tories who will then appoint Leadsom to the COTE position the first female chancellor. Gove will get the home office which will be ideal to deal with the various Brext issues.

However, what to do about a problem called Boris?

It's started already....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670751/MPs-say-ll-use-ancient-law-impeach-Tony-Blair-misleading-Parliament-Iraq-war-wake-Chilcot-report.html

.........maybe? In today's political turmoil who knows what might happen today let alone next week.

Impeachment? Is that different from an act of attainder?

Impeach who? How?

That Mail article on Blair.

How can he be impeached when he holds no office?

Arguably, he *should* have been impeached in 2004, when it was clear that he'd misled parliament into backing war in Iraq, but that boat has long since sailed.

Alanbrooke said:

Carwyn Jones must go.

He's spoiling the all woman line up

Head of state - Woman
PM - woman
FM Scotland - woman
FM N I - woman
FM Wales - man

he could at least declare himself transgender and not spoil the party.

Spot which one's Labour.

Latest Crick tally of tallies (adding ConHome, Spectator & ITV names): May 102; Gove 26; Crabb 23; Leadsom 20; Fox 11; 148 unknownhttps://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/749158980971364352