politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Polling boost for May ahead of the 2nd round of MP voting –
Options
Comments
-
We had 3 yrs of virtual non leadership from Gordon Brown. Dave is in situ. I think 6 weeks will pass soon enough..0
-
The one common thread from all the various posts about Labour through from yesterday evening is that for the next five years and probably longer, maybe even for good, Labour appears doomed.0
-
Corbyn was not the only one opposed to the war, indeed it was Robin Cook from the heart of New Labour who led the parliamentary opposition in the Labour party, with Charles Kennedy being the main national party leader opposed.MonikerDiCanio said:
Corbyn was right , Blair was wrong. One of the reasons Blairites like yourself can't forgive Jeremy and want him gone. Luckily he's untouchable.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
The 45 minute claim was absurd. At the time it was obvious that Blair had promised Bush that he would support him in invading Iraq.SquareRoot said:
It was the 45 minute claim to that frightened most people inc me . Wasn't it all over the Evening Standard that day.SouthamObserver said:
I supported the war and the truth is I chose not to listen to the many very well-informed people who opposed it. That was my choice and I have to take responsibility for it. As the article makes clear, it's not as if Blair's way of operating was unknown in 2003. I could and should have given more weight to what the likes of Robin Cook and Ken Clarke were saying. I decided not to. It was my call.foxinsoxuk said:
I remember the days where the yellow press were warmongering. It is too simple to just blame Blair though he certainly is guilty of abusing his position. Parliament voted for war, and the Tories were particularly keen.SouthamObserver said:Good article on us, Blair and Iraq. Some uncomfortable truths to ponder ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/tony-blair-did-not-bewitch-us-into-backing-war-in-iraq-we-let-hi/
We were lied to.
Robin Cook, Charles Kennedy (and the libdems) and Ken Clarke are the only ones who come out of this with credit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-charles-kennedys-legendary-speech-8357792
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robin-cooks-powerful-resignation-speech-8357795
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8194000/8194251.stm
Corbyn was for once on the right side of the argument, but for the wrong reasons. He has consistently sided with the enemies of the British armed forces and state whatever the situation. He has opposed almost every action of both Tory, Coalition and Labour government. He is an oppositionist, capable of organising a protest, but with neither the vision nor the leadership ability to generate an alternative manifesto or programme of action.0 -
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
0 -
Beckett in particular deserves tar and feathers. She was around when Militant was the enemy within. Who else of that vintage loaned a nomination?MarqueeMark said:
Corbyn is safe now until Conference, when things will get a whole lot worse for anybody wanting to challenge the Hard Left.IanB2 said:
80% wishful thinking, sorry. Again, you are of course right, but trying to write the story of a universe parallel to the one we are actually in.
Never mind the cleverness of the members. If these potential Titans of the different wings of the party a) existed, b) were clever and c) bought your story, then all they had to do was gather the nominations and stand. Instead they went to tremendous trouble to choreograph hourly resignations spread over two days, then realise they hadn't a clue what to do next, then start talking about putting up some no-hoper like Angela Eagle, bigging her up as "strong and resolute" the very day after she had burst into tears on live television, then realise this strategy was doomed, then slink away in humiliation. So the vast majority of this PLP to whom you look for salvation have just demonstrated to everyone else that they have not a clue.
The Labour Party of the PLP is dead. And they killed it themselves. Those handful of MPs with some romanticised notion of fair play, that all wings of the party should have a voice in the leadership election. Margaret Beckett, Jo Cox, a tiny number of others. They looked at poor struggling Jeremy and his worthy but hopeless cause and went, "aw, bless...."
And then saw their party eaten from the inside.
0 -
Deep breaths. Let it all out.felix said:
The kippers are very keen on Leadsom - the Banks machine is working hard - should be more than enough to warn off the Conservative members. If they don't the country is truly f***** - because the person i/c of the country will be one backed by Cash/IDS/Redwood, etc, etc. These people are the ones who really will never stop fighting the EU referendum and quite happy to bring the whole country crashing down in the struggle.anotherDave said:
Conservative members will have the opportunity to see Ms May and Ms Leadsom together at hustings around the country. They will be able to compare the two and make an informed choice.Sandpit said:
Maybe she'll be less unknown after she's spent 20 years in Parliament, 17 on the front bench and six in one of the Great Offices of State.anotherDave said:p.10
Leadsom
Unknown (all): 40%, Con voters: 30%
Don't know, but have heard of. All: 19%, Con voters: 21%
May
Unknown (all): 8%, Con voters: 3%
Don't know, but have heard of. All: 16%, Con voters: 6%
Leadsom can turn her favourables around very quickly. She's just unknown.
The Conservative members are, well, Conservative. They're not going to vote for a complete unknown, especially not when in power and choosing a Prime Minister.
0 -
People weren't worried when it was 1.38 though, since they didn't have €14 million export contractsThreeQuidder said:
It's certainly the view that they should take. Anybody who has travelled to the eurozone even once a year for the last five years has seen big swings in exchange rates and this isn't out of the ordinary.felix said:
Oh dear - you think that's the view they'll take.ThreeQuidder said:
And about the same as summer 2013.felix said:
An awful lot of voters will be on holiday in Europe in July and August - 20/30% lighter in £/€s compared to last summer.CarlottaVance said:
While "Not much tends to happen in August" I fear this August will be different....drifting is not a safe option at the moment!ToryJim said:
Sympathise with that but the timetable is set. Not much tends to happen in August so I'm fairly comfortable with September. Mass postal ballots of members are difficult to do in ultra short timescales.CarlottaVance said:
If we aren't to have a coronation better to bring the ballot forward - September is too long to wait.ToryJim said:
In an ideal world yes, but that ship sailed. The final ballot will feature a decent shout for PM and one of two people who are egregiously unsuitable. It's probably why there are calls for a coronation.JennyFreeman said:
Everything about that makes me want to vomit.MikeL said:May supporters surely now know that if they get Gove into the Final then May has won.
Why on earth they want to take a risk on allowing Leadsom to build momentum and then the members doing a "Corbyn" I can't imagine.
They will kick themselves if they allow Leadsom into the Final and she then goes on to win.
Have you and Cameron's cronies learned nothing from the EU Referendum fiasco? In the age of social media people are not idiots. If you treat them as fools prepare to look foolish.
The ballot should be of the two best candidates for the job. Period.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
I agree a truncated contest, given the circumstances, may well be wise.
Utterly OT, but I've been considering getting The Witcher 3's DLC [which would be a first, for me]. However, a Game of the Year Edition will be released, so I'll likely hold on for that. Just mentioning it in case anyone else was in the same boat and prefers a GOTY version to original+DLC.0 -
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.0 -
I'm really rather concerned that May will attempt to fudge the terms of Leave so much that it resembles Remain in all but name.Sean_F said:
That's one scenario, certainly, in which UKIP could prosper. Conservative voters in the Thames Estuary, East Anglia, or West Midlands probably weren't voting Leave because they wish to prioritise the interests of the City.Indigo said:
When Ms May goes for full fat EEA with Freedom of Movement and opts into every EU body in sight, as seems likely, the UKIP leader won't have to do much more than stand looking incredulous and point at her to see their membership double.JosiasJessop said:
But what is UKIP? They seem to have managed to break the traditional landscape of UK politics, as have the SNP in Scotland, by appealing to voters of both the left and right. The new UKIP leader will have to try to maintain that same disparate group together. It's possible, as the SNP have shown.ToryJim said:
I have issues with Leadsom such as her barely passing acquaintance with honesty, her inexperience and the cultish behaviour of her groupies. UKIP she is not though.JosiasJessop said:Here's a cheeky (and silly) scenario:
May supporters keep Leadsom off ballot; Leadsom cries foul, isn't listened to, and decamps to UKIP, perhaps with one or two other MPs. She then becomes UKIP's new leader.
Meanwhile. Carswell sobs quietly on the seawall at Jaywick.
The new UKIP leader could be from anywhere in that broad coalition: he or she just needs to be able to appeal to the rest.
Should Labour figure how to sold a problem like Jeremy in the next year or so the Tories are in deep shit in that case, they will lose seats to the kippers, and have created a terribly bad stink around their leadership generally from all the lies and evasions around the referendum campaign. With a continuity Cameron leader, if the economy does okay they will get a kicking because of all the bullshit about armageddon, if it does badly they will get a kicking because they are at the helm, lose lose.
If that happens - all the discontent will return with knobs on. Too many in the Remain camp haven't and won't accept that they lost - and see May as the mechanism to subvert the result. I hope I'm wrong.0 -
Not very paradoxical. Imagine being in Bokassa's dungeon on 19 September 1979.TOPPING said:
That paradox is one of my favourites. The EU Is a huge and bullying supranational body riding roughshod over member states' interests, especially the UK's; but is on the verge of falling apart any minute and especially once the UK has left.JosiasJessop said:
To some extent I agree.Indigo said:
When Ms May goes for full fat EEA with Freedom of Movement and opts into every EU body in sight, as seems likely, the UKIP leader won't have to do much more than stand looking incredulous and point at her to see their membership double.JosiasJessop said:
But what is UKIP? They seem to have managed to break the traditional landscape of UK politics, as have the SNP in Scotland, by appealing to voters of both the left and right. The new UKIP leader will have to try to maintain that same disparate group together. It's possible, as the SNP have shown.ToryJim said:
I have issues with Leadsom such as her barely passing acquaintance with honesty, her inexperience and the cultish behaviour of her groupies. UKIP she is not though.JosiasJessop said:Here's a cheeky (and silly) scenario:
May supporters keep Leadsom off ballot; Leadsom cries foul, isn't listened to, and decamps to UKIP, perhaps with one or two other MPs. She then becomes UKIP's new leader.
Meanwhile. Carswell sobs quietly on the seawall at Jaywick.
The new UKIP leader could be from anywhere in that broad coalition: he or she just needs to be able to appeal to the rest.
Should Labour figure how to sold a problem like Jeremy in the next year or so the Tories are in deep shit in that case, they will lose seats to the kippers, and have created a terribly bad stink around their leadership generally from all the lies and evasions around the referendum campaign. With a continuity Cameron leader, if the economy does okay they will get a kicking because of all the bullshit about armageddon, if it does badly they will get a kicking because they are at the helm, lose lose.
The full-withdrawal solution (which was what both leave campaigns campaigned on) will be disastrous to the economy, and cost the jobs not just of the hated migrants, but of many people who believed UKIP when they said it was the answer.
UKIP *may* get hurt as people realise that migrants were not the cause of every problem facing the country.
As an aside, I see the EU becoming increasingly popular over the years post-leave, with the caveat that depends on the EU not failing itself.0 -
deleted0
-
People just don't think that way - they'll view it rightly against a back drop of increasing economic woes that are likely to get worse at least in the short-term, with an uncertain political backdrop.ThreeQuidder said:
It's certainly the view that they should take. Anybody who has travelled to the eurozone even once a year for the last five years has seen big swings in exchange rates and this isn't out of the ordinary.felix said:
Oh dear - you think that's the view they'll take.ThreeQuidder said:
And about the same as summer 2013.felix said:
An awful lot of voters will be on holiday in Europe in July and August - 20/30% lighter in £/€s compared to last summer.CarlottaVance said:
While "Not much tends to happen in August" I fear this August will be different....drifting is not a safe option at the moment!ToryJim said:
Sympathise with that but the timetable is set. Not much tends to happen in August so I'm fairly comfortable with September. Mass postal ballots of members are difficult to do in ultra short timescales.CarlottaVance said:
If we aren't to have a coronation better to bring the ballot forward - September is too long to wait.ToryJim said:
In an ideal world yes, but that ship sailed. The final ballot will feature a decent shout for PM and one of two people who are egregiously unsuitable. It's probably why there are calls for a coronation.JennyFreeman said:
Everything about that makes me want to vomit.MikeL said:May supporters surely now know that if they get Gove into the Final then May has won.
Why on earth they want to take a risk on allowing Leadsom to build momentum and then the members doing a "Corbyn" I can't imagine.
They will kick themselves if they allow Leadsom into the Final and she then goes on to win.
Have you and Cameron's cronies learned nothing from the EU Referendum fiasco? In the age of social media people are not idiots. If you treat them as fools prepare to look foolish.
The ballot should be of the two best candidates for the job. Period.0 -
@Platosaid Are you saying the Tory civil war on europe won't ever end ?0
-
I see Lord Howard has taken leave of his senses.0
-
I can relax away from it all here in the Spanish sun with plenty of euros in the bank and petrol prices still falling. But thanks for your concern. My family coming over in August may not be so sanguine.anotherDave said:
Deep breaths. Let it all out.felix said:
The kippers are very keen on Leadsom - the Banks machine is working hard - should be more than enough to warn off the Conservative members. If they don't the country is truly f***** - because the person i/c of the country will be one backed by Cash/IDS/Redwood, etc, etc. These people are the ones who really will never stop fighting the EU referendum and quite happy to bring the whole country crashing down in the struggle.anotherDave said:
Conservative members will have the opportunity to see Ms May and Ms Leadsom together at hustings around the country. They will be able to compare the two and make an informed choice.Sandpit said:
Maybe she'll be less unknown after she's spent 20 years in Parliament, 17 on the front bench and six in one of the Great Offices of State.anotherDave said:p.10
Leadsom
Unknown (all): 40%, Con voters: 30%
Don't know, but have heard of. All: 19%, Con voters: 21%
May
Unknown (all): 8%, Con voters: 3%
Don't know, but have heard of. All: 16%, Con voters: 6%
Leadsom can turn her favourables around very quickly. She's just unknown.
The Conservative members are, well, Conservative. They're not going to vote for a complete unknown, especially not when in power and choosing a Prime Minister.0 -
UKIP have not appealed to any left-wing voters. What they have done is to demonstrate that Labour (under Blair) were able to secure the support of a considerable number of right-wingers. In shire England I doubt one vote in four is actually left of centre and in the big cities Labour continues to attract right-wing votes - because they're also non-white votes.PlatoSaid said:
I'm really rather concerned that May will attempt to fudge the terms of Leave so much that it resembles Remain in all but name.Sean_F said:
That's one scenario, certainly, in which UKIP could prosper. Conservative voters in the Thames Estuary, East Anglia, or West Midlands probably weren't voting Leave because they wish to prioritise the interests of the City.Indigo said:
When Ms May goes for full fat EEA with Freedom of Movement and opts into every EU body in sight, as seems likely, the UKIP leader won't have to do much more than stand looking incredulous and point at her to see their membership double.JosiasJessop said:
But what is UKIP? They seem to have managed to break the traditional landscape of UK politics, as have the SNP in Scotland, by appealing to voters of both the left and right. The new UKIP leader will have to try to maintain that same disparate group together. It's possible, as the SNP have shown.ToryJim said:
I have issues with Leadsom such as her barely passing acquaintance with honesty, her inexperience and the cultish behaviour of her groupies. UKIP she is not though.JosiasJessop said:Here's a cheeky (and silly) scenario:
May supporters keep Leadsom off ballot; Leadsom cries foul, isn't listened to, and decamps to UKIP, perhaps with one or two other MPs. She then becomes UKIP's new leader.
Meanwhile. Carswell sobs quietly on the seawall at Jaywick.
The new UKIP leader could be from anywhere in that broad coalition: he or she just needs to be able to appeal to the rest.
Should Labour figure how to sold a problem like Jeremy in the next year or so the Tories are in deep shit in that case, they will lose seats to the kippers, and have created a terribly bad stink around their leadership generally from all the lies and evasions around the referendum campaign. With a continuity Cameron leader, if the economy does okay they will get a kicking because of all the bullshit about armageddon, if it does badly they will get a kicking because they are at the helm, lose lose.
If that happens - all the discontent will return with knobs on. Too many in the Remain camp haven't and won't accept that they lost - and see May as the mechanism to subvert the result. I hope I'm wrong.
0 -
Not really (OP). The £ used to be well above €1.3 until the crash of 2008, which hit the £ particularly badly as people fled to the $ and the U.K. was seen as particularly vulnerable because of our debt levels. The collapse of the £/€ during that period is the only event really comparable to the last fortnight. The story since the crash has been a gradual if fluctuating recovery toward €1.3 as the eurozone's troubles became more evident. Now in a few short days we are back to the bottom again. Given the magnitude of the recent change I would expect a lot of regular travellers to notice.Pulpstar said:
People weren't worried when it was 1.38 though, since they didn't have €14 million export contractsThreeQuidder said:
It's certainly the view that they should take. Anybody who has travelled to the eurozone even once a year for the last five years has seen big swings in exchange rates and this isn't out of the ordinary.felix said:
Oh dear - you think that's the view they'll take.ThreeQuidder said:
And about the same as summer 2013.felix said:
An awful lot of voters will be on holiday in Europe in July and August - 20/30% lighter in £/€s compared to last summer.CarlottaVance said:
While "Not much tends to happen in August" I fear this August will be different....drifting is not a safe option at the moment!0 -
This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)0 -
In that case May must let nature take its course today and not try to manipulate the result. In fact, if this is about securing a mandate, she should hope she faces Leadsom in the run off.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.
Of course, should the unthinkable happen, then I'm sure Andrea will have no trouble from her MPs...0 -
The need for exports is always trotted out to justify devaluing your currency - let's see how much they grow after this boost and how much imports of staples like oil fall away. Devaluation is a classic cover for companies with inefficient operations who are happy for domestic consumers to take the hit for their own failings.Pulpstar said:
People weren't worried when it was 1.38 though, since they didn't have €14 million export contractsThreeQuidder said:
It's certainly the view that they should take. Anybody who has travelled to the eurozone even once a year for the last five years has seen big swings in exchange rates and this isn't out of the ordinary.felix said:
Oh dear - you think that's the view they'll take.ThreeQuidder said:
And about the same as summer 2013.felix said:
An awful lot of voters will be on holiday in Europe in July and August - 20/30% lighter in £/€s compared to last summer.CarlottaVance said:
While "Not much tends to happen in August" I fear this August will be different....drifting is not a safe option at the moment!ToryJim said:
Sympathise with that but the timetable is set. Not much tends to happen in August so I'm fairly comfortable with September. Mass postal ballots of members are difficult to do in ultra short timescales.CarlottaVance said:
If we aren't to have a coronation better to bring the ballot forward - September is too long to wait.ToryJim said:
In an ideal world yes, but that ship sailed. The final ballot will feature a decent shout for PM and one of two people who are egregiously unsuitable. It's probably why there are calls for a coronation.JennyFreeman said:
Everything about that makes me want to vomit.MikeL said:May supporters surely now know that if they get Gove into the Final then May has won.
Why on earth they want to take a risk on allowing Leadsom to build momentum and then the members doing a "Corbyn" I can't imagine.
They will kick themselves if they allow Leadsom into the Final and she then goes on to win.
Have you and Cameron's cronies learned nothing from the EU Referendum fiasco? In the age of social media people are not idiots. If you treat them as fools prepare to look foolish.
The ballot should be of the two best candidates for the job. Period.0 -
This is the issue
@bbcnickrobinson: Fear = key factor in final Tory leadership ballot. Ardent leavers fear of stitch up under May -v- modernisers fear of coup led by Leadsome
This is a time of National peril. A UKIP coup is not in the national interest.0 -
It's sad when people get old and lose their marblesScott_P said:This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)0 -
That is correct - I think the country needs a GE and hopefully a result which gives the winner a strong mandate. 12 is not going to cut it in some of the very difficult votes which lie ahead.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.0 -
Lilico makes the point that a Remain supporter would be trying to make the best of a bad job, rather than seeing leaving the EU as an opportunity.PlatoSaid said:
I'm really rather concerned that May will attempt to fudge the terms of Leave so much that it resembles Remain in all but name.
If that happens - all the discontent will return with knobs on. Too many in the Remain camp haven't and won't accept that they lost - and see May as the mechanism to subvert the result. I hope I'm wrong.
http://www.andrewlilico.com/2016/07/02/the-next-pm-needs-to-be-someone-in-favour-of-leaving-the-eu/
That said, I think politics will push even a Leave PM towards the smallest step away from the EU. Placating Ms Sturgeon, and easing the transition to life outside the EU, seem to be pointing towards EFTA/EEA.
But freedom of movement has to be a red line for the UK. That has to change.
0 -
My worry is how things go in the campaign . We know leadsome can come across well, we know may has the baggage that cones from years of high office, and she is the one most vulnerable to unexpected occurrences or slipping up somehow, particularly as she needs to be careful what she says around Brexit - for all she knows Brexit means Brexit, she was a remainer and though people seem to looming past that, say the wrong t thing that gets misinterpreted and suddenly drives if votes go for the leaver.IanB2 said:
I sense the same. Whilst ConHome and conversations with a few councillors suggests that Leadsom will get some support in activist circles, the majority of armchair members (and given their age the armchair is the usual habitat for most of them) will go for May.ToryJim said:
Ms Vance - having had a few conversations with my network of Conservatives I'm of the opinion that whoever is on the ballot against May will get a shellacking. I'm increasingly comforted that the Tory party will make the obvious choice.CarlottaVance said:
Much as I think Leadsom is far from ready for the PM role (and may never be, we simply don't know yet) Gove is such damaged goods a final between him & May will stink to high heaven.JennyFreeman said:
Everything about that makes me want to vomit.MikeL said:May supporters surely now know that if they get Gove into the Final then May has won.
Why on earth they want to take a risk on allowing Leadsom to build momentum and then the members doing a "Corbyn" I can't imagine.
They will kick themselves if they allow Leadsom into the Final and she then goes on to win.
Have you and Cameron's cronies learned nothing from the EU Referendum fiasco? In the age of social media people are not idiots. If you treat them as fools prepare to look foolish.
The ballot should be of the two best candidates for the job. Period.
We trusted UK voters over BREXIT, time to trust Con members over the Premiership.
That said I fear a Leadsome administration will be a disaster as she so clearly does not enjoy the support of the HoC. But I am looking forward to the IDS lectures on "loyalty"!0 -
In one sense, the next PM is lucky. She knows the one issue on which she'll be judged before she starts. If she is successful there, she will have been a good PM.
Who'd achieve the best Brexit deal for Britain? I can't think it would be May, because her heart won't be in it.
If you over-promote someone, they almost always grow into their management responsibilities. But their negotiating skills seldom improve very much.0 -
You mean Angela is not going to challenge him thenMonikerDiCanio said:
Corbyn was right , Blair was wrong. One of the reasons Blairites like yourself can't forgive Jeremy and want him gone. Luckily he's untouchable.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
The 45 minute claim was absurd. At the time it was obvious that Blair had promised Bush that he would support him in invading Iraq.SquareRoot said:
It was the 45 minute claim to that frightened most people inc me . Wasn't it all over the Evening Standard that day.SouthamObserver said:
I supported the war and the truth is I chose not to listen to the many very well-informed people who opposed it. That was my choice and I have to take responsibility for it. As the article makes clear, it's not as if Blair's way of operating was unknown in 2003. I could and should have given more weight to what the likes of Robin Cook and Ken Clarke were saying. I decided not to. It was my call.foxinsoxuk said:
I remember the days where the yellow press were warmongering. It is too simple to just blame Blair though he certainly is guilty of abusing his position. Parliament voted for war, and the Tories were particularly keen.SouthamObserver said:Good article on us, Blair and Iraq. Some uncomfortable truths to ponder ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/tony-blair-did-not-bewitch-us-into-backing-war-in-iraq-we-let-hi/
We were lied to.
Robin Cook, Charles Kennedy (and the libdems) and Ken Clarke are the only ones who come out of this with credit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-charles-kennedys-legendary-speech-8357792
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robin-cooks-powerful-resignation-speech-8357795
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8194000/8194251.stm0 -
That is exactly my view.tlg86 said:
In that case May must let nature take its course today and not try to manipulate the result. In fact, if this is about securing a mandate, she should hope she faces Leadsom in the run off.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.
Of course, should the unthinkable happen, then I'm sure Andrea will have no trouble from her MPs...
I imagine that Prime Minister Leadsom would see her government collapse in ignominy in months. Governments can't have Farewell Symphonies.0 -
very funny Jonathan Pie video doing the rounds which I'm sure we've all seen.
Edit: now that I come to think about it, has anyone seen Jonathan Pie and @SouthamObserver in the same room together?0 -
Really hoping Leadsom doesn't make the last 2 so we can see if headbangers like Simon Richards and BHQ can bugger off to UKIP.0
-
Surely it's more that if something urgent comes up a PM who is not without any authority might be a good idea.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
Personally I think we can wait, but it doesn't seem necessary. A couple of weeks to original to print and mail out the ballots, maximum, a couple of weeks to return them, done.0 -
Given the past performance of what one might loosely call "the bastards" is it likely that even an overwhelming May victory will shut them up? Moral certainty gives something of a religious fervour.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.0 -
The electorate she's trying to win over are Conservative Party members. IDS and Howard are good endorsements.Scott_P said:This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)
0 -
I expected a certain level of denial/bargaining over the result - but we're almost two weeks on and a lot of Remainers with power/influence believe they can still circumvent it with lawyerly language or fixes or feigning negotiations a la Cameron.Pulpstar said:@Platosaid Are you saying the Tory civil war on europe won't ever end ?
It's a very EU-style mindset. And it will backfire all over the Tories - MPs, members and voters. The levels of distrust are already sky high. It won't take much backsliding/weaseling to set the whole debate alight.0 -
Can the Tory party get on with it please?Their excuse for democracy is delaying pay out.There are hungry mouths that need feeding.0
-
Since the ultra version of Leave will likely impoverish the country for many years it is a fight which will clearly continue. The Leave campaign won with 52% as an alliance. Many of those voters would be perfectly content with and EEA/EFTA variant and at least an element of FM. You cannot talk of subverting a result which even now persists in offering no clear idea of what future it wants.PlatoSaid said:
I'm really rather concerned that May will attempt to fudge the terms of Leave so much that it resembles Remain in all but name.Sean_F said:
That's one scenario, certainly, in which UKIP could prosper. Conservative voters in the Thames Estuary, East Anglia, or West Midlands probably weren't voting Leave because they wish to prioritise the interests of the City.Indigo said:
When Ms May goes for full fat EEA with Freedom of Movement and opts into every EU body in sight, as seems likely, the UKIP leader won't have to do much more than stand looking incredulous and point at her to see their membership double.JosiasJessop said:
But what is UKIP? They seem to have managed to break the traditional landscape of UK politics, as have the SNP in Scotland, by appealing to voters of both the left and right. The new UKIP leader will have to try to maintain that same disparate group together. It's possible, as the SNP have shown.ToryJim said:
I have issues with Leadsom such as her barely passing acquaintance with honesty, her inexperience and the cultish behaviour of her groupies. UKIP she is not though.JosiasJessop said:Here's a cheeky (and silly) scenario:
May supporters keep Leadsom off ballot; Leadsom cries foul, isn't listened to, and decamps to UKIP, perhaps with one or two other MPs. She then becomes UKIP's new leader.
Meanwhile. Carswell sobs quietly on the seawall at Jaywick.
The new UKIP leader could be from anywhere in that broad coalition: he or she just needs to be able to appeal to the rest.
Should Labour figure how to sold a problem like Jeremy in the next year or so the Tories are in deep shit in that case, they will lose seats to the kippers, and have created a terribly bad stink around their leadership generally from all the lies and evasions around the referendum campaign. With a continuity Cameron leader, if the economy does okay they will get a kicking because of all the bullshit about armageddon, if it does badly they will get a kicking because they are at the helm, lose lose.
If that happens - all the discontent will return with knobs on. Too many in the Remain camp haven't and won't accept that they lost - and see May as the mechanism to subvert the result. I hope I'm wrong.0 -
If something truly urgent comes up, the incumbent will do the job perfectly well.kle4 said:
Surely it's more that if something urgent comes up a PM who is not without any authority might be a good idea.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
Personally I think we can wait, but it doesn't seem necessary. A couple of weeks to original to print and mail out the ballots, maximum, a couple of weeks to return them, done.0 -
No. But a 1000/1 shot becomes a 20/1 shot.matt said:
Given the past performance of what one might loosely call "the bastards" is it likely that even an overwhelming May victory will shut them up? Moral certainty gives something of a religious fervour.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.0 -
The "deal" Leadsom pitched in the campaign is fantasy. She would fail utterly own her own terms. Meanwhile the country would be even further destabilised.david_kendrick1 said:Who'd achieve the best Brexit deal for Britain? I can't think it would be May, because her heart won't be in it.
0 -
Nothing will shut them up ..ever.matt said:
Given the past performance of what one might loosely call "the bastards" is it likely that even an overwhelming May victory will shut them up? Moral certainty gives something of a religious fervour.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.0 -
Mad Bad Al on the BBC reminding everybody what a straight kinda of guy he is....apparently Tony not to blame, it was the nasty Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.0
-
I was opposed to the Iraq war because the people in charge were suffering from serious wishful thinking and had no plan for how to achieve the civic society they promised would be the result of the war. The result was likely to be worse even than Saddam's oppression. The much repeated "doing nothing is not an option" wasn't a sensible policy. If change is worse than the status quo, you should always stick with the status quo.
The similar false prospectus and probable outcomes that are worse than what we have already are broadly my reasons for opposing Brexit. Because of Brexit and aspects of history repeating itself, as we speak, I am less involved in Chilcott than I would otherwise be0 -
Its nearly 2 weeks since we've had a PM (he hasn't done much for months really), there'll be a few more weeks then the summer recess. And guess what, the trains will still run, shops will open, police will arrest criminals, people will watch cricket and racing, life will go on. It is PEOPLE that run the country, not useless politicians.
The man who won 3 GEs is a liar, the 2nd favourite to be next PM is a liar (according to tories) its peculiar that people place so much faith in them.0 -
Mr. Felix, I agree that an EEA/EFTA approach would command a majority in the country (with many Remainers probably being relieved).
However, whether that came to pass would also be a case of party management. May might have a tricky job keeping enough of her party on-side.
What would Labour do if Prime Minister May needed their votes for an EEA/EFTA agreement to pass?0 -
Corbyn was the chairman of an organisation that encouraged Iraqis to kill British soldiers. That's all you need to know about him.foxinsoxuk said:
Corbyn was not the only one opposed to the war, indeed it was Robin Cook from the heart of New Labour who led the parliamentary opposition in the Labour party, with Charles Kennedy being the main national party leader opposed.MonikerDiCanio said:
Corbyn was right , Blair was wrong. One of the reasons Blairites like yourself can't forgive Jeremy and want him gone. Luckily he's untouchable.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
The 45 minute claim was absurd. At the time it was obvious that Blair had promised Bush that he would support him in invading Iraq.SquareRoot said:
It was the 45 minute claim to that frightened most people inc me . Wasn't it all over the Evening Standard that day.SouthamObserver said:
I supported the war and the truth is unknown in 2003. I could and should have given more weight to what the likes of Robin Cook and Ken Clarke were saying. I decided not to. It was my call.foxinsoxuk said:
I remember the days where the yellow press were warmongering. It is too simple to just blame Blair though he certainly is guilty of abusing his position. Parliament voted for war, and the Tories were particularly keen.SouthamObserver said:Good article on us, Blair and Iraq. Some uncomfortable truths to ponder ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/tony-blair-did-not-bewitch-us-into-backing-war-in-iraq-we-let-hi/
We were lied to.
Robin Cook, Charles Kennedy (and the libdems) and Ken Clarke are the only ones who come out of this with credit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-charles-kennedys-legendary-speech-8357792
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robin-cooks-powerful-resignation-speech-8357795
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8194000/8194251.stm
Corbyn was for once on the right side of the argument, but for the wrong reasons. He has consistently sided with the enemies of the British armed forces and state whatever the situation. He has opposed almost every action of both Tory, Coalition and Labour government. He is an oppositionist, capable of organising a protest, but with neither the vision nor the leadership ability to generate an alternative manifesto or programme of action.
0 -
The Sun is on the wrong side of zoology as well as history. Snakes do have spines. Snakes do not have legs. *innocent face*logical_song said:
The Sun over a picture of Charles Kennedy and a snake:SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
The 45 minute claim was absurd. At the time it was obvious that Blair had promised Bush that he would support him in invading Iraq.SquareRoot said:
It was the 45 minute claim to that frightened most people inc me . Wasn't it all over the Evening Standard that day.SouthamObserver said:
I supported the war and the truth is I chose not to listen to the many very well-informed people who opposed it. That was my choice and I have to take responsibility for it. As the article makes clear, it's not as if Blair's way of operating was unknown in 2003. I could and should have given more weight to what the likes of Robin Cook and Ken Clarke were saying. I decided not to. It was my call.foxinsoxuk said:
I remember the days where the yellow press were warmongering. It is too simple to just blame Blair though he certainly is guilty of abusing his position. Parliament voted for war, and the Tories were particularly keen.SouthamObserver said:Good article on us, Blair and Iraq. Some uncomfortable truths to ponder ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/tony-blair-did-not-bewitch-us-into-backing-war-in-iraq-we-let-hi/
We were lied to.
Robin Cook, Charles Kennedy (and the libdems) and Ken Clarke are the only ones who come out of this with credit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-charles-kennedys-legendary-speech-8357792
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robin-cooks-powerful-resignation-speech-8357795
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8194000/8194251.stm
"One is a spineless reptile that spits venom... the other is a snake"
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/remembering-what-the-sun-said-about-charles-kennedys-stance-on-the-iraq-war--ZkzlMM2PUrZ
What a despicable rag - on the wrong side of history again.0 -
It's amusing to see Brexiteers talking of trust.PlatoSaid said:The levels of distrust are already sky high. It won't take much backsliding/weaseling to set the whole debate alight.
The Leave campaign was entirely, completely, utterly, wholly composed of lies.
Brexiteers "trust" their candidate, who can deliver none of things they promised. What will that do to public trust?0 -
Howard maybe, IDS is like poison. Look at where he left the party in 2003. Most members I know don't believe we should go back to the days od IDS.anotherDave said:
The electorate she's trying to win over are Conservative Party members. IDS and Howard are good endorsements.Scott_P said:This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)0 -
In full Peter Snow "just a bit of fun" mode, in the first round each candidate lifted their declared numbers by around half from undeclared MP's.
From the latest Sky News figures of M 169 .. L 51 .. G 28 and 82 undeclared - almost 25% of the electorate. With diminishing undeclared MP's perhaps each candidate might lift their figures by about one third :
May 225 .. Leadsom 68 .. Gove 37
Should I get the family ermine out?
0 -
His belligerent defensive coping mechanism is very peculiar. I turn over whenever he's on. Can't stand him. The first volume of his diaries was very good though.FrancisUrquhart said:Mad Bad Al on the BBC reminding everybody what a straight kinda of guy he is....apparently Tony not to blame, it was the nasty Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
0 -
Agreed - but I think we need a GE pronto. No Tory leader will survive without one - May will struggle and Leadsom/Gove has no chance.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Felix, I agree that an EEA/EFTA approach would command a majority in the country (with many Remainers probably being relieved).
However, whether that came to pass would also be a case of party management. May might have a tricky job keeping enough of her party on-side.
What would Labour do if Prime Minister May needed their votes for an EEA/EFTA agreement to pass?0 -
Eagle might lose her nest;malcolmg said:
You mean Angela is not going to challenge him thenMonikerDiCanio said:
Corbyn was right , Blair was wrong. One of the reasons Blairites like yourself can't forgive Jeremy and want him gone. Luckily he's untouchable.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
The 45 minute claim was absurd. At the time it was obvious that Blair had promised Bush that he would support him in invading Iraq.SquareRoot said:
It was the 45 minute claim to that frightened most people inc me . Wasn't it all over the Evening Standard that day.SouthamObserver said:
I supported the war and the truth is I chose not to listen to the many very well-informed people who opposed it. That was my choice and I have to take responsibility for it. As the article makes clear, it's not as if Blair's way of operating was unknown in 2003. I could and should have given more weight to what the likes of Robin Cook and Ken Clarke were saying. I decided not to. It was my call.foxinsoxuk said:
I remember the days where the yellow press were warmongering. It is too simple to just blame Blair though he certainly is guilty of abusing his position. Parliament voted for war, and the Tories were particularly keen.SouthamObserver said:Good article on us, Blair and Iraq. Some uncomfortable truths to ponder ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/tony-blair-did-not-bewitch-us-into-backing-war-in-iraq-we-let-hi/
We were lied to.
Robin Cook, Charles Kennedy (and the libdems) and Ken Clarke are the only ones who come out of this with credit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-charles-kennedys-legendary-speech-8357792
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/robin-cooks-powerful-resignation-speech-8357795
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/historic_moments/newsid_8194000/8194251.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-eagle-s-constituency-branch-issues-statement-supporting-jeremy-corbyn-as-labour-leader-a7124241.html0 -
We will probably find out, I hope.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Felix, I agree that an EEA/EFTA approach would command a majority in the country (with many Remainers probably being relieved).
However, whether that came to pass would also be a case of party management. May might have a tricky job keeping enough of her party on-side.
What would Labour do if Prime Minister May needed their votes for an EEA/EFTA agreement to pass?0 -
I'd never heard of them and little better off having googled them. Are they MPs and if so would Carswell welcome them?Scrapheap_as_was said:Really hoping Leadsom doesn't make the last 2 so we can see if headbangers like Simon Richards and BHQ can bugger off to UKIP.
0 -
Yes May clearly has the advantage both with Tory voters and the country as a whole now0
-
Mr. L, that's a bloody bizarre mistake for the Sun to make.
Why would they think snakes don't have spines? Almost the whole of a snake is a 'back' based on an enormous spine. There's only that and the head.
Most peculiar.0 -
Indeed. There were honourable and dishonourable reasons for opposing the Iraq war at the time. Robin Cook and Ken Clarke had honourable reasons for doing so. Corbyn did not. He would have opposed the war regardless, even if there had been unchallengeable proof that there were WMD and even if every lawyer in the land had said it was legal and there had been a second UN resolution.foxinsoxuk said:
Corbyn was not the only one opposed to the war, indeed it was Robin Cook from the heart of New Labour who led the parliamentary opposition in the Labour party, with Charles Kennedy being the main national party leader opposed.MonikerDiCanio said:
Corbyn was right , Blair was wrong. One of the reasons Blairites like yourself can't forgive Jeremy and want him gone. Luckily he's untouchable.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
Corbyn was for once on the right side of the argument, but for the wrong reasons. He has consistently sided with the enemies of the British armed forces and state whatever the situation. He has opposed almost every action of both Tory, Coalition and Labour government. He is an oppositionist, capable of organising a protest, but with neither the vision nor the leadership ability to generate an alternative manifesto or programme of action.
However, the effect of Chilcott is that this distinction will be lost and the Hard Left he represents is now unchallengeable in the Labour party unless and until the centre-left/right do some hard thinking about what they are for, of which there is as yet no sign.0 -
Correct. They may well be correct on one particular broad thing, but that is practically by accident. That lot will never be satisfied.felix said:
Nothing will shut them up ..ever.matt said:
Given the past performance of what one might loosely call "the bastards" is it likely that even an overwhelming May victory will shut them up? Moral certainty gives something of a religious fervour.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.
0 -
But surely the big difference is that UKIP have already achieved the primary reason for their party to exist (unlike the SNP)Sean_F said:
UKIP are roughly in the position the SNP were in c. 1992.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - the SNP did the hard slog and built a solid base. There's no sign yet that UKIP is prepared to do that. It may be one reason they find it hard to hold onto council seats they win.david_herdson said:
We should also factor in the SNP's ground game, which UKIP cannot match in equivalent seats in England and Wales. Labour's so-called electoral castles are built on just as rotten bases with no meaningful campaigning activity having taken place for years if not decades but unless UKIP can reach out to the voters on the doorsteps as well as the airwaves, they'll not make the same kind of inroads.SouthamObserver said:
Key to the SNP's success was not only Labour's rottenness, but also it's own tack to the left. What began as essentially a right wing nationalist party became one whose rhetoric was credibly social democratic. To win in Labour heartlands - which are undoubtedly up for grabs with Corbyn in charge - UKIP needs a credible tale to tell on public spending, the NHS and redistributive policies. Being tough on immigration is not going to be enough.JosiasJessop said:
But what is UKIP? They seem to have managed to break the traditional landscape of UK politics, as have the SNP in Scotland, by appealing to voters of both the left and right. The new UKIP leader will have to try to maintain that same disparate group together. It's possible, as the SNP have shown.ToryJim said:
I have issues with Leadsom such as her barely passing acquaintance with honesty, her inexperience and the cultish behaviour of her groupies. UKIP she is not though.JosiasJessop said:Here's a cheeky (and silly) scenario:
May supporters keep Leadsom off ballot; Leadsom cries foul, isn't listened to, and decamps to UKIP, perhaps with one or two other MPs. She then becomes UKIP's new leader.
Meanwhile. Carswell sobs quietly on the seawall at Jaywick.
The new UKIP leader could be from anywhere in that broad coalition: he or she just needs to be able to appeal to the rest.
0 -
Fair enough. A combination of seats with high majorities and not over nuanced thinking means I'm not sure I agree.AlastairMeeks said:
No. But a 1000/1 shot becomes a 20/1 shot.matt said:
Given the past performance of what one might loosely call "the bastards" is it likely that even an overwhelming May victory will shut them up? Moral certainty gives something of a religious fervour.AlastairMeeks said:
The point is to secure an unchallengeable mandate. The new Prime Minister has the same majority as the current Prime Minister: 12. So she will not be able to afford to have any active dissidents at all.tlg86 said:
I wouldn't say that we're panicking, just that they can get this done a lot quicker. Even if May thought she had it in the bag and could focus on planning what she will do once PM, she couldn't risk being seen as complacent. If this goes to the timetable it will be two months of solid campaigning from May and I don't really see the point.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
We have already seen Conservative MPs rebel against the budget and threaten to amend the Queen's Speech. So to keep them subdued the new Prime Minister will need to rely upon unquestioned and very recent authority to set the agenda for the government.
This cannot be got through short cuts. Those suggesting a coronation or a short election are not thinking ahead. The new Prime Minister has an extremely difficult intray.
0 -
Indeed. It's too important to mess around with and take a risk with. They should do all they can to game Gove on to the ballot.MikeL said:May supporters surely now know that if they get Gove into the Final then May has won.
She would beat Gove by an absolute landslide with the members - the Survation poll said over 50% and I would think it would actually be nearer 60% - ie about 80-20.
Why on earth they want to take a risk on allowing Leadsom to build momentum and then the members doing a "Corbyn" I can't imagine.
They will kick themselves if they allow Leadsom into the Final and she then goes on to win.0 -
Whoever is appointed PM or CoE will have an easy ride. If the economy tanks - blame it on Brexit. If it does well - you're a genius.
Poor old Dave and George, on the wrong side of history.0 -
I do not claim any special knowledge of Andrea's negotiating skills.Scott_P said:
The "deal" Leadsom pitched in the campaign is fantasy. She would fail utterly own her own terms. Meanwhile the country would be even further destabilised.david_kendrick1 said:Who'd achieve the best Brexit deal for Britain? I can't think it would be May, because her heart won't be in it.
I can say with absolute certainty that if you give somebody a job, and their heart is not in its key element, they will underperform and disappoint.0 -
Allowing Cameron to get on with his resignation honours list.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
JohnO has waited long enough.
0 -
He has earned great respect in his role as DWP Sec.MaxPB said:
Howard maybe, IDS is like poison. Look at where he left the party in 2003. Most members I know don't believe we should go back to the days od IDS.anotherDave said:
The electorate she's trying to win over are Conservative Party members. IDS and Howard are good endorsements.Scott_P said:This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)0 -
Otoh the pound has been falling steadily against the dollar for the past two years without many complaints on here.felix said:
The need for exports is always trotted out to justify devaluing your currency - let's see how much they grow after this boost and how much imports of staples like oil fall away. Devaluation is a classic cover for companies with inefficient operations who are happy for domestic consumers to take the hit for their own failings.Pulpstar said:
People weren't worried when it was 1.38 though, since they didn't have €14 million export contractsThreeQuidder said:
It's certainly the view that they should take. Anybody who has travelled to the eurozone even once a year for the last five years has seen big swings in exchange rates and this isn't out of the ordinary.felix said:
Oh dear - you think that's the view they'll take.ThreeQuidder said:
And about the same as summer 2013.felix said:
An awful lot of voters will be on holiday in Europe in July and August - 20/30% lighter in £/€s compared to last summer.CarlottaVance said:
While "Not much tends to happen in August" I fear this August will be different....drifting is not a safe option at the moment!ToryJim said:
Sympathise with that but the timetable is set. Not much tends to happen in August so I'm fairly comfortable with September. Mass postal ballots of members are difficult to do in ultra short timescales.CarlottaVance said:
If we aren't to have a coronation better to bring the ballot forward - September is too long to wait.ToryJim said:
In an ideal world yes, but that ship sailed. The final ballot will feature a decent shout for PM and one of two people who are egregiously unsuitable. It's probably why there are calls for a coronation.JennyFreeman said:
Everything about that makes me want to vomit.MikeL said:May supporters surely now know that if they get Gove into the Final then May has won.
Why on earth they want to take a risk on allowing Leadsom to build momentum and then the members doing a "Corbyn" I can't imagine.
They will kick themselves if they allow Leadsom into the Final and she then goes on to win.
Have you and Cameron's cronies learned nothing from the EU Referendum fiasco? In the age of social media people are not idiots. If you treat them as fools prepare to look foolish.
The ballot should be of the two best candidates for the job. Period.0 -
@steve_hawkes: EXCL Now Andrea Leadsom linked to offshore financier named in the Panama Papers (by @MrHarryCole ) https://t.co/iH3xatZYUl0
-
225 would be an awesome result, but Leadweight only up 2 and Gove down 11 seems implausible. On the plus side getting half the votes in R1 and two thirds in R2 would make a coronation easier to justify.JackW said:In full Peter Snow "just a bit of fun" mode, in the first round each candidate lifted their declared numbers by around half from undeclared MP's.
From the latest Sky News figures of M 169 .. L 51 .. G 28 and 82 undeclared - almost 25% of the electorate. With diminishing undeclared MP's perhaps each candidate might lift their figures by about one third :
May 225 .. Leadsom 68 .. Gove 37
Should I get the family ermine out?0 -
It would be a nice touch for Dave to knight Nigel. Doubt he's got the class though.JackW said:
Allowing Cameron to get on with his resignation honours list.AlastairMeeks said:Would those panicking about the timing of a replacement Prime Minister care to share what they think the new Prime Minister should be doing with such haste?
JohnO has waited long enough.0 -
Which is why it should be May, not Leadsom as PM.david_kendrick1 said:I can say with absolute certainty that if you give somebody a job, and their heart is not in its key element, they will underperform and disappoint.
the key element of the job is not Brexit. It is everything else a PM has to deal with.
I do think PM May could appoint Leadsom as Minister for Brexit. Apart from all the baggage that is now emerging0 -
You'll get over it eventually, more worrying is that you don't seem to have learned any lessons.Scott_P said:
It's amusing to see Brexiteers talking of trust.PlatoSaid said:The levels of distrust are already sky high. It won't take much backsliding/weaseling to set the whole debate alight.
The Leave campaign was entirely, completely, utterly, wholly composed of lies.
Brexiteers "trust" their candidate, who can deliver none of things they promised. What will that do to public trust?0 -
If the UK ends up outside the EEA as well as the EU and ends free movement there is little reason for UKIP to continue. If, as is more likely, May takes us into EFTA and the EEA and preserves free movement UKIP may increase its voteshare a little more at the next election and pick up seats like Thurrock, Thanet South and Hartlepoolnot_on_fire said:
But surely the big difference is that UKIP have already achieved the primary reason for their party to exist (unlike the SNP)Sean_F said:
UKIP are roughly in the position the SNP were in c. 1992.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - the SNP did the hard slog and built a solid base. There's no sign yet that UKIP is prepared to do that. It may be one reason they find it hard to hold onto council seats they win.david_herdson said:
We should also factor in the SNP's ground game, which UKIP cannot match in equivalent seats in England and Wales. Labour's so-called electoral castles are built on just as rotten bases with no meaningful campaigning activity having taken place for years if not decades but unless UKIP can reach out to the voters on the doorsteps as well as the airwaves, they'll not make the same kind of inroads.SouthamObserver said:
Key to the SNP's success was not only Labour's rottenness, but also it's own tack to the left. What began as essentially a right wing nationalist party became one whose rhetoric was credibly social democratic. To win in Labour heartlands - which are undoubtedly up for grabs with Corbyn in charge - UKIP needs a credible tale to tell on public spending, the NHS and redistributive policies. Being tough on immigration is not going to be enough.JosiasJessop said:
But what is UKIP? They seem to have managed to break the traditional landscape of UK politics, as have the SNP in Scotland, by appealing to voters of both the left and right. The new UKIP leader will have to try to maintain that same disparate group together. It's possible, as the SNP have shown.ToryJim said:
I have issues with Leadsom such as her barely passing acquaintance with honesty, her inexperience and the cultish behaviour of her groupies. UKIP she is not though.JosiasJessop said:Here's a cheeky (and silly) scenario:
May supporters keep Leadsom off ballot; Leadsom cries foul, isn't listened to, and decamps to UKIP, perhaps with one or two other MPs. She then becomes UKIP's new leader.
Meanwhile. Carswell sobs quietly on the seawall at Jaywick.
The new UKIP leader could be from anywhere in that broad coalition: he or she just needs to be able to appeal to the rest.0 -
How much debate depends on whether there is backsliding on promises of vote leave, or on Brexit. Only a few fools have suggested the latter and may certainly won't, but the former is more achievable, even if provides opportunities for UKIP in particular. Mays problem is if not committing to voteLeave demands which she hid the country ever committed to (we can presume much of what they said is popular, but the question committed no one to it) gets perceived as backsliding on Brexit itself. That some see a path to not leaving under may wil not help her, even though I'm sure she won't foster it since even if she would like to remain, the party management let alone voters would be impossible.PlatoSaid said:
I expected a certain level of denial/bargaining over the result - but we're almost two weeks on and a lot of Remainers with power/influence believe they can still circumvent it with lawyerly language or fixes or feigning negotiations a la Cameron.Pulpstar said:@Platosaid Are you saying the Tory civil war on europe won't ever end ?
It's a very EU-style mindset. And it will backfire all over the Tories - MPs, members and voters. The levels of distrust are already sky high. It won't take much backsliding/weaseling to set the whole debate alight.
So it comes down to what kind of Brexit each will offer, they will need to be clear, and what Tory members want from Brexit. If they dislike Mays offer enough, leadsome can win this.0 -
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.Mortimer said:
He has earned great respect in his role as DWP Sec.MaxPB said:
Howard maybe, IDS is like poison. Look at where he left the party in 2003. Most members I know don't believe we should go back to the days od IDS.anotherDave said:
The electorate she's trying to win over are Conservative Party members. IDS and Howard are good endorsements.Scott_P said:This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)0 -
Robin Cook's resignation speech was one of the greatest ever made in the House of Commons and we'll worth rewatching on YouTube. A forensic and quietly passionate gutting of the case for war. Including an astonishing at the time claim that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction in any meaningful sense.Cyclefree said:
Indeed. There were honourable and dishonourable reasons for opposing the Iraq war at the time. Robin Cook and Ken Clarke had honourable reasons for doing so. Corbyn did not. He would have opposed the war regardless, even if there had been unchallengeable proof that there were WMD and even if every lawyer in the land had said it was legal and there had been a second UN resolution.foxinsoxuk said:
Corbyn was not the only one opposed to the war, indeed it was Robin Cook from the heart of New Labour who led the parliamentary opposition in the Labour party, with Charles Kennedy being the main national party leader opposed.MonikerDiCanio said:
Corbyn was right , Blair was wrong. One of the reasons Blairites like yourself can't forgive Jeremy and want him gone. Luckily he's untouchable.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
Corbyn was for once on the right side of the argument, but for the wrong reasons. He has consistently sided with the enemies of the British armed forces and state whatever the situation. He has opposed almost every action of both Tory, Coalition and Labour government. He is an oppositionist, capable of organising a protest, but with neither the vision nor the leadership ability to generate an alternative manifesto or programme of action.
However, the effect of Chilcott is that this distinction will be lost and the Hard Left he represents is now unchallengeable in the Labour party unless and until the centre-left/right do some hard thinking about what they are for, of which there is as yet no sign.0 -
Morning all,Cyclefree said:
Indeed. There were honourable and dishonourable reasons for opposing the Iraq war at the time. Robin Cook and Ken Clarke had honourable reasons for doing so. Corbyn did not. He would have opposed the war regardless, even if there had been unchallengeable proof that there were WMD and even if every lawyer in the land had said it was legal and there had been a second UN resolution.foxinsoxuk said:
Corbyn was not the only one opposed to the war, indeed it was Robin Cook from the heart of New Labour who led the parliamentary opposition in the Labour party, with Charles Kennedy being the main national party leader opposed.MonikerDiCanio said:
Corbyn was right , Blair was wrong. One of the reasons Blairites like yourself can't forgive Jeremy and want him gone. Luckily he's untouchable.SouthamObserver said:
Yep - weeping and wailing about being lied to doesn't cut the mustard. All those who supported the invasion had plenty of credible voices opposing it to listen to. They (we) decided not to give them the credence history shows they deserved.logical_song said:
Corbyn was for once on the right side of the argument, but for the wrong reasons. He has consistently sided with the enemies of the British armed forces and state whatever the situation. He has opposed almost every action of both Tory, Coalition and Labour government. He is an oppositionist, capable of organising a protest, but with neither the vision nor the leadership ability to generate an alternative manifesto or programme of action.
However, the effect of Chilcott is that this distinction will be lost and the Hard Left he represents is now unchallengeable in the Labour party unless and until the centre-left/right do some hard thinking about what they are for, of which there is as yet no sign.
Just to be pedantic, on the previous comment - Robin Cook was never New Labour, he was from soft left of the party, but prepared to work with Blair/Brown. He was very keen on constitutional reform - and chaired PR talks with LibDems at one point. His forensic opposition skills (and ability to resign at the honourable moment!) are an example of what we are missing today. A great loss.0 -
There is another by-election to the House of Lords, this time it is in the crossbencher section.
Voting is currently underway with the result next week.
Candidates short bios are as usual set out now with added commentary from some on the Brexit credentials.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2016/Notice-with-candidates-list-(Bridges).pdf
0 -
Mr. HYUFD, I think UKIP's got enough critical mass it'll continue regardless of what happens next.0
-
The Tories vet their candidates as well as Labour vet their's.Scott_P said:@steve_hawkes: EXCL Now Andrea Leadsom linked to offshore financier named in the Panama Papers (by @MrHarryCole ) https://t.co/iH3xatZYUl
0 -
For all our sake's lets hope Leadsom is kicked off the ballot today. This is no time for someone of so little political experience. It is frankly ridiculous that the Tory party are even considering it as an option.Scott_P said:
Which is why it should be May, not Leadsom as PM.david_kendrick1 said:I can say with absolute certainty that if you give somebody a job, and their heart is not in its key element, they will underperform and disappoint.
the key element of the job is not Brexit. It is everything else a PM has to deal with.
I do think PM May could appoint Leadsom as Minister for Brexit. Apart from all the baggage that is now emerging0 -
Most Blairite and Brownite MPs would back May on EFTA/EEA so it would pass the Commons even if Tory rebels like Rees-Mogg and Corbynites opposed itMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Felix, I agree that an EEA/EFTA approach would command a majority in the country (with many Remainers probably being relieved).
However, whether that came to pass would also be a case of party management. May might have a tricky job keeping enough of her party on-side.
What would Labour do if Prime Minister May needed their votes for an EEA/EFTA agreement to pass?0 -
Cameron ?Scott_P said:@steve_hawkes: EXCL Now Andrea Leadsom linked to offshore financier named in the Panama Papers (by @MrHarryCole ) https://t.co/iH3xatZYUl
0 -
How quickly her premiership could unravel. Get a grip Tory MPs.Scott_P said:@steve_hawkes: EXCL Now Andrea Leadsom linked to offshore financier named in the Panama Papers (by @MrHarryCole ) https://t.co/iH3xatZYUl
0 -
I should have said how much backsliding not whether. That one has indeed been conceded already. The biggie is freedom of movement. May will attempt to talk tough but will be scrutinised very closely over whether she is suggesting so e measure of it nevertheless. I hope she does. But if the idea is hated enough...Scott_P said:
£350m a week. Just kidding! And that was from the Leave team...kle4 said:How much debate depends on whether there is backsliding on promises of vote leave, or on Brexit.
0 -
You really don't like democracy do you?rottenborough said:
For all our sake's lets hope Leadsom is kicked off the ballot today. This is no time for someone of so little political experience. It is frankly ridiculous that the Tory party are even considering it as an option.Scott_P said:
Which is why it should be May, not Leadsom as PM.david_kendrick1 said:I can say with absolute certainty that if you give somebody a job, and their heart is not in its key element, they will underperform and disappoint.
the key element of the job is not Brexit. It is everything else a PM has to deal with.
I do think PM May could appoint Leadsom as Minister for Brexit. Apart from all the baggage that is now emerging
0 -
More than 3 eligible voters this time?Verulamius said:There is another by-election to the House of Lords, this time it is in the crossbencher section.
Voting is currently underway with the result next week.
Candidates short bios are as usual set out now with added commentary from some on the Brexit credentials.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2016/Notice-with-candidates-list-(Bridges).pdf0 -
Maybe but the EFTA issue makes the difference between it getting 17%+ or falling back to 3%Morris_Dancer said:Mr. HYUFD, I think UKIP's got enough critical mass it'll continue regardless of what happens next.
0 -
Yup. There is no constitutional precedent nor defence for a Loto remaining in post in the face of a super- majority rebellion on anything like this scale. The PLP's "error" was to assume Corbyn would do the honourable thing.SouthamObserver said:
snipIanB2 said:
80% wishful thinking, sorry. Again, you are of course right, but trying to write the story of a universe parallel to the one we are actually in.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour members were clevert the vast majority of MPs would get behind him/her. That would then give the new leader the full PLP from which to choose a shadow cabinet and a range of perspectives from which to build a strong manifesto. All the time knowing that the whole economic and fiscal argument has changed. It's a gift.IanB2 said:FPT:
In principle I agree, and IME so do a lot of Labour members. But they know that the potential alternative candidates - whether last time's lineup or the Eagles of this world - are so uninspiring that they are unlikely to do much better. A lot of Labour members I know do realise they are doomed under Corbyn, but they think they are doomed anyway and would prefer to go over the top and be mown down for the policies they have always supported rather than to 'die' for nothing.SouthamObserver said:
Which is why if the mythical Obama did appear from nowhere, things would probably change, provided s/he has a solution to some of their strategic and political challenges as well.
Sticking with Corbyn only makes sense if you believe he is genuinely best placed to deliver the best possible outcome for Labour at the next GE. I don't think that any such argument is credible.
Never mind the cleverness of the members. If these potential Titans of the different wings of the party a) existed, b) were clever and c) bought your story, then all they had to do was gather the nominations and stand. Instead they went to tremendous trouble to choreograph hourly resignations spread over two days, then realise they hadn't a clue what to do next, then start talking about putting up some no-hoper like Angela Eagle, bigging her up as "strong and resolute" the very day after she had burst into tears on live television, then realise this strategy was doomed, then slink away in humiliation. So the vast majority of this PLP to whom you look for salvation have just demonstrated to everyone else that they have not a clue.
They were wrong.0 -
That's a seriously worrying statement, because it implies that there ARE some Tory members who want to go back to the days of 166 MPs and sub-30 in the polls.MaxPB said:
Howard maybe, IDS is like poison. Look at where he left the party in 2003. Most members I know don't believe we should go back to the days od IDS.anotherDave said:
The electorate she's trying to win over are Conservative Party members. IDS and Howard are good endorsements.Scott_P said:This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)
I thought such people were sectioned a long while ago so they couldn't do more damage. Or joined the Labour Party as real converts to Corbynism.0 -
But the job the PM now faces is to get the possible post-Brexit deal for the whole of the UK not to refight the referendum campaign. In addition to all the other matters the PM will have to deal with.david_kendrick1 said:
I do not claim any special knowledge of Andrea's negotiating skills.Scott_P said:
The "deal" Leadsom pitched in the campaign is fantasy. She would fail utterly own her own terms. Meanwhile the country would be even further destabilised.david_kendrick1 said:Who'd achieve the best Brexit deal for Britain? I can't think it would be May, because her heart won't be in it.
I can say with absolute certainty that if you give somebody a job, and their heart is not in its key element, they will underperform and disappoint.
Given what we have learnt about Leadsom I see no evidence that she is the right person to do that. What I do see is a load of people projecting their desires onto a largely empty suit on the back of an untruthful CV and the ability to string a sentence together in a debate.
i'm not even sure she would be any good on the Brexit negotiating team. What you want on such a team are people with a clear-sighted understanding of the detail, the strategy, our leverage, our weak points and how best to deploy these to get the best possible deal, while accepting that there will necessarily be trade-offs. Oh - and the feline ability to build the necessary diplomatic alliances in order to get such a deal. Being a true believer is irrelevant to this. It's the skills which are important not the level of faith.
This is a woman who couldn't even anticipate an obvious question about her tax returns let alone come up with a coherent answer for more than 5 minutes. And you want to let her loose to negotiate with 27 other states over the finer points of data protection laws post-Brexit, something which may not be sexy but which has implications for lots of businesses and where they base themselves.
0 -
I'm inordinately proud of my analogy that they knew he played by different rules, but thought they were still playing the same gane, but that the truth is they were playing poker and he was playing Russian roulette. And now it's their turn to pull the trigger.Jobabob said:
Yup. There is no constitutional precedent nor defence for a Loto remaining in post in the face of a super- majority rebellion on anything like this scale. The PLP's "error" was to assume Corbyn would do the honourable thing.SouthamObserver said:
snipIanB2 said:
80% wishful thinking, sorry. Again, you are of course right, but trying to write the story of a universe parallel to the one we are actually in.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour members were clevert the vast majority of MPs would get behind him/her. That would then give the new leader the full PLP from which to choose a shadow cabinet and a range of perspectives from which to build a strong manifesto. All the time knowing that the whole economic and fiscal argument has changed. It's a gift.IanB2 said:FPT:
In principle I agree, and IME so do a lot of Labour members. But they know that the potential alternative candidates - whether last time's lineup or the Eagles of this world - are so uninspiring that they are unlikely to do much better. A lot of Labour members I know do realise they are doomed under Corbyn, but they think they are doomed anyway and would prefer to go over the top and be mown down for the policies they have always supported rather than to 'die' for nothing.SouthamObserver said:
Which is why if the mythical Obama did appear from nowhere, things would probably change, provided s/he has a solution to some of their strategic and political challenges as well.
Sticking with Corbyn only makes sense if you believe he is genuinely best placed to deliver the best possible outcome for Labour at the next GE. I don't think that any such argument is credible.
Never mind the cleverness of the members. If these potential Titans of the different wings of the party a) existed, b) were clever and c) bought your story, then all they had to do was gather the nominations and stand. Instead they went to tremendous trouble to choreograph hourly resignations spread over two days, then realise they hadn't a clue what to do next, then start talking about putting up some no-hoper like Angela Eagle, bigging her up as "strong and resolute" the very day after she had burst into tears on live television, then realise this strategy was doomed, then slink away in humiliation. So the vast majority of this PLP to whom you look for salvation have just demonstrated to everyone else that they have not a clue.
They were wrong.0 -
Assuming that Corbyn would be honourable and democratic when he has spent all his life sucking up to totalitarian regimes - fascist and communist - and working with Macdonnell and Livingstone, would seem to me to be a bold assumption.Jobabob said:
Yup. There is no constitutional precedent nor defence for a Loto remaining in post in the face of a super- majority rebellion on anything like this scale. The PLP's "error" was to assume Corbyn would do the honourable thing.SouthamObserver said:
snipIanB2 said:
80% wishful thinking, sorry. Again, you are of course right, but trying to write the story of a universe parallel to the one we are actually in.SouthamObserver said:
If Labour members were clevert the vast majority of MPs would get behind him/her. That would then give the new leader the full PLP from which to choose a shadow cabinet and a range of perspectives from which to build a strong manifesto. All the time knowing that the whole economic and fiscal argument has changed. It's a gift.IanB2 said:FPT:
In principle I agree, and IME so do a lot of Labour members. But they know that the potential alternative candidates - whether last time's lineup or the Eagles of this world - are so uninspiring that they are unlikely to do much better. A lot of Labour members I know do realise they are doomed under Corbyn, but they think they are doomed anyway and would prefer to go over the top and be mown down for the policies they have always supported rather than to 'die' for nothing.SouthamObserver said:
Which is why if the mythical Obama did appear from nowhere, things would probably change, provided s/he has a solution to some of their strategic and political challenges as well.
Sticking with Corbyn only makes sense if you believe he is genuinely best placed to deliver the best possible outcome for Labour at the next GE. I don't think that any such argument is credible.
Never mind the cleverness of the members. If these potential Titans of the different wings of the party a) existed, b) were clever and c) bought your story, then all they had to do was gather the nominations and stand. Instead they went to tremendous trouble to choreograph hourly resignations spread over two days, then realise they hadn't a clue what to do next, then start talking about putting up some no-hoper like Angela Eagle, bigging her up as "strong and resolute" the very day after she had burst into tears on live television, then realise this strategy was doomed, then slink away in humiliation. So the vast majority of this PLP to whom you look for salvation have just demonstrated to everyone else that they have not a clue.
They were wrong.0 -
The article claims it’s her brother in Law who owns the shares, not Leadsom herself.tlg86 said:
The Tories vet their candidates as well as Labour vet their's.Scott_P said:@steve_hawkes: EXCL Now Andrea Leadsom linked to offshore financier named in the Panama Papers (by @MrHarryCole ) https://t.co/iH3xatZYUl
Politicians should be judged by their own actions and the company they keep, IMHO, not who their siblings choose to marry.0 -
As I said, Leadsom is the Tory Corbyn. She has the support of the crazies and UKIP types. She does not represent the mainstream Conservative party and membership any more than Corbyn does for Labour.ydoethur said:
That's a seriously worrying statement, because it implies that there ARE some Tory members who want to go back to the days of 166 MPs and sub-30 in the polls.MaxPB said:
Howard maybe, IDS is like poison. Look at where he left the party in 2003. Most members I know don't believe we should go back to the days od IDS.anotherDave said:
The electorate she's trying to win over are Conservative Party members. IDS and Howard are good endorsements.Scott_P said:This is unintentionally hilarious
@montie: Boost for @AndreaLeadsom as Michael Howard tells #bbcr4today that he's backing her. She now has 2 ex-party leaders on side (other being IDS)
I thought such people were sectioned a long while ago so they couldn't do more damage. Or joined the Labour Party as real converts to Corbynism.
Hopefully MPs have looked across the house and seen what happens when the othet party tried to tempt fate and let an extremist on the ballot. While I think May will win regardless, Leadsom will force her into unfavourable policy positions such as guaranteeing the right to remain of EU citizens in the UK before the right of UK citizens in the EU have been granted the same rights.0 -
@BethRigby: My twitter feed full of people telling me that it doesn't matter if politicians embellish CVs or not. This really is post-truth politics.
The Kippers think Leadsom is their Trump.
It's desperate stuff0 -
They can offer 25 different varieties of Brexit if they want but they need to remember that what Britain will get is what gets agreed with the EU and other parties. So the ability to develop the necessary strategy and alliances and carry out the necessary negotiations is key. Any fool can make promises. It's having a credible plan - or being seen as a credible person able to think ahead - to get from "A" to "B" that is what's needed.kle4 said:
How much debate depends on whether there is backsliding on promises of vote leave, or on Brexit. Only a few fools have suggested the latter and may certainly won't, but the former is more achievable, even if provides opportunities for UKIP in particular. Mays problem is if not committing to voteLeave demands which she hid the country ever committed to (we can presume much of what they said is popular, but the question committed no one to it) gets perceived as backsliding on Brexit itself. That some see a path to not leaving under may wil not help her, even though I'm sure she won't foster it since even if she would like to remain, the party management let alone voters would be impossible.PlatoSaid said:
I expected a certain level of denial/bargaining over the result - but we're almost two weeks on and a lot of Remainers with power/influence believe they can still circumvent it with lawyerly language or fixes or feigning negotiations a la Cameron.Pulpstar said:@Platosaid Are you saying the Tory civil war on europe won't ever end ?
It's a very EU-style mindset. And it will backfire all over the Tories - MPs, members and voters. The levels of distrust are already sky high. It won't take much backsliding/weaseling to set the whole debate alight.
So it comes down to what kind of Brexit each will offer, they will need to be clear, and what Tory members want from Brexit. If they dislike Mays offer enough, leadsome can win this.
If the Tories choose a leader on the basis that they were able to repeat the phrase "Take back control" 34 times without falling over their shoelaces God help us all..........
0 -
If the fall in Sterling were sustained, there would be considerable import substitution, tourism (where we have a big deficit) being an obvious example.felix said:
The need for exports is always trotted out to justify devaluing your currency - let's see how much they grow after this boost and how much imports of staples like oil fall away. Devaluation is a classic cover for companies with inefficient operations who are happy for domestic consumers to take the hit for their own failings.Pulpstar said:
People weren't worried when it was 1.38 though, since they didn't have €14 million export contractsThreeQuidder said:
It's certainly the view that they should take. Anybody who has travelled to the eurozone even once a year for the last five years has seen big swings in exchange rates and this isn't out of the ordinary.felix said:
Oh dear - you think that's the view they'll take.ThreeQuidder said:
And about the same as summer 2013.felix said:
An awful lot of voters will be on holiday in Europe in July and August - 20/30% lighter in £/€s compared to last summer.CarlottaVance said:
While "Not much tends to happen in August" I fear this August will be different....drifting is not a safe option at the moment!ToryJim said:
Sympathise with that but the timetable is set. Not much tends to happen in August so I'm fairly comfortable with September. Mass postal ballots of members are difficult to do in ultra short timescales.CarlottaVance said:
If we aren't to have a coronation better to bring the ballot forward - September is too long to wait.ToryJim said:
In an ideal world yes, but that ship sailed. The final ballot will feature a decent shout for PM and one of two people who are egregiously unsuitable. It's probably why there are calls for a coronation.JennyFreeman said:
Everything about that makes me want to vomit.MikeL said:May supporters surely now know that if they get Gove into the Final then May has won.
Why on earth they want to take a risk on allowing Leadsom to build momentum and then the members doing a "Corbyn" I can't imagine.
They will kick themselves if they allow Leadsom into the Final and she then goes on to win.
Have you and Cameron's cronies learned nothing from the EU Referendum fiasco? In the age of social media people are not idiots. If you treat them as fools prepare to look foolish.
The ballot should be of the two best candidates for the job. Period.0 -
It has to be Mrs May, vox populi, vox dei.
My money is on May first, Gove second, and Leadsom third.
Though Leadsom's future CV will say she finished in a senior position.0
This discussion has been closed.