politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s desire to fight the next election makes a challenge thi
Comments
-
It makes zero difference to the point I made in fact it reinforces it and of course technically Israel did not leave the Sinai until mid 1957justin124 said:
Indeed so - 50% bigger!HYUFD said:
Oh big difference!justin124 said:
The 1959 election was 3 years after Suez!HYUFD said:
Yet the Tories still won the general election 2 years after Suez as Labour won the general election 2 years after the Iraq invasionydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.0 -
However I recall that the figure was contested at the time. And I think debunked.Ishmael_Z said:
"14 years on, where’s Iraq’s democracy?HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
The invasion failed to introduce the democracy, freedom and liberty."
http://www.thearabweekly.com/Opinion/8055/14-years-on,-where's-Iraq's-democracy?
But what would they know?
And from that article, "In the first three years after the invasion, a British medical publication, the Lancet, recorded that 654,965 Iraqis had lost their lives by June 2006 as a direct consequence of the invasion." High price for a couple of rigged elections.
Not that I want to defend the Iraq war, but that is my hazy recollection.0 -
It was also the “You’ve never had it so good election’. And, to be fair there was an economic feelgood atmosphere. Among those who already had it good, anyway!justin124 said:
The 1959 election was 3 years after Suez!HYUFD said:
Yet the Tories still won the general election 2 years after Suez as Labour won the general election 2 years after the Iraq invasionydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.0 -
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see SyriaOldKingCole said:
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
0 -
North Korea has elections every five years, and so "tit for tat" is never a great argument.HYUFD said:
Iraq now has a democratically elected government not a dictator and Saddam killed hundreds of thousands himselfIshmael_Z said:
"14 years on, where’s Iraq’s democracy?HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
The invasion failed to introduce the democracy, freedom and liberty."
http://www.thearabweekly.com/Opinion/8055/14-years-on,-where's-Iraq's-democracy?
But what would they know?
And from that article, "In the first three years after the invasion, a British medical publication, the Lancet, recorded that 654,965 Iraqis had lost their lives by June 2006 as a direct consequence of the invasion." High price for a couple of rigged elections.0 -
I think what links Eden and Blair, but not Cameron, was their dishonesty over their respective fiascos. I think Blair was a good prime minister apart from Iraq and possibly Eden was good apart from Suez. But it is irrelevant. Those PMs are defined by Iraq and Suez.
Although Suez was a shock, perhaps something like that was almost inevitable for a country that hadn't come to terms with the loss of its empire and worldwide influence. Arguably the UK did better than France with its tottering Fourth Republic and intractable wars in North Africa and Indochina.
I suspect Brexit will have a greater long term impact than either Suez or Iraq. Not because it will be a clear disaster but because it won't resolve anything. The UK doesn't have any problems to which Brexit is the answer. It's going to be a huge distraction.0 -
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.HYUFD said:
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see SyriaOldKingCole said:
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
0 -
If they were grateful for tuition fees, they would have voted Tory (unless of course they realised it was a Labour policy the Coalition adopted, which most of them probably didn't).YBarddCwsc said:
What is the source for the 7 % figure?Sean_F said:
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.ydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
The UK Universities were huge gainers from the EU. They were very successful in extracting research & development monies (one of the consequences of tuition fees, in fact, the UK universities are much better resourced than stay the French).
So, I suspect that will have skewed the figure for 2017.
In fact they hate them because it makes the students much more demanding and often quite unreasonably so (I had a really nasty argument in my last year of lecturing with a student who couldn't accept a dreadful result merely because his essay was awful, and it was awful because he had done no work including turning up for no seminars or lectures - he got very aggressive demanding a first, which I wasn't going to give).
But I think they were predisposed to love the EU because they associated Euroscepticism with the Tories, as much as for any other reason. They shifted with Labour at the end of the 80s.0 -
Except one: a segment of the political class that was never reconciled to membership of the EU and regarded it as illegitimate.FF43 said:The UK doesn't have any problems to which Brexit is the answer.
The starting assumption was that Brexit resolves this by letting them have their way, but alternatively this could all just be a process of giving them enough rope to hang themselves.0 -
Excellent post. Hear, hear!FF43 said:I think what links Eden and Blair, but not Cameron, was their dishonesty over their respective fiascos. I think Blair was a good prime minister apart from Iraq and possibly Eden was good apart from Suez. But it is irrelevant. Those PMs are defined by Iraq and Suez.
Although Suez was a shock, perhaps something like that was almost inevitable for a country that hadn't come to terms with the loss of its empire and worldwide influence. Arguably the UK did better than France with its tottering Fourth Republic and intractable wars in North Africa and Indochina.
I suspect Brexit will have a greater long term impact than either Suez or Iraq. Not because it will be a clear disaster but because it won't resolve anything. The UK doesn't have any problems to which Brexit is the answer. It's going to be a huge distraction.0 -
Mr. L, no. Government position (well, last week, anyway) was a transition but the UK being outside the customs union/single market.
Also, my suspicion is Labour will slide towards that (retaining membership) as a long-term position.0 -
What happened to the guy who thought he deserved at First and sued Oxford Uni because he said that the teaching was so poor he didn’t get one?ydoethur said:
If they were grateful for tuition fees, they would have voted Tory (unless of course they realised it was a Labour policy the Coalition adopted, which most of them probably didn't).YBarddCwsc said:
What is the source for the 7 % figure?Sean_F said:
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.ydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
The UK Universities were huge gainers from the EU. They were very successful in extracting research & development monies (one of the consequences of tuition fees, in fact, the UK universities are much better resourced than stay the French).
So, I suspect that will have skewed the figure for 2017.
In fact they hate them because it makes the students much more demanding and often quite unreasonably so (I had a really nasty argument in my last year of lecturing with a student who couldn't accept a dreadful result merely because his essay was awful, and it was awful because he had done no work including turning up for no seminars or lectures - he got very aggressive demanding a first, which I wasn't going to give).
But I think they were predisposed to love the EU because they associated Euroscepticism with the Tories, as much as for any other reason. They shifted with Labour at the end of the 80s.0 -
On topic, Shadsy has adjusted the prices for when Theresa May leaves Number 10, and the 5/1 against 2020 or later that OGH took is now 7/2.
2017 4/1
2018 5/2
2019 6/4
2020 or later 7/20 -
According to the same poll 89% of workers in tertiary education voted Remain. They are voting for their wallets; nothing unreasonable about that!
Have figures ever been published about the loss to the taxpayer from EU students borrowing from the SLC, returning to their home countries and never repaying?0 -
If the judge was at Cambridge, he was doubtless asked, 'well, what the hell did you expect from Oxford?'OldKingCole said:
What happened to the guy who thought he deserved at First and sued Oxford Uni because he said that the teaching was so poor he didn’t get one?ydoethur said:
If they were grateful for tuition fees, they would have voted Tory (unless of course they realised it was a Labour policy the Coalition adopted, which most of them probably didn't).YBarddCwsc said:
What is the source for the 7 % figure?Sean_F said:
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.ydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
The UK Universities were huge gainers from the EU. They were very successful in extracting research & development monies (one of the consequences of tuition fees, in fact, the UK universities are much better resourced than stay the French).
So, I suspect that will have skewed the figure for 2017.
In fact they hate them because it makes the students much more demanding and often quite unreasonably so (I had a really nasty argument in my last year of lecturing with a student who couldn't accept a dreadful result merely because his essay was awful, and it was awful because he had done no work including turning up for no seminars or lectures - he got very aggressive demanding a first, which I wasn't going to give).
But I think they were predisposed to love the EU because they associated Euroscepticism with the Tories, as much as for any other reason. They shifted with Labour at the end of the 80s.
0 -
'Stoopid Natz, they wun more seats than all the Yoonionist parties put together and think they be the winners. Madness!'malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Tories desperation is palpable.CarlottaVance said:
Now now, you know what the Nats are like with numbers...HYUFD said:
May won 42% at the last general election, your heroine Sturgeon 37%. Cameron got 48% in his referendum, Salmond 45% in hismalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
0 -
It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.nichomar said:
Blair is condemed by people because they beieve he lied about WMD not for the actual war. If WMD had been found I afraid the majority would not be too worried by the civilian casualtiesJonathan said:
It's current fashion. Thatcher was similarly unpopular after leaving office. The British have a weird relationship with successful pols. Losers receive more affection.Mortimer said:
Blair must be the least popular of current living politicians?Jonathan said:
Nah its either Cameron or Eden that claim that special ignominy . Both forced to resign after total collapse of foreign policy.PeterC said:
That's a moot point - you appear to judge him purely on the Suez fiasco. Eden had been a very substantial figure for 20 years or more prior to that. Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.MikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Don't see a constituency he wins, which is quite something.
The Conservative government needs to fool just enough people for long enough about Brexit to carry them through the next election. I suspect they will struggle, but we will see.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/may/12/eu-graduate-unpaid-fees-50mRoyalBlue said:According to the same poll 89% of workers in tertiary education voted Remain. They are voting for their wallets; nothing unreasonable about that!
Have figures ever been published about the loss to the taxpayer from EU students borrowing from the SLC, returning to their home countries and never repaying?
Incidentally in the one piece of correspondence I had with him, O'Connor was unaware that July is the month before August. Go figure.0 -
Even Saddam held elections where he and his Baath Party won 99% of the vote and the other 1% were shot, rather different from the multiparty Iraqi democracy there is today as you well knowIshmael_Z said:
North Korea has elections every five years, and so "tit for tat" is never a great argument.HYUFD said:
Iraq now has a democratically elected government not a dictator and Saddam killed hundreds of thousands himselfIshmael_Z said:
"14 years on, where’s Iraq’s democracy?HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
The invasion failed to introduce the democracy, freedom and liberty."
http://www.thearabweekly.com/Opinion/8055/14-years-on,-where's-Iraq's-democracy?
But what would they know?
And from that article, "In the first three years after the invasion, a British medical publication, the Lancet, recorded that 654,965 Iraqis had lost their lives by June 2006 as a direct consequence of the invasion." High price for a couple of rigged elections.0 -
If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?0
-
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initiallyOldKingCole said:
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.HYUFD said:
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see SyriaOldKingCole said:
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
0 -
Depends if she won the vote of no confidence and by how much.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
If she wins 160 to 158 then she's like a Turkish conscript.0 -
Surely that should be 'a reluctant Turkish conscript?'TheScreamingEagles said:
Depends if she won the vote of no confidence and by how much.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
If she wins 160 to 158 then she's like a Turkish conscript.
Although they do have course have to show enjoyment to prove their reluctance...
I have to go. I have a good morning!0 -
It long pre-dates May and Gove. By way of contrast, the Conservatives typically poll 25-30% among school teachers.rkrkrk said:
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...Sean_F said:
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/general-election-2017-54-per-cent-backing-for-labour-in-poll#survey-answer
0 -
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
0 -
If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.0 -
What is it about Theresa's walking holiday's that makes her come back and make some crazy announcement?
0 -
Was it revealed who was spinning against Boris the last few days?AlastairMeeks said:If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.0 -
I think I'd rather put up with doing military service.ydoethur said:
Surely that should be 'a reluctant Turkish conscript?'TheScreamingEagles said:
Depends if she won the vote of no confidence and by how much.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
If she wins 160 to 158 then she's like a Turkish conscript.
Although they do have course have to show enjoyment to prove their reluctance...
I have to go. I have a good morning!
0 -
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.FF43 said:It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.0 -
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?PeterC said:
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
0 -
We fight on! We fight to win!SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
0 -
You implied that Iraq was more dangerous for visitors under Saddam than now. I disagreed. And still do. Anyway it’s not the government that poses a threat to tourists or academics; it’s the prevailaing lawlessness and sectarian violence which is the problem.HYUFD said:
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initiallyOldKingCole said:
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.HYUFD said:
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see SyriaOldKingCole said:
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
And IIRC ISIS arose in Iraq, in the chaos after the invasion, and migrated to Syria after the rising against Assad.0 -
I do think its true that the wildly inaccurate polling and general narrative meant that the Tories went for a no risk election campaign (although it is hard to reconcile this with a radical manifesto) where they wanted as little as possible to happen. I also think it is fair to say that this may not have been all May's fault. But when May was in the Home Office the BBC pretty much stopped interviewing her because she was very skilled at saying nothing at all. Worked there, disaster as leader.NickPalmer said:
Playinf devil's advocate here (no I'm not saying Mrs May is a devil), I suppose she would say that it was an agreed strategy - avoid contact to (a) prevent the risk of casual errors spoiling the Tory competence lead at the time and (b) maximise exposure of Corbyn, who would no doubt be a terrible campaigner and alienate most voters. She'd argue that in a new election they would have a new strategy, and she'd be happy to engage, debate, etc.DavidL said:No doubt someone has pointed out the Blair scenario when a fixed departure date resulted in the loss of power and respect. I really doubt she wants to fight an election again but she clearly does not want to be a powerless figurehead either.
She may not be a quitter but she is absolutely useless as a campaigning politician, truly spectacularly bad. I do not believe that the Tory party would want to risk another zombie campaign with May dodging debates, dodging the public, dodging questions and interviews and saying as little as possible. It may have worked in the Home Office but it does not work for a PM.
The attacks on Corbyn were also very badly directed. He was attacked for sucking up to the IRA 30+ years ago rather than having a completely ridiculous fantasy platform in 2017. It turns out for all the sound and fury on here and in the press people were not much interested in the former and he got pretty much a free pass for the latter. This was greatly aided by May's reluctance to let her Chancellor campaign or have any kind of profile.
BTW when we are training for the bar in Scotland we are called Devils and I had the delights of a devil mistress helping me. She was great if not quite as exciting as that might sound!0 -
The race to succeed May will almost certainly come down to Boris v Davis with those 2 being sent to the membership, pre March 2019 Davis would likely win but post March 2019 Boris has an excellent chance of winningAlastairMeeks said:If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.0 -
I don't think the situation has changed.AlastairMeeks said:If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
Theresa is there until March 2019 but virtue of nobody else wanting to do the job during Brexit negotiations.
After Brexit is signed the men in grey suits will call... Theresa will have the choice to stand down on her own terms in the Summer of 2019 or she'll face a bloody leadership coup in the Autumn.
One way or another she won't be leading the party into the 2022 election.0 -
It was failure to intervene in Syria which arguably really allowed ISIS to take offOldKingCole said:
You implied that Iraq was more dangerous for visitors under Saddam than now. I disagreed. And still do. Anyway it’s not the government that poses a threat to tourists or academics; it’s the prevailaing lawlessness and sectarian violence which is the problem.HYUFD said:
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initiallyOldKingCole said:
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.HYUFD said:
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see SyriaOldKingCole said:
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
And IIRC ISIS arose in Iraq, in the chaos after the invasion, and migrated to Syria after the rising against Assad.0 -
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.JosiasJessop said:
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.FF43 said:It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.0 -
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.DecrepitJohnL said:
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?PeterC said:
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
0 -
But what does Michael Green think?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Michael Howard was being interviewed this am by Peter Hennessy & was asked about this very moment. He said he told her that he'd die in a ditch with her but that she was likely to lose a second vote.rottenborough said:
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.DecrepitJohnL said:
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?PeterC said:
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
0 -
Do you have a source for 25-30%?Sean_F said:
It long pre-dates May and Gove. By way of contrast, the Conservatives typically poll 25-30% among school teachers.rkrkrk said:
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...Sean_F said:
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/general-election-2017-54-per-cent-backing-for-labour-in-poll#survey-answer
The figures I am googling seem much lower.
There also seems to be an anti-government effect perhaps...
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/02/teachers-vote-labour-lead-41/
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/jan/15/teachers-voting-labour-conservatives
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-teachers-vote-shifting-dramatically-towards-labour (not really a poll I think but does show a Labour shift)0 -
I agree, but on the other hand Iraq was behaving as if it had such weapons, it had used them in the past against its own civilians and another country (Iran), and had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait). Its treatment of the weapons inspectors was also highly suggestive.FF43 said:
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.JosiasJessop said:
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.FF43 said:It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.0 -
If Theresa May goes for "Sack me or back me" it will be on the basis that she is bad but the others are even worse. It would be a desperate and likely humiliating throw of the dice for her. But if she doesn't care, she might just carry the argument.AlastairMeeks said:If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.0 -
Not, legend, but fact. See the autobiographies of both Thatcher and Ken Clarke himself.rottenborough said:
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.DecrepitJohnL said:
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?PeterC said:
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
Clarke said Thatcher running in the second round was like the charge of the light brigade, C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre, c'est de la folie.0 -
She won the most votes, but didn't win by the 15% margin the rules demanded, so that's why there was the need for a second round.DecrepitJohnL said:
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?PeterC said:
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
She intended to stand for the second round, but met her cabinet individually on the Wednesda night, and announced her resignation the next morning.0 -
But the point of Blix was that we didn't have to do anything on the basis of "highly suggestive" behaviour on the part of Iraq. It was like a doctor deciding to operate on the basis of patient-described symptoms and not bothering with perfectly good MRI and CT scanners which were at his disposal.JosiasJessop said:
I agree, but on the other hand Iraq was behaving as if it had such weapons, it had used them in the past against its own civilians and another country (Iran), and had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait). Its treatment of the weapons inspectors was also highly suggestive.FF43 said:
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.JosiasJessop said:
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.FF43 said:It is a deeply unpleasant feeling to realise you have been taken for a fool. If you are totally unaware of the deception you are happy. Therein lies the art of spin. It wasn't that the Blair regime span more than the others. Ultimately they weren't any good at it.
(Snip)
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.0 -
I don't think I can recall meeting a centre-right teacher at all.Sean_F said:
It long pre-dates May and Gove. By way of contrast, the Conservatives typically poll 25-30% among school teachers.rkrkrk said:
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...Sean_F said:
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/general-election-2017-54-per-cent-backing-for-labour-in-poll#survey-answer
But, perhaps they just keep their mouths shut.0 -
The headbangers are still on board.AlastairMeeks said:If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
TINA credible Brexiteer...
https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/9031888268683386880 -
Shapps is a daft sod. Either take a leader down or line up behind them. I said this when there was endless muttering about Brown. If you badmouth a leader without removing them you weaken both the leader and your own party. It's stupid.0
-
I don't think Suez has much relevance to the troubles of today's Conservative Party.ydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
It is truer to say that totemic military defeats for the UK tend to have big strategic implications - Saratoga, Yorktown, retreat from Kabul, Singapore and Suez - because whilst we have a modest global strike capability we've never really had the mass, resources, or resilience in depth to fire the bolt more than once.0 -
Grant Shapps MP is a daft sod.Morris_Dancer said:Shapps is a daft sod.
Michael Green on the other hand...0 -
'If'?Scott_P said:
The headbangers are still on board.AlastairMeeks said:If Theresa May dares the Conservative party to back her or sack her, they'll probably sack her.
I half wonder whether she knows this and is choosing immolation at a time when Boris Johnson, the rival who she probably regards as least suitable, looks to be out of contention.
TINA credible Brexiteer...0 -
Grant Shapps is the only Tory Chairman* to have overseen a Tory majority in the last 25 years, he knows his stuff, he's not stupid.Morris_Dancer said:Shapps is a daft sod. Either take a leader down or line up behind them. I said this when there was endless muttering about Brown. If you badmouth a leader without removing them you weaken both the leader and your own party. It's stupid.
*Well he was Co-Chairman, alongside Andrew Feldman, but my point still stands.0 -
"In none of these scenarios – none – is the Tory party (its senior ministers, MPs and leading activists) going to risk going through the “strong and stable” experience again. It was a Wizard of Oz gets the curtain pulled back moment. It was just horrible for them, and anyone with human feelings, to watch. The Tory tribe will not be risking that again."
https://reaction.life/will-theresa-may-fight-next-general-election-tory-leader/0 -
Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process0 -
LOL!rottenborough said:"In none of these scenarios – none – is the Tory party (its senior ministers, MPs and leading activists) going to risk going through the “strong and stable” experience again.
https://reaction.life/will-theresa-may-fight-next-general-election-tory-leader/ 0 -
-
That's right - she saw the writing on the wall. But she didn't have to. Corbyn also faced down his MPs with notable success.DecrepitJohnL said:
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?PeterC said:
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
0 -
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
0 -
Wasn't he (probbaly) in the early stages of Dementia when he resigned though? One wonders how "willingly" he gave up over the realization that something wasn't "right" with his mind?rottenborough said:0 -
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.GIN1138 said:
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
As a conservative party member I am content for her to see through Brexit but the strengths she does have are compromised by her awkward way at communicating.
She will not take us into the next election0 -
This is key. It wasn't sufficient that Iraq needed dealing with. Tony Blair had to make the case that we had no choice but to invade Iraq NOW. Blix and Chirac wanted more time for inspections; Bush who wasn't bothered about niceties of international law was going to go ahead regardless. Blair was stuck in the middle without a UN resolution or any legal cover, so he fabricated it.Ishmael_Z said:
But the point of Blix was that we didn't have to do anything on the basis of "highly suggestive" behaviour on the part of Iraq. It was like a doctor deciding to operate on the basis of patient-described symptoms and not bothering with perfectly good MRI and CT scanners which were at his disposal.JosiasJessop said:
I agree, but on the other hand Iraq was behaving as if it had such weapons, it had used them in the past against its own civilians and another country (Iran), and had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait). Its treatment of the weapons inspectors was also highly suggestive.FF43 said:
The specific point that struck me from Robin Cook's impressive resignation speech is that he reckoned Iraq had no WMD beyond possible trivial amounts. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector had doubts too, because he had found no evidence of them. Those doubts were picked up by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to immediate invasion. George Bush gave a telling response when asked why they were invading Iraq rather than North Korea - we can't do that, they have nuclear weapons. The best justification for war was that Iraq presented a potential threat rather than a clear and immediate danger. Without a clear and immediate danger the invasion was illegal under international law, so Blair had to pretend there was one.JosiasJessop said:
To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMDs in the late 1990s. Their utter non-compliance with the inspectors, their actions, their previous secretive projects to develop such weapons and their usage against civilians, Saddam's own words and other factors created a poisonous environment of distrust. A PB'er wrote an interesting book about the experience before Iraq 2; it's hard to read it and not see how another conflict was inevitable, regardless of 9/11.
Perhaps Blair and Bush's biggest issue was that they expected Saddam to behave logically from a western perspective. His actions were far from logical if he were not developing WMD, but might have seemed logical from a Middle-Eastern perspective, where perceived possession of such weapons might be a sign of strength.0 -
Cameron.rottenborough said:0 -
I think Ken had said that he would have resigned and publicly opposed her if she had stood in Round II.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not, legend, but fact. See the autobiographies of both Thatcher and Ken Clarke himself.rottenborough said:
Legend has it that Ken Clarke was the one who told her the game was up.DecrepitJohnL said:
Did not Mrs Thatcher technically win but resign after consulting Cabinet ministers?PeterC said:
It would not be a personal challange as such, rather a VoC with a binary outcome. If TM won there would follow a seething dispute about whether she had done 'well enough' to justify remaining in post. Just imagine if she got 50% plus one and tuned round and said 'I'm staying'.SouthamObserver said:If May was challenged would she stand or resign? What if she fought on and won?
Clarke said Thatcher running in the second round was like the charge of the light brigade, C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre, c'est de la folie.0 -
Not willinglyTheScreamingEagles said:
Cameron.rottenborough said:0 -
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process0 -
No I mean nobody believes the Tories will let her fight another general election.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.GIN1138 said:
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
0 -
@PickardJE: he'll even stick it on a bus if you like https://twitter.com/jakeyapp/status/9031357689017712640
-
I agree with thatGIN1138 said:
No I mean nobody believes the Tories will let her fight another general election.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.GIN1138 said:
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
0 -
The reason Suez is so much more emblematic of the collapse of British prestige was (like Iraq) the mendacity of the whole affair. On both occasions there were significant division in the country, and hence the parallels with Brexit.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think Suez has much relevance to the troubles of today's Conservative Party.ydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
It is truer to say that totemic military defeats for the UK tend to have big strategic implications - Saratoga, Yorktown, retreat from Kabul, Singapore and Suez - because whilst we have a modest global strike capability we've never really had the mass, resources, or resilience in depth to fire the bolt more than once.0 -
If she does, regardless of success or failure in Brexit negotiations, the Tory party will not form the subsequent government.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you mean that she is not a bloody difficult woman.GIN1138 said:
Problem is nobody here or there believe's it for a moment...Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
As a conservative party member I am content for her to see through Brexit but the strengths she does have are compromised by her awkward way at communicating.
She will not take us into the next election0 -
I don't imagine he was happy with the circumstances of his departure but it looked like Cameron was genuinely intending to stand down some time after winning the EU referendum, presumably hoping that his friend George Osborne would take over.TheScreamingEagles said:
Cameron.rottenborough said:0 -
At least he had the sense to realise it. Or maybe Mary told him.GIN1138 said:
Wasn't he (probbaly) in the early stages of Dementia when he resigned though? One wonders how "willingly" he gave up over the realization that something wasn't "right" with his mind?rottenborough said:0 -
That’s a different issue and one where I could be persauded to agree with you.HYUFD said:
It was failure to intervene in Syria which arguably really allowed ISIS to take offOldKingCole said:
You implied that Iraq was more dangerous for visitors under Saddam than now. I disagreed. And still do. Anyway it’s not the government that poses a threat to tourists or academics; it’s the prevailaing lawlessness and sectarian violence which is the problem.HYUFD said:
What tourists or visiting academics do the Iraqi government kill? ISIS arose from Syria where the UK and West did not intervene initiallyOldKingCole said:
Actually, I don’t think so. Iraq wasn’t a good place for tourism, but Saddam’s evil was directed at his perceived enemies. Which didn’t include tourists, or visiting academics, unless they were Kurdish.HYUFD said:
Even more so when Saddam was in charge and non intervention has consequences too, see SyriaOldKingCole said:
I’m not sure about the relevance of the word functioning. Wikitravel, having just had a look at it, is full of warnings about not going here, there and everywhere.HYUFD said:
For the left maybe but to be fair to him Iraq is now a functioning democracy and even ISIS have now almost been driven out of the countryOldKingCole said:
Blair's will always be damaged, probably irretrievably, by Iraq. Such a pity; he started so well!HYUFD said:
Brown was just as bad as Eden, Callaghan and Heath only marginally better of post-war PMsMikeSmithson said:
The worst PM ever was Anthony Edenmalcolmg said:
How a laughing stock like her thinks she can poke fun at anyone is just amazing. An absolute loser and destined to take Cameron's crown as worst PM ever.PeterC said:
I think you are right, at least for now. Mrs May is just poking fun at her detractors.Roger said:Despite the unseemly scrabble for the Tory leadership after Cameron went the only realistic candidate was May and nothing has changed.
And IIRC ISIS arose in Iraq, in the chaos after the invasion, and migrated to Syria after the rising against Assad.0 -
To be fair you have been consistent in that.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others0 -
Had Dave won the EURef he would have announced his resignation in the summer of 2019, and allowed a new leader to be in place for the Tory conference in 2019.FF43 said:
I don't imagine he was happy with the circumstances of his departure but it looked like Cameron was genuinely intending to stand down some time after winning the EU referendum, presumably hoping that his friend George Osborne would take over.TheScreamingEagles said:
Cameron.rottenborough said:0 -
I happen to have been flicking through Wilson's autobiography the last few days. He says in there that he had decided, as soon as Labour were returned to office in March 74, to retire within two years time. Ideally he hoped to go earlier.GIN1138 said:
Wasn't he (probbaly) in the early stages of Dementia when he resigned though? One wonders how "willingly" he gave up over the realization that something wasn't "right" with his mind?rottenborough said:
Within a few months he had settled on a date around his 60th birthday (11th March 76). He told the Queen his plans in September 75 at Balmoral.
He was worried all through the final week that something would happen that would mean a need to postpone the public announcement (e.g. another Sterling crisis).
He made a statement to Cabinet on resignation - gave 4 reasons. The first being that he had been at the top for a very long time. No indications of whether this was a worry about health.0 -
You have long been wrong, then. In the recent ICM poll 41% said 10 bn was acceptable, up from 15% in June. That's a massive jump. As was pointed out at the time you can manipulate the answers to these questions quite easily by how you frame the question, and as Jonathan Portes said in last night's very good podcast, he is a professional economist and a sum like 30bn is so big as to be meaningless to him, so what chance do the general public have of assessing it? Everyone who has ever moved house or changed job or got divorced knows that you need a final accounting, and will accept the end result provided it is a final accounting transaction, rather than taking the piss.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process0 -
I think that, right now, a certain type of Remainer wants to make any and every kind of historical event a parallel with Brexit.foxinsoxuk said:
The reason Suez is so much more emblematic of the collapse of British prestige was (like Iraq) the mendacity of the whole affair. On both occasions there were significant division in the country, and hence the parallels with Brexit.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think Suez has much relevance to the troubles of today's Conservative Party.ydoethur said:
Iain Macleod thought that Suez cost the Conservatives their credibility among the intellectual voters as a party of competence. It's hard to argue that they've ever really regained it; although there was some evidence of a swing back in the late 1970s that surely had at least as much to do with the intellectual and political bankruptcy of Labour and socialism more generally as with a love of Toryism.PeterC said:Suez was a personal catastrophe for Eden but it is remarkable how little substantive long-term damage was done by it and how quickly MacMillan was able to restore an even keel.
One could argue that Blair's Iraq war was far worse than Suez and inflicted much more long-term damage. Perhaps the worst PM ever was Tony Blair.
Although the intelligentsia were quite a small group at the time, they are now much larger, and the Tories continue to struggle with them. That is how they ended up doing so badly in university seats. While you might argue there are other factors for that, Suez was the moment that cost them the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances. Ever since, this group has assumed the worst of them.
It may indeed be too early to say just how damaging Suez was for the Tories. But it surely isn't altogether a coinicdence how thin the talent on the front bench is right now - and has been for a very long time with rare exceptions.
It is truer to say that totemic military defeats for the UK tend to have big strategic implications - Saratoga, Yorktown, retreat from Kabul, Singapore and Suez - because whilst we have a modest global strike capability we've never really had the mass, resources, or resilience in depth to fire the bolt more than once.0 -
So, at least according to Wilson himself, he was willing to go and had been for some time.0
-
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.Big_G_NorthWales said:
To be fair you have been consistent in that.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others0 -
The problem with Blair was that he wanted them to have WMDs. So he only looked for evidence that they did. He wanted to invade and that was the best excuse.
A scientific or logical discussion was never going to be on the table. It's called politics.0 -
Perhaps naively I disagree.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
If the 'Bill' is simply presented as - we are going to carry on paying to be in the EU during the transition phase - because we basically are in the EU during that period, then I think that could be acceptable to the British public. If it's handled well.
Planning for a WTO Brexit is a must and I assume is actually happening behind the scenes.0 -
If the Remain win had been as close as the Leave win was in reality, would Boris have tried to seize the crown on a Brexit - one more heave mandate?TheScreamingEagles said:
Had Dave won the EURef he would have announced his resignation in the summer of 2019, and allowed a new leader to be in place for the Tory conference in 2019.FF43 said:
I don't imagine he was happy with the circumstances of his departure but it looked like Cameron was genuinely intending to stand down some time after winning the EU referendum, presumably hoping that his friend George Osborne would take over.TheScreamingEagles said:
Cameron.rottenborough said:0 -
The default is WTO for a number of reasons.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
1 The divorce bill
2 Time allotted to complete the negotiations is probably insufficient
3 It is the logical conclusion from the EU perspective for an ex member not to have access (obvious or immediate) to single market / customs union
4 It is a clear break and unarguable fact that we have left the EU, so politically it fulfills the 'We have followed through your wishes and left as instructed by the referendum' for UK eurosceptics
5 It shows there is a detriment in the outcome of leaving to other nations who may consider abandoning the EU
6 Feel free to add more0 -
I have some confidence that we will agree the bill, but it will be very messy. Not agreeing the bill means Brexit failure and I don't think Leavers, or indeed Remainers, want that when it comes to it. But as we are repeating ourselves we will have to wait and see.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process0 -
There are two good outcomes from GE2017.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
One, it's set back Scottish nationalism by several years and kicked indyref2 into the long grass. Two, it's bought another 2 years (just - but the numbers should be good enough to keep the Tories in office) for Brexit to bed in prior to the next election.0 -
Breaking major news
Sir Nick Harvey appointed interim CEO of the Liberal Democrats0 -
Mr Cole,
"the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.."
They will, and the Remain press will blame the UK government. They already are doing so.
Who do you trust most? Anyone in the UK negotiating team, or Juncker? Trebles all round as Private Eye would say
0 -
The public will as well and maybe you could review reasonable in the context of Junckers et alOldKingCole said:
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.Big_G_NorthWales said:
To be fair you have been consistent in that.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others0 -
Private Eye, TBH!CD13 said:Mr Cole,
"the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.."
They will, and the Remain press will blame the UK government. They already are doing so.
Who do you trust most? Anyone in the UK negotiating team, or Juncker? Trebles all round as Private Eye would say
And now I’ve a hospital appointment. So I’m off.0 -
From recent press coverage it appears the other way round.OldKingCole said:
One difficulty is that however reasonable the EU is and however inadequate Davis (in particular) is in negotiation the Leave Press will blame the EU if the whole thing ends in disaster.Big_G_NorthWales said:
To be fair you have been consistent in that.foxinsoxuk said:
I have long pointed out that any bill is political suicide, and that the default is WTO Brexit. It would be good to have some plans for this, and for the public to be prepared.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
It may well start moving towards that position. The problem will be for those who want to remain how they address the anger in the UK that is coming against the EU not helped by the recent absurd comments by Junckers and others
Initially I was skeptical of the UK capabilities.
However it appears that by putting themselves in the position whereby the only acceptable UK response appears to be to agree with the EU position, the EU look and are in a weaker position than at the start of the progress.
The EU have sent facilitators and implementers to a negotiation. That is akin to sending a knife to a gunfight.0 -
The second point is not necessarily a good thing from the Tory point of view - two years being enough time to start showing some economic consequences... which is why many seem to expect a snap election post Brexit.Casino_Royale said:
There are two good outcomes from GE2017.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
One, it's set back Scottish nationalism by several years and kicked indyref2 into the long grass. Two, it's bought another 2 years (just - but the numbers should be good enough to keep the Tories in office) for Brexit to bed in prior to the next election.
One thing the election apparently didn't do for May was to demonstrate that nemesis is a cure for repeated hubris...0 -
Three, it has exposed Corbyn as a political danger. It is so hard to filter out hindsight, but without GE2017 we would still now be laughing our socks off at the thought of a Corbyn government, and TMay and her doorkeepers would still think they had a free GE in the bank which they could deploy when things got tough, and Corbyn might have won it.Casino_Royale said:
There are two good outcomes from GE2017.Big_G_NorthWales said:Theresa May saying she will lead the party into GE 2022 is good politics as it is a demonstration of that 'bloody difficult woman' reputation and frankly at this moment in time her conviction to stay the course is necessary as we see the EU talks collapsing.
The EU are at risk of making an enormous misjudgment if they think they can demand billions for our exit, force the ECJ on EU citizens living in the UK, and insist on free movement.
The public will not agree a large exit bill as was demonstrated recently in the polls on this subject and the anger to the EU will intensify. Those on the remain side will have to answer the question as to how much they would pay or to be honest and admit they just want to stop the whole process
One, it's set back Scottish nationalism by several years and kicked indyref2 into the long grass. Two, it's bought another 2 years (just - but the numbers should be good enough to keep the Tories in office) for Brexit to bed in prior to the next election.
And four, change of doorkeepers.0 -
I was one and out and proud throughout - I was not alone!Casino_Royale said:
I don't think I can recall meeting a centre-right teacher at all.Sean_F said:
It long pre-dates May and Gove. By way of contrast, the Conservatives typically poll 25-30% among school teachers.rkrkrk said:
The biggest increase vs. nationally is the Lib Dems... polling at 24% is more than 3x what they got from the GE. 54% polling for Labour vs. 40% in GE. I wonder how different that is to public sector organizations generally...Sean_F said:
7% of university workers voted Conservative, compared to 43.5% overall, a huge leftward skew. It's probably become a closed loop. Almost the only people who wish to work at universities are left wing, and they only get exposed to left wing arguments.
As to why the Conservative party are so unpopular among university workers... Part of the answer might be the policies of May? Probably Gove's attacks on academics didn't go down well either.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/general-election-2017-54-per-cent-backing-for-labour-in-poll#survey-answer
But, perhaps they just keep their mouths shut.0
