politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is John Rentoul right – Was Boris’ speech a disaster and Th
Unsurprisingly It has lead to pieces like Boris Johnson’s philosophy isn’t just elitist – it’s sinister and Boris Johnon is Still a ‘Nasty Piece of Work’? even George Osborne distanced himself from parts of the speech this morning.
Comments
-
Yes. He's a crass buffoon.
0 -
Seeing the Left in one of their regular Boris tizzies is always an amusing spectacle. You'd have thought he'd advocated gas chambers by the fuss, rather than a mere truism about social attainment.0
-
hi might be a crass buffoon but he surely has one fan on here given his proposal for a vastly increased social housing building programme.0
-
Good afternoon, everyone.
This reminds me of a passage from the Prince (been listening to the audiobook a bit lately). When you move your stall from centre to left or right, or vice versa, then those on your new ground are disinclined to believe your sincerity, and those on your old ground consider you something of a traitor.0 -
oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.0
-
So Spurs didn't win due to 2 errors, my hedging of the result by betting £100 on Man U also failed.
A draw - worst possible outcome.... keeps me hoping that 'what if we beat Fulham and Sunderland this week... Sturridge is out for our next home game in the PL'...
It's the hope.0 -
The Tory leadership contest has a round where the candidates put their case to MPs then a second round where the wider membership votes. I suspect he would win the second round, but am not at all sure that he would place in the top two in the first round.
MPs often do not like being overshadowed by extraparliamentary politicians, and Boris is too pro immigration and pro europe for the real headbangers. Where does this Etonian differ politically from our current Etonian?TOPPING said:oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.
0 -
Stating the truth is totally unacceptable for these leftist fuddy duddies.
A speech worthy of the Lady.0 -
I said at the time it was a brave speech to make and one that could come back to haunt him. Obviously, any justification of elitism is going to run into trouble on the left - especially when coupled with dodgy arguments about IQ (rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm); but his defence of greed, when it was greed that was such a big factor in the crash, was not wise. Greed is not good. Greed causes people to lose perspective and to treat other people very badly.0
-
Mr. Observer, social Darwinism is indeed a crock of shit. That's not to say intelligence or working hard is not related to prosperity or poverty, but it's very easy to drift into a sort of social Darwinism.0
-
The left consider anyone doing better than themselves as "greedy".0
-
And where did he say that exactly?SouthamObserver said:rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm
0 -
“Perhaps Boris is at his best, electorally, when left leaning commentators are hyping him as the great ring wing menace?”
Not really, I just think it exposes left leaning commentators as rather daft and prone to over hyping.
Did any of the myriad of champagne socialist luvvies actually throw themselves under double-deckers or leave London…? – Thought not.
0 -
What a crass way to talk about social mobility in the manner Boris has!
Osborne got it right by saying there may be inequality about outcomes but one should strive to create equality of opportunity!Atleast he got something right even if it`s not the economy!0 -
Intelligent, successful people understand just how lucky they are.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, social Darwinism is indeed a crock of shit. That's not to say intelligence or working hard is not related to prosperity or poverty, but it's very easy to drift into a sort of social Darwinism.
0 -
He didn't say it *exactly*.Stark_Dawning said:
And where did he say that exactly?SouthamObserver said:rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm
0 -
IQ is a big grey (matter) area when it comes to success - compared to equality of opportunity, networks etc. You can wheel out the 'I left school with nothing and...' blah, but such cases are not the norm.
Anyway, the issue is more 'power' than 'wealth'. And on the greed=good thing, well he's only saying what most people reckon Tories think. That's the root of the toxic Tory meme.0 -
You said he did:SouthamObserver said:
He didn't say it *exactly*.Stark_Dawning said:
And where did he say that exactly?SouthamObserver said:rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm
especially when coupled with dodgy arguments about IQ (rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm)
Do you intend to withdraw your previous comment or bluster and fudge?
0 -
I thought the whole jist of Boris’ speech was against the 1980’s yuppie greed.Carola said:Anyway, the issue is more 'power' than 'wealth'. And on the greed=good thing, well he's only saying what most people reckon Tories think. That's the root of the toxic Tory meme.
Bojo: - " Gerard Lyons, my economic adviser, thinks we could be looking at growth of 4 per cent next year; and so I hope that in many ways it is NOT like the 1980s all over again.
I don’t imagine that there will be a return of teddy bear braces and young men and women driving Porsches and bawling into brick sized mobiles. But I also hope that there is no return to that spirit of Loadsamoney heartlessness – figuratively riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless; and I hope that this time the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed – valid motivator thought greed may be for economic progress – as for what they give and do for the rest of the population, many of whom have experienced real falls in their incomes over the last five years.
And if there is to be a boom in the 20-teens, I hope it is one that is marked by a genuine sense of community and acts of prodigious philanthropy, and I wish the snob value and prestige that the Americans attach to act of giving would somehow manifest itself here, or manifest itself more vividly. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/10480321/Boris-Johnsons-speech-at-the-Margaret-Thatcher-lecture-in-full.html
0 -
Whatever the merits of Johnson's speech (I haven't read it) I cannot for the life of me believe that Tories seriously think Theresa May is leadership material. Forget all the 'nasty party' background noise or that she has the charisma of one of the vultures from the Disney Jungle Book cartoon this is a minister who has
a) repeatedly made dubious statements about what is achievable and been forced to apologise to Parliament at least once (more perhaps?) May too often engages her mouth before her brain is fired up.
b) is failing in her main task (immigration) and her 'successes' in regards to crime are decidedly questionable
c) has alienated the police and created an environment of mutual mistrust to the extent that she now wants to tout outside the UK for senior police officers (how long would it take for her to get the Heywood treatment that IDS and Maude have received?)
d) Suffers that common failing of many MP's of her gender do in too often playing to her own gender at the expense of the other.
e) Supports the Snoopers Charter and the reining back of the HRA (in itself not a bad thing) so will be a deterrent to Liberal Tory voters.
And if there is one thing more absurd than seeing Miliband's distorted cartoon features on the White House lawn its the idea that May's spotty boots might one day stand upon it.
If the Tory's make May their leader in 2015 its another gift to UKIP and as it goes the Liberal Democrats as well.0 -
No I do not intend to withdraw my previous comment.GeoffM said:
You said he did:SouthamObserver said:
He didn't say it *exactly*.Stark_Dawning said:
And where did he say that exactly?SouthamObserver said:rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm
especially when coupled with dodgy arguments about IQ (rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm)
Do you intend to withdraw your previous comment or bluster and fudge?0 -
Fine. Let the lie stand. Crack on.SouthamObserver said:
No I do not intend to withdraw my previous comment.GeoffM said:
You said he did:SouthamObserver said:
He didn't say it *exactly*.Stark_Dawning said:
And where did he say that exactly?SouthamObserver said:rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm
especially when coupled with dodgy arguments about IQ (rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm)
Do you intend to withdraw your previous comment or bluster and fudge?
0 -
Yes I know - but having read the speech in full I think the error was in *seemingly* conflating the two.SimonStClare said:
I thought the whole jist of Boris’ speech was against the 1980’s yuppie greed.Carola said:Anyway, the issue is more 'power' than 'wealth'. And on the greed=good thing, well he's only saying what most people reckon Tories think. That's the root of the toxic Tory meme.
Bojo: - " Gerard Lyons, my economic adviser, thinks we could be looking at growth of 4 per cent next year; and so I hope that in many ways it is NOT like the 1980s all over again.
I don’t imagine that there will be a return of teddy bear braces and young men and women driving Porsches and bawling into brick sized mobiles. But I also hope that there is no return to that spirit of Loadsamoney heartlessness – figuratively riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless; and I hope that this time the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed – valid motivator thought greed may be for economic progress – as for what they give and do for the rest of the population, many of whom have experienced real falls in their incomes over the last five years.
And if there is to be a boom in the 20-teens, I hope it is one that is marked by a genuine sense of community and acts of prodigious philanthropy, and I wish the snob value and prestige that the Americans attach to act of giving would somehow manifest itself here, or manifest itself more vividly. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/10480321/Boris-Johnsons-speech-at-the-Margaret-Thatcher-lecture-in-full.html
This 'leftie' wealth envy bull is a blind. It's power, vested interests, backscratching etc - the stuff that keeps it all in the 'family'. That's the issue.
And philanthropy? It's fine for the Bill Gates of the world when they get to that age where they realise that money isn't everything and go looking for a sense of self worth before they pop their clogs.
But global corporations? Do me a favour.
My mum was a personnel officer on a big family-owned pottery factory. There was a real sense of loyalty to the company from the workers and the company valued that. They put on trips for families, xmas parties for the kids, booked out the swimming baths once a week for employee use, had an advice centre etc. Decent pay and conditions.
Those days are gone, for the drones anyway.
0 -
On another point let's get this right the whole justification of this article is the condemnation of Johnson's speech by the Guardian, The Independent and the Huffington Post?
Which boils down to " Leading Tory candidate to replace Cameron gets criticised by left-wing mouthpieces"
Go figure.......0 -
Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?0 -
Boris would be an embarrassment to a buffoon. The dullard personifies current Tories who having bought their way into positions have to try and justify having an IQ rather than having had one bought for them.0
-
It's not a lie. It is me getting a different message from the speech than you. And that is the problem with it.GeoffM said:
Fine. Let the lie stand. Crack on.SouthamObserver said:
No I do not intend to withdraw my previous comment.GeoffM said:
You said he did:SouthamObserver said:
He didn't say it *exactly*.Stark_Dawning said:
And where did he say that exactly?SouthamObserver said:rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm
especially when coupled with dodgy arguments about IQ (rich people are rich because they are cleverer than everyone else, hmmmm)
Do you intend to withdraw your previous comment or bluster and fudge?
0 -
If he'd been praised by the usual suspect dreary lefty moaners I'd be worried, but not by attacks from those same people in this space-filling thread header.smithersjones2013 said:On another point let's get this right the whole justification of this article is the condemnation of Johnson's speech by the Guardian, The Independent and the Huffington Post?
Which boils down to " Leading Tory candidate to replace Cameron gets criticised by left-wing mouthpieces"
Go figure.......
As opposed to Cameron who courted plaudits from Guardian readers by hugging a huskie when they were never going to vote for him - Boris has only annoyed idiots who would never have voted for him anyway.
That shows Boris as being the better politician.
0 -
SO - I'm giddy on a 2-goal frenzy from Spurs.... now dreaming of a few big wins at Fulham and Sunderland as we start scoring for fun at last then perhaps a home win against a depleted stumbling Liverpool...
All based on a point at home....0 -
Johnson was a King's Scholar , his parents didn't pay a penny for his Eton education.malcolmg said:Boris would be an embarrassment to a buffoon. The dullard personifies current Tories who having bought their way into positions have to try and justify having an IQ rather than having had one bought for them.
I hope your parents didn't spend anything on yours.
0 -
I think Man C might go better this week than they did against us...
Martin Jol's been sacked.0 -
Keep up the good work. Spurs played well, which is the important thing. Now you need to play consistently like that, especially against Liverpool ;-)Scrapheap_as_was said:So Spurs didn't win due to 2 errors, my hedging of the result by betting £100 on Man U also failed.
A draw - worst possible outcome.... keeps me hoping that 'what if we beat Fulham and Sunderland this week... Sturridge is out for our next home game in the PL'...
It's the hope.
0 -
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
0 -
I don't for one minute think he could or should be Cons leader.foxinsoxuk said:The Tory leadership contest has a round where the candidates put their case to MPs then a second round where the wider membership votes. I suspect he would win the second round, but am not at all sure that he would place in the top two in the first round.
MPs often do not like being overshadowed by extraparliamentary politicians, and Boris is too pro immigration and pro europe for the real headbangers. Where does this Etonian differ politically from our current Etonian?TOPPING said:oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.
0 -
They did not have anything , all stolen by Tories. As I said he was gifted his place and is a nasty piece of work from a nasty party. He is not half as smart or as funny as he seems to believe.MonikerDiCanio said:
Johnson was a King's Scholar , his parents didn't pay a penny for his Eton education.malcolmg said:Boris would be an embarrassment to a buffoon. The dullard personifies current Tories who having bought their way into positions have to try and justify having an IQ rather than having had one bought for them.
I hope your parents didn't spend anything on yours.0 -
There speaks a real Tory, full of compassion and human spirit. F88K you jack I am doing all right, lovely.GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.0 -
@MD
"This reminds me of a passage from the Prince (been listening to the audiobook a bit lately). When you move your stall from centre to left or right, or vice versa, then those on your new ground are disinclined to believe your sincerity, and those on your old ground consider you something of a traitor."
A more appropriate Machiavellian quote also from The Prince
“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”0 -
Why do you think that didn't apply 1979-1997? Is that the 18 year long exception that proves the rule?GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
0 -
Yes and for the Tories that is not a pretty sight , idiots all aroundRoger said:@MD
"This reminds me of a passage from the Prince (been listening to the audiobook a bit lately). When you move your stall from centre to left or right, or vice versa, then those on your new ground are disinclined to believe your sincerity, and those on your old ground consider you something of a traitor."
A more appropriate Machiavellian quote also from The Prince
“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”0 -
For many MPs, ideological purity is trumped by electoral appeal. Boris would make the final two among MPs if he's in a position to stand when there's an election. Which two could stop him?foxinsoxuk said:The Tory leadership contest has a round where the candidates put their case to MPs then a second round where the wider membership votes. I suspect he would win the second round, but am not at all sure that he would place in the top two in the first round.
MPs often do not like being overshadowed by extraparliamentary politicians, and Boris is too pro immigration and pro europe for the real headbangers. Where does this Etonian differ politically from our current Etonian?TOPPING said:oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.
I do wonder if the vehemence of The Guardian's reaction is because it sees in Boris not only an echo of Thatcher's policies but also her electability; of a public agreeing with a philosophy opposed to everything the Guardian and its four readers stand for.0 -
Every time Labour has left office unemployment has been higher than they inherited. There's the rule - repeated indisputably by *every* Labour govt.Theuniondivvie said:
Why do you think that didn't apply 1979-1997? Is that the 18 year long exception that proves the rule?GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
0 -
When it comes to Spurs never, ever give into hope. I expect us to lose at least one of the Fulham and Sunderland games. Liverpool will be hide behind the sofa time.Scrapheap_as_was said:SO - I'm giddy on a 2-goal frenzy from Spurs.... now dreaming of a few big wins at Fulham and Sunderland as we start scoring for fun at last then perhaps a home win against a depleted stumbling Liverpool...
All based on a point at home....
0 -
It's clear most of those lefty probably haven't watched the speech, or paid much attention, and just used it to write their usual guff about horrible Tories.
Here's a link to the video:
http://www.cps.org.uk/events/q/date/2013/11/27/the-2013-margaret-thatcher-lecture-boris-johnson/
I'd urge anyone with a spare 45 minutes to watch it. Boris comes across as an all-round, well-balanced, dare I say one nation, Tory.
He talked positively about:
"Academic competition" (not grammar schools)
Low taxes and low spending
The social responsibility of people who have succeeded
Infrastructure, particularly houses, roads, airports
Immigration
Apprenticeships and social mobility generally
The free economy but negatives of too much inequality
He also emphasised a few times the squeeze on living standards.
The example of IQ was probably a bad idea as lefties have just jumped on that, but it was only used to outline that equality of outcome is not possible or desirable.0 -
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?david_herdson said:
For many MPs, ideological purity is trumped by electoral appeal. Boris would make the final two among MPs if he's in a position to stand when there's an election. Which two could stop him?foxinsoxuk said:The Tory leadership contest has a round where the candidates put their case to MPs then a second round where the wider membership votes. I suspect he would win the second round, but am not at all sure that he would place in the top two in the first round.
MPs often do not like being overshadowed by extraparliamentary politicians, and Boris is too pro immigration and pro europe for the real headbangers. Where does this Etonian differ politically from our current Etonian?TOPPING said:oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.
I do wonder if the vehemence of The Guardian's reaction is because it sees in Boris not only an echo of Thatcher's policies but also her electability; of a public agreeing with a philosophy opposed to everything the Guardian and its four readers stand for.
0 -
If you haven't read Boris's speech here is an opportunity to watch it, just over 40 minutes. I wouldn't agree with it all but it was entertaining, insightful and optimistic.....smithersjones2013 said:Whatever the merits of Johnson's speech (I haven't read it) I cannot for the life of me believe that Tories seriously think Theresa May is leadership material. Forget all the 'nasty party' background noise or that she has the charisma of one of the vultures from the Disney Jungle Book cartoon this is a minister who has
a) repeatedly made dubious statements about what is achievable and been forced to apologise to Parliament at least once (more perhaps?) May too often engages her mouth before her brain is fired up.
b) is failing in her main task (immigration) and her 'successes' in regards to crime are decidedly questionable
c) has alienated the police and created an environment of mutual mistrust to the extent that she now wants to tout outside the UK for senior police officers (how long would it take for her to get the Heywood treatment that IDS and Maude have received?)
d) Suffers that common failing of many MP's of her gender do in too often playing to her own gender at the expense of the other.
e) Supports the Snoopers Charter and the reining back of the HRA (in itself not a bad thing) so will be a deterrent to Liberal Tory voters.
And if there is one thing more absurd than seeing Miliband's distorted cartoon features on the White House lawn its the idea that May's spotty boots might one day stand upon it.
If the Tory's make May their leader in 2015 its another gift to UKIP and as it goes the Liberal Democrats as well.
http://www.conservativehome.com/video/2013/11/watch-boris-johnsons-margaret-thatcher-lecture-in-full.html
0 -
The best piece of scholarship on the Prince, if you want to read it historically is V. Cox, 'Machiavelli and the Rhetorica ad Herennium: Deliberative Rhetoric in The Prince', The Sixteenth Century Journal, 28(4), (1997), pp. 1109-1141.Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, everyone.
This reminds me of a passage from the Prince (been listening to the audiobook a bit lately). When you move your stall from centre to left or right, or vice versa, then those on your new ground are disinclined to believe your sincerity, and those on your old ground consider you something of a traitor.0 -
Actually I'm not doing all right. I have just started a new business and I've taken on the risks associated with that. I'm paying some of my staff much more than I take home because they expect the market rate and have lifestyles to maintain, mortgages to pay and mouths to feed.malcolmg said:
There speaks a real Tory, full of compassion and human spirit. F88K you jack I am doing all right, lovely.GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
We all have a hard few years ahead and my recruitment phase was designed to weed out the lazy, the stupid and the feckless from the applicants. Making a success of the venture depends on eliminating the weak links. Economic Darwinism. Leave the weakest antelope behind.
0 -
Elected as an MP? Two London Mayoral victories?SouthamObserver said:
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?david_herdson said:
For many MPs, ideological purity is trumped by electoral appeal. Boris would make the final two among MPs if he's in a position to stand when there's an election. Which two could stop him?foxinsoxuk said:The Tory leadership contest has a round where the candidates put their case to MPs then a second round where the wider membership votes. I suspect he would win the second round, but am not at all sure that he would place in the top two in the first round.
MPs often do not like being overshadowed by extraparliamentary politicians, and Boris is too pro immigration and pro europe for the real headbangers. Where does this Etonian differ politically from our current Etonian?TOPPING said:oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.
I do wonder if the vehemence of The Guardian's reaction is because it sees in Boris not only an echo of Thatcher's policies but also her electability; of a public agreeing with a philosophy opposed to everything the Guardian and its four readers stand for.
0 -
Londoner's have elected him as mayor (twice)?SouthamObserver said:
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?0 -
This speech is mildly helpful to Boris Johnson's ambitions. Conservatives who read it or hear it will love it. Those who profess to be shocked or appalled were not going to vote for him anyway. Most people just won't notice it.0
-
But, since you're a fan of precision, the longest ever period of Conservative government left substantially higher unemployment than when it came in, therefore not lots of jobs sloshing about?GeoffM said:
Every time Labour has left office unemployment has been higher than they inherited. There's the rule - repeated indisputably by *every* Labour govt.Theuniondivvie said:
Why do you think that didn't apply 1979-1997? Is that the 18 year long exception that proves the rule?GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513653/Sexual-violence-gang-neighbourhoods-like-war-zones-girls-young-11-groomed-raped.html
"Britain's worst gang hit neighbourhoods are seeing levels of sexual violence as bad as in war zones, it was claimed today.
The warning came following the publication of a report for the Office of the Children's Commissioner that found girls as young as 11 are being systematically groomed, exploited and raped."
I truely hope and pray that every single member of the BBC and political class burn in hell.
0 -
Wasn't there a poll on Boris as PM a bit back?0
-
Boris has not been as clear about his core beliefs up to now. That's why this speech was a story.Gerry_Mander said:
Londoner's have elected him as mayor (twice)?SouthamObserver said:
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?
0 -
GeoffM said:
Elected as an MP? Two London Mayoral victories?SouthamObserver said:
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?david_herdson said:
For many MPs, ideological purity is trumped by electoral appeal. Boris would make the final two among MPs if he's in a position to stand when there's an election. Which two could stop him?foxinsoxuk said:The Tory leadership contest has a round where the candidates put their case to MPs then a second round where the wider membership votes. I suspect he would win the second round, but am not at all sure that he would place in the top two in the first round.
MPs often do not like being overshadowed by extraparliamentary politicians, and Boris is too pro immigration and pro europe for the real headbangers. Where does this Etonian differ politically from our current Etonian?TOPPING said:oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.
I do wonder if the vehemence of The Guardian's reaction is because it sees in Boris not only an echo of Thatcher's policies but also her electability; of a public agreeing with a philosophy opposed to everything the Guardian and its four readers stand for.
Evening @GeoffM - Hope your Stan James account is still alive and growing nicely
0 -
So against *every* Labour administration you're offering *one* *single* example as a complete rebuttal.Theuniondivvie said:
But, since you're a fan of precision, the longest ever period of Conservative government left substantially higher unemployment than when it came in, therefore not lots of jobs sloshing about?GeoffM said:
Every time Labour has left office unemployment has been higher than they inherited. There's the rule - repeated indisputably by *every* Labour govt.Theuniondivvie said:
Why do you think that didn't apply 1979-1997? Is that the 18 year long exception that proves the rule?GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
Awesome.
0 -
That is correct. But should Boris ever make it into a position of responsibility in the Conservative party you can bet your bottom dollar the speech will become an issue.antifrank said:This speech is mildly helpful to Boris Johnson's ambitions. Conservatives who read it or hear it will love it. Those who profess to be shocked or appalled were not going to vote for him anyway. Most people just won't notice it.
0 -
Hmm - Forget the Hull result, Southampton are winning at the bridge !!!!0
-
If Swansea equalise - not outside possibility judging by attempts on goal etc, the bookies will have absolubtely cleaned up on the football today.0
-
Good evening @Pulpstar - my condolences on your recent loss. The untimely death of a betting account hits not just the punter involved but all of us as a community. We share your pain.Pulpstar said:GeoffM said:
Elected as an MP? Two London Mayoral victories?SouthamObserver said:
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?david_herdson said:
For many MPs, ideological purity is trumped by electoral appeal. Boris would make the final two among MPs if he's in a position to stand when there's an election. Which two could stop him?foxinsoxuk said:The Tory leadership contest has a round where the candidates put their case to MPs then a second round where the wider membership votes. I suspect he would win the second round, but am not at all sure that he would place in the top two in the first round.
MPs often do not like being overshadowed by extraparliamentary politicians, and Boris is too pro immigration and pro europe for the real headbangers. Where does this Etonian differ politically from our current Etonian?TOPPING said:oh, and something that should never be underestimated, as I'm sure you don't, is that he is adored. I mean rock star, 1D, Ronaldo-type adored. Which is worth 5pts in whichever contest he decides is right for him.
I do wonder if the vehemence of The Guardian's reaction is because it sees in Boris not only an echo of Thatcher's policies but also her electability; of a public agreeing with a philosophy opposed to everything the Guardian and its four readers stand for.
Evening @GeoffM - Hope your Stan James account is still alive and growing nicely
0 -
Voted in as mayor in London twice. London is a pretty liberal city and most people like him.SouthamObserver said:
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?0 -
Arsene Wenger must be very happy right now.0
-
Makes innaccurate, sweeping generalisation, indulges in whataboutery when pulled about it.GeoffM said:
So against *every* Labour administration you're offering *one* *single* example as a complete rebuttal.
Awesome.
Extra awesome.
0 -
Why? Southampton are hot on his team's tail, even if they did beat us last weekend.antifrank said:Arsene Wenger must be very happy right now.
Note - I don't seriously think Saints will challenge for the title, but I'm absolutely loving the fact that it's even a vague possibility!0 -
They like him; but they have known little of his political philosophy. He has shed more light on that now. As Antifrank says, that could well help him among Tories and those on the right generally, but it may well put off a lot of people in the centre, as well as the left. He has certainly given his political opponents some material to work with.MaxPB said:
Voted in as mayor in London twice. London is a pretty liberal city and most people like him.SouthamObserver said:
Boris is right wing. The Guardian is not. In the same way, it is unusual to find pieces in the Telegraph or Mail that praise Ken Livingstone. Is there any evidence that the public agrees with Boris's philosophy?
0 -
Aha, they have known little of his political philosophy.SouthamObserver said:
They like him; but they have known little of his political philosophy. He has shed more light on that now. As Antifrank says, that could well help him among Tories and those on the right generally, but it may well put off a lot of people in the centre, as well as the left. He has certainly given his political opponents some material to work with.
Good thing a Tory didn't say that, it would have been seen as condescending. However, as you're not a Tory, I take and agree with your point.0 -
What was also interesting was that Boris came out in support of more selection, even if not solely through more grammar schools. With the Sunday Times today pointing out we are continuing to fall down the OECD education league table it is a way he can clearly differentiate himself from both Cameron, Osborne and Clegg and Miliband and offer a positive alternative!0
-
Matthew d'Ancona has referred to this speech as "rivers of cornflakes". To my eyes it looks more like the brief fuss around Keith Joseph's speech on the cycle of poverty and poor people having too many children. That did for his leadership ambitions, but the leadership election was immediately due. Boris Johnson can rely on the blessed sponge of Lethe, given the earliest we can reasonably expect a new Tory leader is 2015.0
-
The speech to me looks like it is a bit of long term leadership kite flying. It is definitely aimed at Conservatives internally.0
-
The record of the Labour government from 1945 to 1951 on unemployment can certainly not be described as having leaving higher unemployment than it inherited .GeoffM said:
So against *every* Labour administration you're offering *one* *single* example as a complete rebuttal.Theuniondivvie said:
But, since you're a fan of precision, the longest ever period of Conservative government left substantially higher unemployment than when it came in, therefore not lots of jobs sloshing about?GeoffM said:
Every time Labour has left office unemployment has been higher than they inherited. There's the rule - repeated indisputably by *every* Labour govt.Theuniondivvie said:
Why do you think that didn't apply 1979-1997? Is that the 18 year long exception that proves the rule?GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
Awesome.0 -
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=70058688&posted=1#post70058688 interesting poll on Strictly, judging by that @TSE is a brave man to lay SEB.0
-
Afternoon all
First, overdue condolences to Mike and family.
On-topic, one of the problems of speeches is that a few well or ill-judged words taken out of context can undermine the rest of the argument. Boris is suffering from some words which don't in isolation sound at all good. Johnson comes across as a kind of British Ronald Reagan from the 1970s - for me, it's much more about the optimistic tone then the actual content.
Johnson won in London in 2008 and 2012 because he was the "happy" candidate against the "dour" Ken Livingstone and that played well to the zeitgeist. He was a contrast to the austerity of Government and the doom-mongers of Opposition.
Could that optimism enthuse a beaten Conservative Party in 2015 ? Sometimes, beaten parties choose the leader they want rather than the one that appeals most to the electorate but it's possible Johnson would stand in marked contrast to Prime Minister Miliband and the realities of Government.
None of this makes him a good or great Prime Minister - his record in London is, in my view, mixed at best. He has taken far more power for himself than Livingstone in terms of transport and the Police and his personal empire-building has been at London's expense His sunny optimism belies some large areas where little has changed for the better.
As Prime Minister, he'd oversee our national decline but we'd all go down smiling.0 -
What was the unemployment figure at the time of the 1945 election?
I thought demobilisation was after the election, as we were still fighting Japan.MarkSenior said:
The record of the Labour government from 1945 to 1951 on unemployment can certainly not be described as having leaving higher unemployment than it inherited .GeoffM said:
So against *every* Labour administration you're offering *one* *single* example as a complete rebuttal.Theuniondivvie said:
But, since you're a fan of precision, the longest ever period of Conservative government left substantially higher unemployment than when it came in, therefore not lots of jobs sloshing about?GeoffM said:
Every time Labour has left office unemployment has been higher than they inherited. There's the rule - repeated indisputably by *every* Labour govt.Theuniondivvie said:
Why do you think that didn't apply 1979-1997? Is that the 18 year long exception that proves the rule?GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.
Awesome.MarkSenior said:GeoffM said:Theuniondivvie said:GeoffM said:
The record of the Labour government from 1945 to 1951 on unemployment can certainly not be described as having leaving higher unemployment than it inherited .Theuniondivvie said:GeoffM said:
You are right. Lazy people are always lazy. Stupid people are always stupid.Freggles said:Well said, Mr. Dancer.
I sometimes wonder what social Darwinists think about fluctuations in employment rates due to economic crises. Do they think people coincidentally start getting lazy at about the same time as the economy crashes?
In the economic upturns, though, jobs are sloshing about and its difficult to avoid accidentally stumbling in to one. Then people feel comfortable, relax, forget the lessons of history and vote in a Labour govt ...then the jobs dry up.
Jobs are still around but require a bit of effort to find so it's easier just to crack open a can of Stella, fire up the flat screen tv and open the dole cheque envelope until the next Tory administration comes around and repairs it all again.0 -
@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .0 -
I have checked the figures:
At the time of the July 1945 election there was 0.9% unemployment, rising to 1.4% at the time of the October 1951 electiion.
Both are figures we would envy now, but it is true that unemployment went up in that Labour govt. I suspect it was mostly the economy restructuring from a war footing.MarkSenior said:@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .0 -
Oh dear Liverpool.0
-
I think you will find that throughout the demob period unemployment rose to around 2.6% and then fell steadily to 1951 . In the words of the current Conservative government , the 1945 - 1951 Labour administration created over 3 million new jobs to absorb those demobbed .foxinsoxuk said:I have checked the figures:
At the time of the July 1945 election there was 0.9% unemployment, rising to 1.4% at the time of the October 1951 electiion.
Both are figures we would envy now, but it is true that unemployment went up in that Labour govt. I suspect it was mostly the economy restructuring from a war footing.MarkSenior said:@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .0 -
stodge Far from oversee our national decline as Boris himself said, the population of London and its position on the world stage has increased significantly since the seventies and indeed under his tenure. As he also stated, by 2050 the UK will be on its way to being the largest population and economy in Europe, a far cry from 1979 when the retiring British Ambassador in Paris stated 'not only were we no longer a world power, but we were not even a front-rank European power either.'0
-
Theresa May won't become Tory leader. Capable though she is there's nothing about her that adds to the equation. I would struggle to remember any phrase she has ever used.
Boris adds. I suspect he's the most popular politician in the country. He even seems to be able to deliver when in office. There's some chance that Cameron will continue in the job for many year, and it may or may not be that Boris has his moment.
Somehow he needs to promulgate whatever it is he's on. Popular Tory politics - it's historically been pretty hard to do. Obviously anyone with any sense (or money) has always voted for the right, and that explains Labours popularity entirely (the enemy of my enemy), but there is a chance that people like Boris can actually make the self-evident case to the populace.0 -
I agree that in the demob period unemployment rose, before dropping back, nonetheless it is actually true that unemployment was higher in Oct 1951 than July 1945.
Misleading to look at in isolation, I agree, but strictly speaking a correct statement.MarkSenior said:
I think you will find that throughout the demob period unemployment rose to around 2.6% and then fell steadily to 1951 . In the words of the current Conservative government , the 1945 - 1951 Labour administration created over 3 million new jobs to absorb those demobbed .foxinsoxuk said:I have checked the figures:
At the time of the July 1945 election there was 0.9% unemployment, rising to 1.4% at the time of the October 1951 electiion.
Both are figures we would envy now, but it is true that unemployment went up in that Labour govt. I suspect it was mostly the economy restructuring from a war footing.MarkSenior said:@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .0 -
...which is a nice pub quiz trivia factoid.MarkSenior said:
I think you will find that throughout the demob period unemployment rose to around 2.6% and then fell steadily to 1951 . In the words of the current Conservative government , the 1945 - 1951 Labour administration created over 3 million new jobs to absorb those demobbed .foxinsoxuk said:I have checked the figures:
At the time of the July 1945 election there was 0.9% unemployment, rising to 1.4% at the time of the October 1951 electiion.
Both are figures we would envy now, but it is true that unemployment went up in that Labour govt. I suspect it was mostly the economy restructuring from a war footing.MarkSenior said:@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .
Unrelated to where we started off as the start and finish points of the stats are different, but quite fun to know cheers.0 -
We get it, lots of jobs were created during that parliament (I'll refrain from the odious business of talking about government creating those jobs). But you were incorrect to try to use it as an example of a Labour government where the unemployment rate fell.MarkSenior said:
I think you will find that throughout the demob period unemployment rose to around 2.6% and then fell steadily to 1951 . In the words of the current Conservative government , the 1945 - 1951 Labour administration created over 3 million new jobs to absorb those demobbed .foxinsoxuk said:I have checked the figures:
At the time of the July 1945 election there was 0.9% unemployment, rising to 1.4% at the time of the October 1951 electiion.
Both are figures we would envy now, but it is true that unemployment went up in that Labour govt. I suspect it was mostly the economy restructuring from a war footing.MarkSenior said:@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .0 -
Good evening, everyone.
Mr. Omnium, Boris may add, but I suspect (and I think I recall reading here) that's very much a South/London bonus from Boris.0 -
Cough Ed Balls coughRoger said:@MD
"This reminds me of a passage from the Prince (been listening to the audiobook a bit lately). When you move your stall from centre to left or right, or vice versa, then those on your new ground are disinclined to believe your sincerity, and those on your old ground consider you something of a traitor."
A more appropriate Machiavellian quote also from The Prince
“The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”
Not to forget Phil Woolas, Alan Johnson and that other bloke he appointed from the co op.0 -
F1: Button reckons driving will be harder in 2014 (lots of torque, less downforce and more spinning wheels), but it sounds like it'll be perhaps closer and more entertaining:
http://www.espn.co.uk/mclaren/motorsport/story/138211.html0 -
All these lefties hyperventilating about a speech they probably haven't read or watched just confirms there are nasty prejudiced people on both sides of the political spectrum. And makes it more likely that they will underestimate Boris again...if he chooses to run for a third term.0
-
I really don't think Boris can take much credit for this. Arguably, this is down to more significant forces encouraging the growth or regeneration of cities worldwide. As to what and where we will be in 2050, let's see.HYUFD said:stodge Far from oversee our national decline as Boris himself said, the population of London and its position on the world stage has increased significantly since the seventies and indeed under his tenure. As he also stated, by 2050 the UK will be on its way to being the largest population and economy in Europe, a far cry from 1979 when the retiring British Ambassador in Paris stated 'not only were we no longer a world power, but we were not even a front-rank European power either.'
All I think it does is strengthen the sense that London can do even better if it didn't have the rest of the UK acting as a drag on its fortunes. If you want a political development for the 2030s and 2040s, how about the emergence of a party supporting an Independent London ?
0 -
...distancing himself from the commentariat's interpretation of what Boris saidtim said:
I thought it was Osborne who was distancing himself?Millsy said:All these lefties hyperventilating about a speech they probably haven't read or watched just confirms there are nasty prejudiced people on both sides of the political spectrum. And makes it more likely that they will underestimate Boris again...if he chooses to run for a third term.
0 -
Well it is certainly better than parroting a stupid slogan such as you have been doing without taking account of the specific circumstances at the time .GeoffM said:
...which is a nice pub quiz trivia factoid.MarkSenior said:
I think you will find that throughout the demob period unemployment rose to around 2.6% and then fell steadily to 1951 . In the words of the current Conservative government , the 1945 - 1951 Labour administration created over 3 million new jobs to absorb those demobbed .foxinsoxuk said:I have checked the figures:
At the time of the July 1945 election there was 0.9% unemployment, rising to 1.4% at the time of the October 1951 electiion.
Both are figures we would envy now, but it is true that unemployment went up in that Labour govt. I suspect it was mostly the economy restructuring from a war footing.MarkSenior said:@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .
Unrelated to where we started off as the start and finish points of the stats are different, but quite fun to know cheers.0 -
Repeating a fact = "parroting a stupid slogan"MarkSenior said:
Well it is certainly better than parroting a stupid slogan such as you have been doing without taking account of the specific circumstances at the time .GeoffM said:
...which is a nice pub quiz trivia factoid.MarkSenior said:
I think you will find that throughout the demob period unemployment rose to around 2.6% and then fell steadily to 1951 . In the words of the current Conservative government , the 1945 - 1951 Labour administration created over 3 million new jobs to absorb those demobbed .foxinsoxuk said:I have checked the figures:
At the time of the July 1945 election there was 0.9% unemployment, rising to 1.4% at the time of the October 1951 electiion.
Both are figures we would envy now, but it is true that unemployment went up in that Labour govt. I suspect it was mostly the economy restructuring from a war footing.MarkSenior said:@foxinsoxuk
Very true , apart from those unemployed at the time of the 1945 GE , there were some 4 million service men and women who were demobbed over the next 18 months . The vast majority had been found jobs well before 1951 .
Unrelated to where we started off as the start and finish points of the stats are different, but quite fun to know cheers.
I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Apart from the "fact" bit of course.
0 -
"Beth Isobel Robson @BethIsobelRobso 6h
The@Libdems have selected Sarah Smith to stand for Parliament for Dover and Deal in the 2015 General Election #deal, #dover..."
twitter.com/BethIsobelRobso/status/4071304936045977600 -
Saints didn't pass the ball as well as they have been but still a great start to the season!
Liking the TSE articles. Busy with a 2 year old so back to lurking.0 -
Chelsea were very impressive in the second half, the first real 'Mourinho' performance since he has been back.shipmate1 said:Saints didn't pass the ball as well as they have been but still a great start to the season!
Liking the TSE articles. Busy with a 2 year old so back to lurking.0 -
Can we stop talking about the football please.
Or the morning thread maybe about electoral reform.
Kind regards
The Guest Editor and Liverpool fan.0 -
See, democracy sucks sometimes
electionista @electionista 54s
Croatia - first results show #referendum to ban same-sex marriage has passed with 64.6%0 -
"What would Maggie do on housing? She would recognise the squeeze on her core voters, their desperate shortage of homes; she would revive her great mission of a property-owning democracy and encourage the creation of hundreds of thousands of new homes in which people had at least a share of the equity themselves; and she would remember the lessons of Baldwin and Macmillan and Thatcher – that Tories are most successful when they help middle Britain to find the housing they need. "tim said:
I thought it was Osborne who was distancing himself?Millsy said:All these lefties hyperventilating about a speech they probably haven't read or watched just confirms there are nasty prejudiced people on both sides of the political spectrum. And makes it more likely that they will underestimate Boris again...if he chooses to run for a third term.
At last.
A back-to-basics Tory policy you can get behind, tim.
0 -
So where is Boris standing at the 2015 election? He needs to be in Parliament for his succession to look anything other than horribly contrived.0
