politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ahead of this morning’s YouGov London poll what happened at th
Comments
-
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know you might not believe me, but this honestly has nothing to do with his views on Brexit: Hammond offers nothing May doesn’t.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistair Darling was 100/1 to succeed Gordon Brown at one point. When the contest came around, he was looking like a very credible contender when he announced his intention not to stand.rkrkrk said:
He's so unpopular with the members if the Con Home polls are to be believed.AlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
If we end up staying in the customs union/soft Brexit - he is going to be the fall guy who gets blamed. If we get hard Brexit and the economy deteriorates - he is going to be blamed.
Struggling to imagine a future where the Con membership views him positively enough to make him leader.
The Conservative membership is currently blinded by Brexit. There will come a point - hard to imagine I know, but bear with me - when they realise that Brexit isn't everything. At that point, Philip Hammond will be reappraised at least partially. The question is how much and whether that's before the next leadership election.
He has a political tin ear, and lacks people skills and empathy. He is very cerebral and more mathematical, and he’s a bit better at answering questions, but they are otherwise two very similar people. His flaws come across in Fallout, and I’ve had that corroborated by a friend who used to work for him.
Davidson, Hunt or Hinds are all Remainers who’d make much better candidates, even though they have tougher routes to the premiership.0 -
Hammond has credibility, and although he is not charismatic, he is perhaps a smidegeon more charismatic than May.
Wasn’t he a Mod or New Romantic in his youth?
I still think it will be Hunt, though.
He’s cunning, plausible, and conveniently non-ideological.0 -
It has - every one of their journalist are left leaning and all their stories are reported accordingly.TGOHF said:
Sky news has gone full Guardian lefty libtard handwringer - unwatchable these days.Big_G_NorthWales said:The standard of journalism at Sky is so poor. They do not seem to understand the difference between illegal immigration and Windrush. Samantha Jane Mee interviewed the daughter of Clayton Barnes who left the UK in 2010 and was refused re-entry in 2013. Mee asked Clayton Barnes daughter if the Home Office had been in touch and the daughter affirmed they had but was annoyed because the home office asked her for her father's name and she responded by saying because he had been on television they should know. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both Mee and the daughter wanted instant answers on compensation which I understand will need legislation to be put in place
0 -
Likely to be very patchy. Might be some parts of London where anti-semitism gets a sotto voce cheer, in contrast to those areas where it sends a chill down the spine.Sean_F said:
I'd be very surprised if it didn't put Labour at least 10% ahead.CarlottaVance said:And on topic...
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/989418745507598337
titter....
Today we should be getting the final YouGov poll for Queen Mary University for the London local elections a week today. I’m not sure whether Owen Jones has reliable informants at either institution, but he tweeted earlier this week that a “bad” poll for Labour was coming.
My estimate is Labour will obliterate where it already does very well, yet fall a fair bit short in the places it hopes to take.0 -
Sutton springs to mind, but where else ?AlastairMeeks said:The swing won't be even across the capital. There are areas of London where the Conservatives should be gaining seats.
0 -
Having and maybe Redbridge - areas where UKIP played a role last time?Pulpstar said:
Sutton springs to mind, but where else ?AlastairMeeks said:The swing won't be even across the capital. There are areas of London where the Conservatives should be gaining seats.
0 -
So secret they are in the Sunrottenborough said:0 -
HehAlastairMeeks said:The Conservative membership is currently blinded by Brexit. There will come a point - hard to imagine I know, but bear with me - when they realise that Brexit isn't everything.
0 -
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know you might not believe me, but this honestly has nothing to do with his views on Brexit: Hammond offers nothing May doesn’t.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistair Darling was 100/1 to succeed Gordon Brown at one point. When the contest came around, he was looking like a very credible contender when he announced his intention not to stand.rkrkrk said:
He's so unpopular with the members if the Con Home polls are to be believed.AlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
If we end up staying in the customs union/soft Brexit - he is going to be the fall guy who gets blamed. If we get hard Brexit and the economy deteriorates - he is going to be blamed.
Struggling to imagine a future where the Con membership views him positively enough to make him leader.
The Conservative membership is currently blinded by Brexit. There will come a point - hard to imagine I know, but bear with me - when they realise that Brexit isn't everything. At that point, Philip Hammond will be reappraised at least partially. The question is how much and whether that's before the next leadership election.
He has a political tin ear, and lacks people skills and empathy. He is very cerebral and more mathematical, and he’s a bit better at answering questions, but they are otherwise two very similar people. His flaws come across in Fallout, and I’ve had that corroborated by a friend who used to work for him.
Davidson, Hunt or Hinds are all Remainers who’d make much better candidates, even though they have tougher routes to the premiership.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.0 -
Right up until it comes to getting the self employed to pay their fair share of national insurance.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.0 -
"More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election)."AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
I don't think Hammond has demonstrated any of those, particularly not when you consider that become PM tends to throw these things into relief. You have to start answering on 12 briefs, not one.0 -
I see "Blinded by Brexit" is the monomaniac's latest refrain.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpq35wyDi7I0 -
ONS- Knife crime up by 22% across England and Wales and homicides up 9% during 2017.0
-
Who's definition of honour?GIN1138 said:
After her disaster with the select committee yesterday I think Ms Rudd needs to do the honourable thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am annoyed with Amber and think she may have to go before the HOC today and depending on her answers she may or may not survive. As a conservative member I would not vote for Amber.rottenborough said:
If Rudd is out, then maybe Hunt's chances are looking better. Speaking for my book.Big_G_NorthWales said:On illegal immigration targets of course there were targets, indeed why would anyone think otherwise.
The problem I see is that Amber Rudd seemed clueless on it and to be honest, seems out of her depth at present. TM was strict but if the media think that by attacking Rudd and TM over being strict on illegal immigration is a negative issue, they misjudge the public mood.
Windrush is a absolute disaster and wrong, but too many are conflating the issue with illegal immigration.
As far as I am concerned Amber Rudd's admission that she has known about the problem for months and that she was unable to deal with the target question is as good a reason as any for her to make her own decision to step down
Irrespective her leadership hopes are all but extinguished now0 -
Mostly, people with an honourable book....Charles said:
Who's definition of honour?GIN1138 said:
After her disaster with the select committee yesterday I think Ms Rudd needs to do the honourable thing.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am annoyed with Amber and think she may have to go before the HOC today and depending on her answers she may or may not survive. As a conservative member I would not vote for Amber.rottenborough said:
If Rudd is out, then maybe Hunt's chances are looking better. Speaking for my book.Big_G_NorthWales said:On illegal immigration targets of course there were targets, indeed why would anyone think otherwise.
The problem I see is that Amber Rudd seemed clueless on it and to be honest, seems out of her depth at present. TM was strict but if the media think that by attacking Rudd and TM over being strict on illegal immigration is a negative issue, they misjudge the public mood.
Windrush is a absolute disaster and wrong, but too many are conflating the issue with illegal immigration.
As far as I am concerned Amber Rudd's admission that she has known about the problem for months and that she was unable to deal with the target question is as good a reason as any for her to make her own decision to step down
Irrespective her leadership hopes are all but extinguished now
But her leadership ambitions are in tatters. And Windrush certainly won't help her hold her ultra-marginal seat.0 -
We probably disagree on his virtues. He misjudged the budget and has misstepped on tone more than once. I don’t see how he reaches out and inspires the next generation of voters. That doesn’t mean it’s because I’m blind to him because of his views on Brexit because I think there other Remainers in the Cabinet or equivalent are stronger candidates for the Premiership.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know p.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistairrkrkrk said:
He'sAlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
I start from the position that I want the next Tory leader to win the next GE. It’s why I would support Hunt or Davidson or Hinds, who I think share all the virtues you cite and have broader electoral appeal, but not Rees-Mogg or Boris or Davis or Hammond or Rudd.
No-one has yet convinced me of Rudd, even though I am open minded.0 -
I guess unless you've left the country and then been refused entry when you've tried to come back it's difficult to empathise. If it had happened to me I'd want more than just compensation. I'd want everyone responsible from the PM down to be forced to spend the rest of their days in Hartlepool.Big_G_NorthWales said:The standard of journalism at Sky is so poor. They do not seem to understand the difference between illegal immigration and Windrush. Samantha Jane Mee interviewed the daughter of Clayton Barnes who left the UK in 2010 and was refused re-entry in 2013. Mee asked Clayton Barnes daughter if the Home Office had been in touch and the daughter affirmed they had but was annoyed because the home office asked her for her father's name and she responded by saying because he had been on television they should know. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both Mee and the daughter wanted instant answers on compensation which I understand will need legislation to be put in place
0 -
Unless the change candidate is JRM (or Anna Soubry), I am voting for change. I would take Boris, Gove (as long as his pitch is liberal reformer), Rudd, Davidson MP, Rabb, Tugenhat or Williamson over Hammond.Casino_Royale said:
We probably disagree on his virtues. He misjudged the budget and has misstepped on tone more than once. I don’t see how he reaches out and inspires the next generation of voters. That doesn’t mean it’s because I’m blind to him because of his views on Brexit because I think there other Remainers in the Cabinet or equivalent are stronger candidates for the Premiership.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know p.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistairrkrkrk said:
He'sAlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
I start from the position that I want the next Tory leader to win the next GE. It’s why I would support Hunt or Davidson or Hinds, who I think share all the virtues you cite and have broader electoral appeal, but not Rees-Mogg or Boris or Davis or Hammond or Rudd.
No-one has yet convinced me of Rudd, even though I am open minded.0 -
Unfortunate?:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16185472.Watchdog_error_reveals_Unionist_campaign_s_secret_donors/
Once is unfortunate, twice looks like carelessness.....0 -
Except as the latest Yougov numbers I posted earlier show you are wrong on electoral appeal.Casino_Royale said:
We probably disagree on his virtues. He misjudged the budget and has misstepped on tone more than once. I don’t see how he reaches out and inspires the next generation of voters. That doesn’t mean it’s because I’m blind to him because of his views on Brexit because I think there other Remainers in the Cabinet or equivalent are stronger candidates for the Premiership.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know p.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistairrkrkrk said:
He'sAlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
I start from the position that I want the next Tory leader to win the next GE. It’s why I would support Hunt or Davidson or Hinds, who I think share all the virtues you cite and have broader electoral appeal, but not Rees-Mogg or Boris or Davis or Hammond or Rudd.
No-one has yet convinced me of Rudd, even though I am open minded.
Hunt's approval ratings are abysmal, Hinds is just as bad on -69%, Rees-Mogg, Boris and Rudd all do better than them.
Though you are right on Davidson who on +11% is by far the most popular senior Tory
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Ruth_Davidson
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Damian_Hinds0 -
Another international brand that may not flourish in Scotland....
https://twitter.com/dyason_mark/status/9894180447442575360 -
Hammond offers economic competence.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know you might not believe me, but this honestly has nothing to do with his views on Brexit: Hammond offers nothing May doesn’t.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistair Darling was 100/1 to succeed Gordon Brown at one point. When the contest came around, he was looking like a very credible contender when he announced his intention not to stand.rkrkrk said:
He's so unpopular with the members if the Con Home polls are to be believed.AlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
If we end up staying in the customs union/soft Brexit - he is going to be the fall guy who gets blamed. If we get hard Brexit and the economy deteriorates - he is going to be blamed.
Struggling to imagine a future where the Con membership views him positively enough to make him leader.
The Conservative membership is currently blinded by Brexit. There will come a point - hard to imagine I know, but bear with me - when they realise that Brexit isn't everything. At that point, Philip Hammond will be reappraised at least partially. The question is how much and whether that's before the next leadership election.
He has a political tin ear, and lacks people skills and empathy. He is very cerebral and more mathematical, and he’s a bit better at answering questions, but they are otherwise two very similar people. His flaws come across in Fallout, and I’ve had that corroborated by a friend who used to work for him.
Davidson, Hunt or Hinds are all Remainers who’d make much better candidates, even though they have tougher routes to the premiership.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.0 -
Mr. rkrkrk, hmm. He handled NI *really* well...0
-
William to be Harry's best man so no show at Cup Final0
-
Did you miss the 2017 budget ? A disaster.rkrkrk said:
Hammond offers economic competence.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know you might not believe me, but this honestly has nothing to do with his views on Brexit: Hammond offers nothing May doesn’t.AlastairMeeks said:
.rkrkrk said:
He's so unpopular with the members if the Con Home polls are to be believed.AlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
If we end up staying in the customs union/soft Brexit - he is going to be the fall guy who gets blamed. If we get hard Brexit and the economy deteriorates - he is going to be blamed.
Struggling to imagine a future where the Con membership views him positively enough to make him leader.
He has a political tin ear, and lacks people skills and empathy. He is very cerebral and more mathematical, and he’s a bit better at answering questions, but they are otherwise two very similar people. His flaws come across in Fallout, and I’ve had that corroborated by a friend who used to work for him.
Davidson, Hunt or Hinds are all Remainers who’d make much better candidates, even though they have tougher routes to the premiership.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.0 -
Conservative benches fully in support of Rudd0
-
His comment to you was typical of his sneering, blind disdain for anybody who voted Brexit. You've always been a reasonable Brexiteer and made your case well. He'll never accept that. He doesn't realise he's as deeply riven by prejudice as Farage is on the other side.Casino_Royale said:
We probably disagree on his virtues. He misjudged the budget and has misstepped on tone more than once. I don’t see how he reaches out and inspires the next generation of voters. That doesn’t mean it’s because I’m blind to him because of his views on Brexit because I think there other Remainers in the Cabinet or equivalent are stronger candidates for the Premiership.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know p.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistairrkrkrk said:
He'sAlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
I start from the position that I want the next Tory leader to win the next GE. It’s why I would support Hunt or Davidson or Hinds, who I think share all the virtues you cite and have broader electoral appeal, but not Rees-Mogg or Boris or Davis or Hammond or Rudd.
No-one has yet convinced me of Rudd, even though I am open minded.0 -
I still haven’t put a bob or four on Esther McVey. She should be up there...stands an excellent chance with the MPs and nothing attracts the members like a vicious attack from John McDonnell.0
-
The cup final does not start till 5.30 pmBig_G_NorthWales said:William to be Harry's best man so no show at Cup Final
0 -
Economically competent.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. rkrkrk, hmm. He handled NI *really* well...
Not his fault his boss wouldn't back him.0 -
Mr. rkrkrk, no, it was a bloody stupid move by Hammond. The self-employed don't get paid sick leave or other benefits the employed enjoy.0
-
Yes but I would be surprised if he had concluded his duties by thenMikeSmithson said:
The cup final does not start till 5.30 pmBig_G_NorthWales said:William to be Harry's best man so no show at Cup Final
0 -
Sending Abbott up against her keeps her in the job. Doubt Labour are that cunning to do so.Big_G_NorthWales said:Conservative benches fully in support of Rudd
0 -
Asked if the government should drop the net migration targets, Rudd says this is an issue about illegal immigration. But she says there may be a time to address the legal migration targets.
Rudd hints that government may reconsider its annual net migration target.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/26/labour-says-amber-rudd-must-face-mps-to-explain-why-she-denied-deportation-targets-exist-politics-live?page=with:block-5ae1a1a6e4b0ed4091d266e4#block-5ae1a1a6e4b0ed4091d266e40 -
The employer pays sick leave, it is not a benefit conferred by the state.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. rkrkrk, no, it was a bloody stupid move by Hammond. The self-employed don't get paid sick leave or other benefits the employed enjoy.
0 -
I still don't see any evidence of a swing to the Tories since the election in London. I don't think it will be worse than 2017, but definitely not better. We haven't done anywhere near enough on housing and we are implementing a very unpopular policy with a majority of Londoners (Brexit).0
-
Yougov approval ratings are only a guide.HYUFD said:
Except as the latest Yougov numbers I posted earlier show you are wrong on electoral appeal.Casino_Royale said:
We probably disagree on his virtues. He misjudged the budget and has misstepped on tone more than once. I don’t see how he reaches out and inspires the next generation of voters. That doesn’t mean it’s because I’m blind to him because of his views on Brexit because I think there other Remainers in the Cabinet or equivalent are stronger candidates for the Premiership.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know p.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistairrkrkrk said:
He'sAlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
I start from the position that I want the next Tory leader to win the next GE. It’s why I would support Hunt or Davidson or Hinds, who I think share all the virtues you cite and have broader electoral appeal, but not Rees-Mogg or Boris or Davis or Hammond or Rudd.
No-one has yet convinced me of Rudd, even though I am open minded.
Hunt's approval ratings are abysmal, Hinds is just as bad on -69%, Rees-Mogg, Boris and Rudd all do better than them.
Though you are right on Davidson who on +11% is by far the most popular senior Tory
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Ruth_Davidson
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Damian_Hinds
May used to have poor numbers too. It’s potential we should be interested in.
There are exceptions. I could never see Osborne or Gove hugely improving their ratings no matter what they did, and I think Boris has busted his flush.0 -
Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
0 -
"On Monday, Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, caused controversy by calling the government’s “rape clause” for child tax credits “an opportunity” for rape victims to gain emotional support. She suggested that demanding rape victims disclose details of their attack to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would offer “double support” – both emotional and financial."GIN1138 said:
I think Esther could be in with a chance as well.JohnO said:I still haven’t put a bob or four on Esther McVey. She should be up there...stands an excellent chance with the MPs and nothing attracts the members like a vicious attack from John McDonnell.
That was a pretty f****** stupid thing to say0 -
"A tax system which charges thousands of pounds more in tax for employees doing the same job as someone else needs reform. It distorts decisions, creates complexity and is unfair. The incentives for companies to claim that people who work for them are self employed rather than employees are huge."Morris_Dancer said:Mr. rkrkrk, no, it was a bloody stupid move by Hammond. The self-employed don't get paid sick leave or other benefits the employed enjoy.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/ifs-backs-hammond-director-paul-johnsons-opening-remarks/
Self employed not getting sick leave or other benefits has nothing to do with it. They should charge more for their work to compensate. They shouldn't be receiving an implicit subsidy from the taxpayer. And we certainly shouldn't be eroding the tax base in the way that the current system incentivises.0 -
Roger, that is going to require quite an ad campaign! I think humour is the only way to go.CarlottaVance said:Another international brand that may not flourish in Scotland....
https://twitter.com/dyason_mark/status/989418044744257536
"How are you wanting your Jobbie today Sir - chunky or creamy?"
0 -
Actually already suspended by the party. Not clear if he will be the Conservative candidate given we are so close to the electionsTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/9894351273852641280 -
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/9894351273852641280 -
Suspect Harry’s had enough experience not to get blind drunk at his own wedding, with someone keeping an eye on him.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Yes but I would be surprised if he had concluded his duties by thenMikeSmithson said:
The cup final does not start till 5.30 pmBig_G_NorthWales said:William to be Harry's best man so no show at Cup Final
0 -
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/9894351273852641280 -
Checks watch....London Poll ?????0
-
It's fairly obviously antisemitic IMO. And it looks like he's no longer a candidate:Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
https://www.southcambridgeshireconservatives.org.uk/elections
You can't necessarily tell when people are going to be asshats. The thing to do is react when they are asshats. That's what Labour's doing wrong, perhaps because the leadership are asshats themselves.0 -
Thinking the same thing. And refreshing Twitter every 15 seconds!FrancisUrquhart said:Checks watch....London Poll ?????
0 -
Witch hunter.Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/9894351273852641280 -
Now if this had been Red Ken, we would still be here 2 years later and Jezza would just be shrugging and blathering about due process.JosiasJessop said:
It's fairly obviously antisemitic IMO. And it looks like he's no longer a candidate:Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
https://www.southcambridgeshireconservatives.org.uk/elections
You can't necessarily tell when people are going to be asshats. The thing to do is react when they are asshats. That's what Labour's doing wrong, perhaps because the leadership are asshats themselves.0 -
Any sign of this terrible YouGov poll?0
-
Completely agree.OldKingCole said:
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)0 -
Thanks.Fenster said:
His comment to you was typical of his sneering, blind disdain for anybody who voted Brexit. You've always been a reasonable Brexiteer and made your case well. He'll never accept that. He doesn't realise he's as deeply riven by prejudice as Farage is on the other side.Casino_Royale said:
We probably disagree on his virtues. He misjudged the budget and has misstepped on tone more than once. I don’t see how he reaches out and inspires the next generation of voters. That doesn’t mean it’s because I’m blind to him because of his views on Brexit because I think there other Remainers in the Cabinet or equivalent are stronger candidates for the Premiership.AlastairMeeks said:
Because I think you're so blinded by Brexit that you can't see the man's many virtues. He's polite, non-confrontational, intelligent, experienced, outwardly-decent, calming and steady. In a world that is being turned upside down and a country that is following a reckless path, such virtues are not to be underrated.Casino_Royale said:
Why do you think I’m wrong?AlastairMeeks said:
The first seven words were sufficient.Casino_Royale said:
I know p.AlastairMeeks said:
Alistairrkrkrk said:
He'sAlastairMeeks said:
In a sane world, Philip Hammond would be clear favourite. When Theresa May steps down, which may not be for a while and possibly with Brexit a fait acoompli, his virtues might have been reappraised even by the nuttier Brexiters.
His odds are far too long in my view. Yes, I have made sure I've got him onside.
What does he offer that Theresa May doesn't? More firmness under fire, less mindless intransigence, less dithering and more credibility (now that Theresa May has lost all of hers after the election).
But Leavers can't see any of that because he isn't signed up to the madder parts of their project.
I start from the position that I want the next Tory leader to win the next GE. It’s why I would support Hunt or Davidson or Hinds, who I think share all the virtues you cite and have broader electoral appeal, but not Rees-Mogg or Boris or Davis or Hammond or Rudd.
No-one has yet convinced me of Rudd, even though I am open minded.0 -
I guess since that tweet is almost 5 years old they could certainly pin down precisely when that chap was an asshat.JosiasJessop said:
It's fairly obviously antisemitic IMO. And it looks like he's no longer a candidate:Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
https://www.southcambridgeshireconservatives.org.uk/elections
You can't necessarily tell when people are going to be asshats. The thing to do is react when they are asshats. That's what Labour's doing wrong, perhaps because the leadership are asshats themselves.0 -
TICK TOCK.0
-
Mr Divvie,
In my untutored opinion ... Extremely bad taste, but at least it's not denying the Holocaust.
Probably right to suspend him for being a twat anyway. One of the few things Cammo was right on was his opinion of Twitter.
0 -
Given that this is endemic on all sides (and a major part of the likes of Guido's approach), you must be a very depressed chap.Charles said:
Completely agree.OldKingCole said:
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)0 -
It is not much to expect of candidates that they go through their own tweet/fb history. Or make it all private for a while.Charles said:
Completely agree.OldKingCole said:
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)
0 -
Twat.Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
But he was being a twat five years ago, so some blame goes to those not thoroughly checking social media of candidates.
Why is it that people standing for office feel obliged to have a back history that anybody sane and sensible might think precludes them from such office? Perhaps the only option is for a political party to say "yes, we have a policy of putting up candidates who have in the past said things you may think objectionable. Here is what they said back then. Candidate X now acknowledges that he was a complete and utter twat back then, is appalled and is happy to confirm that he has grown up and today he doesn't hold such views." Or somesuch.0 -
So? It was brought to their attention and it looks as though it has been dealt with fairly quickly. Labour's problems are that they are not dealing with such accusations.Theuniondivvie said:
I guess since that tweet is almost 5 years old they could certainly pin down precisely when that chap was an asshat.JosiasJessop said:
It's fairly obviously antisemitic IMO. And it looks like he's no longer a candidate:Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
https://www.southcambridgeshireconservatives.org.uk/elections
You can't necessarily tell when people are going to be asshats. The thing to do is react when they are asshats. That's what Labour's doing wrong, perhaps because the leadership are asshats themselves.0 -
#Waiting4YouGov0
-
I don't think political discourse will be much stifled by discouraging such comments.Charles said:
Completely agree.OldKingCole said:
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)
YMMV, of course.0 -
Agreed - the guy should have been sacked for being a jerk and a fool, even if not an anti-semite.TheWhiteRabbit said:
It is not much to expect of candidates that they go through their own tweet/fb history. Or make it all private for a while.Charles said:
Completely agree.OldKingCole said:
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)0 -
I self-regulate my exposure to Guido!Theuniondivvie said:
Given that this is endemic on all sides (and a major part of the likes of Guido's approach), you must be a very depressed chap.Charles said:
Completely agree.OldKingCole said:
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)0 -
Is that the modern retelling of Waiting for Godot?GIN1138 said:#Waiting4YouGov
0 -
Theory: YouGov never moved the clocks forward in their office.0
-
Surely it's just that sane and sensible people exclude themselves from the pool of candidates?MarqueeMark said:
Twat.Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
But he was being a twat five years ago, so some blame goes to those not thoroughly checking social media of candidates.
Why is it that people standing for office feel obliged to have a back history that anybody sane and sensible might think precludes them from such office? Perhaps the only option is for a political party to say "yes, we have a policy of putting up candidates who have in the past said things you may think objectionable. Here is what they said back then. Candidate X now acknowledges that he was a complete and utter twat back then, is appalled and is happy to confirm that he has grown up and today he doesn't hold such views." Or somesuch.0 -
I think that we are waiting for the Standard to publish it.0
-
Mr. Pulpstar, well, yes. It's a benefit, just not a state benefit.
Mr. rkrkrk, right. So if a man is hiring someone to do work X, he can pick between a self-employed person charging more, or an employed person charging less, for the same work. That doesn't harm the self-employed at all, does it?
As for the IFS, they're overrated. They criticised an early Osborne budget for not being progressive because it would reduce spending on benefits. The reduction was due to happen because of falling unemployment, decreasing the sum spent on unemployment benefit.0 -
Are the Tories even bothered about London any more? I get the impression that they now regard it as an alien place, the habitat of Remoaners and the Liberal Elite, not even worth winning.0
-
I suspect people will just become numb and desensitised to scandal.Charles said:(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)
Looking back 20 years, pretty much any unacceptable behaviour would have resulted in sweeping coverage and a resignation*. Such stories about politicians were relatively rare. Nowadays you just batten down the hatches for a week, and everyone forgets about it.
* Battlin' John Prescott excepted, for some reason.0 -
Who pumped out the info it would be ready by 11 ?MikeSmithson said:I think that we are waiting for the Standard to publish it.
0 -
Report in the Guardian suggests that North Korea’s nuclear test site is unstable after sixth nuclear test and puts Kim Jong-un’s pledge to no longer use site in a new light.
In offering to stop Kim’s making a virtue out of a necessity.0 -
Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC)
Amber Rudd said she hadn't seen the Home Office research paper linking rising violent crime to falling police numbers.Yesterday, she admitted she hadn't realised early enough #Windrush cases were systemic problem. Today Ms Rudd says she wasn't aware of Home Office removal targets0 -
The name Keith Vaz comes to mind for some reason...Anorak said:
I suspect people will just become numb and desensitised to scandal.Charles said:(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)
Looking back 20 years, pretty much any unacceptable behaviour would have resulted in sweeping coverage and a resignation*. Such stories about politicians were relatively rare. Nowadays you just batten down the hatches for a week, and everyone forgets about it.
* Battlin' John Prescott excepted, for some reason.0 -
There is very little respect for politicians of any party today. Somebody who has a desire to be a politician in the current climate of vitriol and violent language on social media (and more generally) either has the hide of a rhino or can't find any other gainful employment....Charles said:
Surely it's just that sane and sensible people exclude themselves from the pool of candidates?MarqueeMark said:
Twat.Theuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
But he was being a twat five years ago, so some blame goes to those not thoroughly checking social media of candidates.
Why is it that people standing for office feel obliged to have a back history that anybody sane and sensible might think precludes them from such office? Perhaps the only option is for a political party to say "yes, we have a policy of putting up candidates who have in the past said things you may think objectionable. Here is what they said back then. Candidate X now acknowledges that he was a complete and utter twat back then, is appalled and is happy to confirm that he has grown up and today he doesn't hold such views." Or somesuch.0 -
You would think that anyone willing to put their head above the parapet would clean up their SM accounts before being announced as a candidate.TheWhiteRabbit said:
It is not much to expect of candidates that they go through their own tweet/fb history. Or make it all private for a while.Charles said:
Completely agree.OldKingCole said:
Either way, unpleasant and unnecessary.Charles said:
Distasteful, certainly, although I think it is making a reference to fear of discovery (i.e. a Nazi "joke") rather than implying that Jewish people are given to hyperhidrosisTheuniondivvie said:Can we have a PB arbitration on one of its (apparently) primary areas of expertise - antisemitic or youthful banter?
https://twitter.com/squeezyjohn/status/989435127385264128
(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)0 -
Philip Davies was referring to the "metropolitan elite" during the Amber Rudd urgent question.Stark_Dawning said:Are the Tories even bothered about London any more? I get the impression that they now regard it as an alien place, the habitat of Remoaners and the Liberal Elite, not even worth winning.
0 -
Prof Phil Cowley of QMUL who are the drivers of the pollPulpstar said:
Who pumped out the info it would be ready by 11 ?MikeSmithson said:I think that we are waiting for the Standard to publish it.
0 -
Britain elects.Pulpstar said:
Who pumped out the info it would be ready by 11 ?MikeSmithson said:I think that we are waiting for the Standard to publish it.
Should imagine the Standard are waiting on completion of the unfunny cartoon spinning a bad Con poll figure as bad for May and the back up one for a good poll result for Cons as bad for Boris.
0 -
One wonders what she does all day.old_labour said:Danny Shaw (@DannyShawBBC)
Amber Rudd said she hadn't seen the Home Office research paper linking rising violent crime to falling police numbers.Yesterday, she admitted she hadn't realised early enough #Windrush cases were systemic problem. Today Ms Rudd says she wasn't aware of Home Office removal targets0 -
Mr Dawning,
On London,
"I get the impression that they now regard it as an alien place, the habitat of Remoaners and the Liberal Elite."
I think you'll find that all political denominations north of Bedford believe that.0 -
Sky News- The PM has full confidence in Amber Rudd.
0 -
I think there's a certain attention-seeking aspect to standing for office. It also helps if you are gregarious. Both of those things mean it is more likely that you've written things *designed* to grab attention in the past, and those are often unpleasant, naive, ignorant, or ill-considered.MarqueeMark said:Why is it that people standing for office feel obliged to have a back history that anybody sane and sensible might think precludes them from such office? Perhaps the only option is for a political party to say "yes, we have a policy of putting up candidates who have in the past said things you may think objectionable. Here is what they said back then. Candidate X now acknowledges that he was a complete and utter twat back then, is appalled and is happy to confirm that he has grown up and today he doesn't hold such views." Or somesuch.
To put it another way, there are not many quiet and boring people in politics (although we can all name several exceptions to that, I'm sure, but they *are* exceptions).0 -
A slimy limpet to be sure.FrancisUrquhart said:
The name Keith Vaz comes to mind for some reason...Anorak said:
I suspect people will just become numb and desensitised to scandal.Charles said:(Somewhat depressing that political opponents are now trawling through 5 years of tweets looking for something to attack people about. That will have a stifling effect on political discourse)
Looking back 20 years, pretty much any unacceptable behaviour would have resulted in sweeping coverage and a resignation*. Such stories about politicians were relatively rare. Nowadays you just batten down the hatches for a week, and everyone forgets about it.
* Battlin' John Prescott excepted, for some reason.0 -
Theresa May is exceptional, words not often heard.Anorak said:
I think there's a certain attention-seeking aspect to standing for office. It also helps if you are gregarious. Both of those things mean it is more likely that you've written things *designed* to grab attention in the past, and those are often unpleasant, naive, ignorant, or ill-considered.MarqueeMark said:Why is it that people standing for office feel obliged to have a back history that anybody sane and sensible might think precludes them from such office? Perhaps the only option is for a political party to say "yes, we have a policy of putting up candidates who have in the past said things you may think objectionable. Here is what they said back then. Candidate X now acknowledges that he was a complete and utter twat back then, is appalled and is happy to confirm that he has grown up and today he doesn't hold such views." Or somesuch.
To put it another way, there are not many quiet and boring people in politics (although we can all name several exceptions to that, I'm sure, but they *are* exceptions).0 -
Did she have full confidence in Gauke too recently ?old_labour said:Sky News- The PM has full confidence in Amber Rudd.
0 -
I've asked Ben who told him it would be 11 !TGOHF said:
Britain elects.Pulpstar said:
Who pumped out the info it would be ready by 11 ?MikeSmithson said:I think that we are waiting for the Standard to publish it.
0 -
Heh. Works both ways, of course. Alex Salmond's RT show is showed (shows?) exceptionally bad judgement, etc, etc.Theuniondivvie said:
Theresa May is exceptional, words not often heard.Anorak said:
I think there's a certain attention-seeking aspect to standing for office. It also helps if you are gregarious. Both of those things mean it is more likely that you've written things *designed* to grab attention in the past, and those are often unpleasant, naive, ignorant, or ill-considered.MarqueeMark said:Why is it that people standing for office feel obliged to have a back history that anybody sane and sensible might think precludes them from such office? Perhaps the only option is for a political party to say "yes, we have a policy of putting up candidates who have in the past said things you may think objectionable. Here is what they said back then. Candidate X now acknowledges that he was a complete and utter twat back then, is appalled and is happy to confirm that he has grown up and today he doesn't hold such views." Or somesuch.
To put it another way, there are not many quiet and boring people in politics (although we can all name several exceptions to that, I'm sure, but they *are* exceptions).0 -
Faisal Islam
Verified account @faisalislam
2m2 minutes ago
Did Home Sec mislead Commons committee? Is it acceptable that she did not know (about removals targets)?
Number 10: “Home Secretary is giving a statement to the House addressing this specifically I will leave that to her”.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/989451373048680448
0 -
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/989452101473402880
Surprised the Lib Dems not doing better.....0 -
She is so hemmed in.Pulpstar said:
Did she have full confidence in Gauke too recently ?old_labour said:Sky News- The PM has full confidence in Amber Rudd.
0 -
Owen Jones talking SHHHIITTTTEEEE...shock horror.CarlottaVance said:0 -
0
-
Looks a bit MOE to me...FrancisUrquhart said:
Owen Jones talking SHHHIITTTTEEEE...shock horror.CarlottaVance said:0 -
The "look at me!" tendency. Also, the venn diagram seems to show a huge overlap area between politicians and those with a rampant libido..... "look at mine!"Anorak said:
I think there's a certain attention-seeking aspect to standing for office. It also helps if you are gregarious. Both of those things mean it is more likely that you've written things *designed* to grab attention in the past, and those are often unpleasant, naive, ignorant, or ill-considered.MarqueeMark said:Why is it that people standing for office feel obliged to have a back history that anybody sane and sensible might think precludes them from such office? Perhaps the only option is for a political party to say "yes, we have a policy of putting up candidates who have in the past said things you may think objectionable. Here is what they said back then. Candidate X now acknowledges that he was a complete and utter twat back then, is appalled and is happy to confirm that he has grown up and today he doesn't hold such views." Or somesuch.
To put it another way, there are not many quiet and boring people in politics (although we can all name several exceptions to that, I'm sure, but they *are* exceptions).0 -
No no no, Owen told us it was definitely a disaster...I believe there is a term for this, Fake Fake Fake something.Foxy said:
Looks a bit MOE to me...FrancisUrquhart said:
Owen Jones talking SHHHIITTTTEEEE...shock horror.CarlottaVance said:0
