Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
IDS is more charismatic than Starmer.
Starmer for Labour though is a huge improvement. He's not a loony. (FWIW I think EdM was marginally better, but anything is better than Corbyn and Brown)
Disagree.
Brown > Starmer > Miliband > Corbyn
In terms of “electability”.
And, it turned out that Brown wasn’t that electable.
Corbyn got more votes and 10+pp higher in 2017 than either Brown or Miliband did in the previous two elections.
True. But neither ever faced a snap election against Theresa May with a “death tax”.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
I would say that Corbyn was William Hague: popular and even loved by his party faithful, but not taken seriously by the broader electorate.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
IDS is more charismatic than Starmer.
Starmer for Labour though is a huge improvement. He's not a loony. (FWIW I think EdM was marginally better, but anything is better than Corbyn and Brown)
Disagree.
Brown > Starmer > Miliband > Corbyn
In terms of “electability”.
And, it turned out that Brown wasn’t that electable.
Corbyn got more votes and 10+pp higher in 2017 than either Brown or Miliband did in the previous two elections.
True. But neither ever faced a snap election against Theresa May with a “death tax”.
Quite. You could almost say May was unelectable, except she came up against someone worse. Nobody is unelectable, you just need your principle opponent to be a fuckwit of a higher order, and an electoral system that punishes voter choice. I'm really looking forward to 2024, can you tell?
Leaked test results suggest the government and construction industry had early evidence of the dangers posed by cladding, 13 years before the Grenfell Tower fire.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
I would say that Corbyn was William Hague: popular and even loved by his party faithful, but not taken seriously by the broader electorate.
Miliband was Hague.
Very bright, and surprisingly funny, but awkward as hell and totally underwhelming as a minister.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
IDS is more charismatic than Starmer.
Starmer for Labour though is a huge improvement. He's not a loony. (FWIW I think EdM was marginally better, but anything is better than Corbyn and Brown)
Disagree.
Brown > Starmer > Miliband > Corbyn
In terms of “electability”.
And, it turned out that Brown wasn’t that electable.
Corbyn got more votes and 10+pp higher in 2017 than either Brown or Miliband did in the previous two elections.
True. But neither ever faced a snap election against Theresa May with a “death tax”.
He got more than both of them managed in his bad one too
Cancelled my Labour membership for a variety of reasons, but honestly, the politics of the present leadership being completely fucking boring is prime amongst them.
Surprised she was still a member, as a self identified literal communist i can't imagine a Starmer led Labour party isn't exactly going to align with her world view.
The Labour membership is now smaller, but definitely more centrist. Worth noting for betting purposes on leadership candidates.
Most people who are members of a party are weirdos. People who leave them because they are too mainstream are the weirdest of the lot.
Cancelled my Labour membership for a variety of reasons, but honestly, the politics of the present leadership being completely fucking boring is prime amongst them.
Surprised she was still a member, as a self identified literal communist i can't imagine a Starmer led Labour party isn't exactly going to align with her world view.
The Labour membership is now smaller, but definitely more centrist. Worth noting for betting purposes on leadership candidates.
Most people who are members of a party are weirdos. People who leave them because they are too mainstream are the weirdest of the lot.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
IDS is more charismatic than Starmer.
Starmer for Labour though is a huge improvement. He's not a loony. (FWIW I think EdM was marginally better, but anything is better than Corbyn and Brown)
Disagree.
Brown > Starmer > Miliband > Corbyn
In terms of “electability”.
And, it turned out that Brown wasn’t that electable.
Corbyn got more votes and 10+pp higher in 2017 than either Brown or Miliband did in the previous two elections.
True. But neither ever faced a snap election against Theresa May with a “death tax”.
He got more than both of them managed in his bad one too
Then again, HYFUD says people like me and Casino_Royale quitting the Tories is a sign that the Tory party is heading in the right direction so I guess it's all a matter of perspective. 🤷♂️
Surprisingly few people appear to meet HYUFD's standards for being proper Conservatives. I suspect, in fact, there might only be one
@HYUFD is a Conservative loyalist - having been a member of a political party for more than 30 years, I understand what that means. "My party - right or wrong" becomes the epithet under which one operates.
It's a shade Orwellian - more than a shade in truth. Having a former leader on the backbenches criticising the current leader is an inconvenient truth for the loyalist who once supported the former leader.
Even in the interregnum periods of leadership elections, the issue is less who do I want to lead the party than who is the best person to lead the party because the loyalist will be "loyal" to the winner.
Loyalists can of course disagree with some aspects of Party policy and those arguments can and do take place internally within the Party. However, there inevitably comes a point or points when that loyalty is stretched to breaking point - when the Party says or does something that is either so antithetical to one's basic principles or so ridiculous as to render continuing support for that party either unethical or illogical.
That's not to denigrate Party membership (of any party) - most people have contradictory or opposing views or views which defy common sense and occasionally even the laws of physics but that's part of being.
His legacy has lived on with the use of the spectrum ZX for the SAGE modelling.
The ZX81 1k and the Spectrum 128K +3 were so instrumental in me having a happy childhood.
I think the ZX81 was the first computer I ever used, followed by the RM 380Z. The first computer I saw in anyone's home was a 16k Spectrum, but by God's grace I got a C64.
Cancelled my Labour membership for a variety of reasons, but honestly, the politics of the present leadership being completely fucking boring is prime amongst them.
Surprised she was still a member, as a self identified literal communist i can't imagine a Starmer led Labour party isn't exactly going to align with her world view.
She was a member for two years.
Yet it's a disaster to lose such rock solid supporters. A surprising number of people who are the heart and soul of the party didn't use to back it. I'm not one to say only loyalists matters, but there are surely limits.
Yes. Ash is great but she isn't particularly Labour. Owen Jones is more totemic for me. He's been Labour all his life under all leaders including Blair. If he were to leave, that would be meaningful and serious. You'd have to suspect the fire has gone out.
Talking of whom:
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 Undemocratic, authoritarian, and a massive up yours at younger voters in particular.
That sounds like how he'd probably describe the Tory party, but by golly it works.
Cancelled my Labour membership for a variety of reasons, but honestly, the politics of the present leadership being completely fucking boring is prime amongst them.
Surprised she was still a member, as a self identified literal communist i can't imagine a Starmer led Labour party isn't exactly going to align with her world view.
The Labour membership is now smaller, but definitely more centrist. Worth noting for betting purposes on leadership candidates.
Most people who are members of a party are weirdos. People who leave them because they are too mainstream are the weirdest of the lot.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
I would say that Corbyn was William Hague: popular and even loved by his party faithful, but not taken seriously by the broader electorate.
I'd put it differently.
Hague was more like Ed Milliband; a perfectly substantial political figure, but not PM material- certainly at the age they got the job of party leader. Character actors, rather than the leading man. They both became more interesting later on.
Similarly IDS and Corbyn both rhyme; pure self-indulgent fanservice. The difference is that the Conservatives ditched IDS before a disastrous election, whereas Corbyn did well enough in '17 to get another shot in '19, which turned into a megadisaster. For all of us.
So then, on the blue side we had Howard. Not really expected to win, but to do enough to wipe the smug grin off Blair's face. (Wasn't that one of the campaign themes?) Which he did, giving enough time and space for Cameron to come to prominence.
And that's where the rhyme breaks down. Starmer isn't Howard exactly- the greybeards who could have taken that role have all been chucked on the bonfire. But neither is he Cameron.
And there we are.
Going back to a theme that's bubbled up a couple of times upthread- I fear the UK is chucking losing politicians in the bin way too quickly at the moment. That's particularly true for ex-PMs. We have six living people who have experience of being Prime Minister- the incumbent and his five predecessors. As a country, we ought to make better use of those people than we do, because they know stuff that others simply can't. Instead, the tendency is to shout "didn't you hear us tell you to f@*& off?" when they say things... especially when they are uncongenial.
Did someone say Corbyn is expecting to be reinstated into labour
Keir Starmer announces support for AUKUS
Corbyn - Starting a new cold war will not bring peace, justice, and human rights to the world #AUKUS
Of course he never comments on China's provocations.
Arhhh but remember they are part of the "Global South" *, so escape any criticism in the weird Corbyn book of the oppressor vs opposed nations.
* one of the most ridiculous wokey terms for developing nations, as half the nations aren't even in the southern hemisphere....and loads that are, aren't included.
Is "wokey" just your general word for inexact and misleading now?
Developing world has now been deemed unacceptable and offensive by some organisations. You must use something like Global South instead, but then that is now controversial in itself among some.
I only reason I use it, was because Jezza does.
Developing world itself was a euphemism 30 years ago. Before that it was developed world and undeveloped world.
I thought it was The Third World.
I mis-remember: it was underdeveloped, not undeveloped. But I think you're right, and underdeveloped was itself a euphemism for 'third world'.
No doubt in fifteen years or so Global South will be felt to be too pejorative and a new term invented.
Isn't the problem that there are approximately two competing groups of people in public discourse. One group of people is happy to call a spade a spade, and a corrupt poverty striken dump a corrupt poverty stricken dump. The other (much smaller but very vocal) group of people want to pretend we're all the same everywhere really, and just because one might live in a corrupt poverty stricken dump doesn't mean you're any different to anyone else on the globe.
So what happens is that very loudly, the second group condemn the first group for calling a country (perfectly accurately) a corrupt poverty stricken dump, and say "you can't say that, it's racist". So the first group goes off, and instead thinks of a new term, like "3rd world" , which politely summarises "corrupt poverty stricken dump", and all is well with the world until the second group realises what is happening and shouts "racism". Then a new term is devised... And the cycle continues.
The interesting thing is that the speed of the cycle seems to constantly be accelerating, to the point that the current new terms now have half-lives of weeks rather than years. This means people mess up and use the term that's just become racist more than they used to, because it's increasingly difficult to keep up. I think the acceleration factor is probably mostly because of twitter, as it echo chambers this sort of thing very fast.
You see the same with other terms (eg that currently "coloured people" now is racist, "people of colour" isn't quite there yet, although it's day is clearly coming soon.).
Ultimately the (nonsensical) side which believes we can't talk about these sorts of issues is winning, by unleashing twitter mobs on anyone who can't remember the new fashion of the week. I presume making certain subjects impossible to discuss is the ultimate aim, in a very 1984ish sort of way, by ensuring that there are no words available with which to discuss them.
PELOSI invites Boris Johnson to the Capitol after UNGA next week. WH meeting also planned.
“It was my honor to personally invite the Prime Minister to a bipartisan leadership meeting in the United States Capitol when he travels to the United States later this month.”
John Swinney must be relieved that with the appointment of Robin Walker he can only be the second most incompetent fool in a senior role at education in the U.K.
PELOSI invites Boris Johnson to the Capitol after UNGA next week. WH meeting also planned.
“It was my honor to personally invite the Prime Minister to a bipartisan leadership meeting in the United States Capitol when he travels to the United States later this month.”
A trip to a bipartisan meeting of the US Congress seems like the perfect thing to make Boris appreciate Parliament.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
I would say that Corbyn was William Hague: popular and even loved by his party faithful, but not taken seriously by the broader electorate.
I'd put it differently.
Hague was more like Ed Milliband; a perfectly substantial political figure, but not PM material- certainly at the age they got the job of party leader. Character actors, rather than the leading man. They both became more interesting later on.
Similarly IDS and Corbyn both rhyme; pure self-indulgent fanservice. The difference is that the Conservatives ditched IDS before a disastrous election, whereas Corbyn did well enough in '17 to get another shot in '19, which turned into a megadisaster. For all of us.
So then, on the blue side we had Howard. Not really expected to win, but to do enough to wipe the smug grin off Blair's face. (Wasn't that one of the campaign themes?) Which he did, giving enough time and space for Cameron to come to prominence.
And that's where the rhyme breaks down. Starmer isn't Howard exactly- the greybeards who could have taken that role have all been chucked on the bonfire. But neither is he Cameron.
And there we are.
Going back to a theme that's bubbled up a couple of times upthread- I fear the UK is chucking losing politicians in the bin way too quickly at the moment. That's particularly true for ex-PMs. We have six living people who have experience of being Prime Minister- the incumbent and his five predecessors. As a country, we ought to make better use of those people than we do, because they know stuff that others simply can't. Instead, the tendency is to shout "didn't you hear us tell you to f@*& off?" when they say things... especially when they are uncongenial.
Isn't Sir Keir 2020-21 just EdM 2010-11? What is the difference?
One thing they have in common is that Matt Forde does brilliant impressions of both of them - Starmer just sounds like a busybody councillor who comes round your house denying your planning permission on a technicality, Ed was more of your "it's so unfair" student
PELOSI invites Boris Johnson to the Capitol after UNGA next week. WH meeting also planned.
“It was my honor to personally invite the Prime Minister to a bipartisan leadership meeting in the United States Capitol when he travels to the United States later this month.”
A trip to a bipartisan meeting of the US Congress seems like the perfect thing to make Boris appreciate Parliament.
She met Boris earlier and spoke at the Cambridge Union tonight
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
I would say that Corbyn was William Hague: popular and even loved by his party faithful, but not taken seriously by the broader electorate.
I'd put it differently.
Hague was more like Ed Milliband; a perfectly substantial political figure, but not PM material- certainly at the age they got the job of party leader. Character actors, rather than the leading man. They both became more interesting later on.
Similarly IDS and Corbyn both rhyme; pure self-indulgent fanservice. The difference is that the Conservatives ditched IDS before a disastrous election, whereas Corbyn did well enough in '17 to get another shot in '19, which turned into a megadisaster. For all of us.
So then, on the blue side we had Howard. Not really expected to win, but to do enough to wipe the smug grin off Blair's face. (Wasn't that one of the campaign themes?) Which he did, giving enough time and space for Cameron to come to prominence.
And that's where the rhyme breaks down. Starmer isn't Howard exactly- the greybeards who could have taken that role have all been chucked on the bonfire. But neither is he Cameron.
And there we are.
Going back to a theme that's bubbled up a couple of times upthread- I fear the UK is chucking losing politicians in the bin way too quickly at the moment. That's particularly true for ex-PMs. We have six living people who have experience of being Prime Minister- the incumbent and his five predecessors. As a country, we ought to make better use of those people than we do, because they know stuff that others simply can't. Instead, the tendency is to shout "didn't you hear us tell you to f@*& off?" when they say things... especially when they are uncongenial.
However to be fair to Starmer Cameron did not win a majority either, he got in via a hung parliament, polling suggests that is possible for him even if a majority is miles off.
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
His legacy has lived on with the use of the spectrum ZX for the SAGE modelling.
Ouch.
It's not the processing power that matters but the garbage inputs that count.
But RIP. Visionary. My generation of software guys were pretty much all ZX owners as kids.
I was a cut above as my dad had access to an Apple II for a while which we messed around on at weekends.
That generation of UK entrepreneurs could have built a tech hub to rival Silicon Valley. It's perhaps the biggest failure of the industrial policy of that era that we squandered it.
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Eileen Drewery, cost the Romford Pele his England career.
What a geezer! Is it true that you narked Glenn Hoddle’s spiritual healer, Eileen Drewery?
I had a bad calf and Glenn sent me to see her. I sat in this seat, I couldn’t see her – I thought she was going to come out with no clothes on or something! Anyway, she placed her hands on my shoulders – I had long hair back then – and I just said: “short back and sides, please, Eileen”.
Cheeky…
In fairness, she laughed. She was quite funny. But she told her husband and it was suddenly in The Sun! I never got picked for England again.
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
A lot of the time 'the best person for the job' is entirely subjective though
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
A lot of the time 'the best person for the job' is entirely subjective though
So what? I believe in gender neutral hiring, not positive discrimination.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
May is asking a very good question, btw.
The orgasmic sighs last night about this deal from PB Tories were hilarious.
On balance I think this sounds like a good thing for the U.K., but it does raise all sorts of questions.
In what way is it a "very good question". A fucking toddler on a cider bender knows that China invading Taiwan is a real risk (AUKUS or no AUKUS) and that we would have a horrible dilemma whether to intervene or not.
Taiwan is super strategic.
Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
The trick is to win the elections, not the conferences.
Dave won every general election he contested as leader.
Depending what you mean by won. Con maj 2010 was there for the taking.
Most seats/most votes counts as a victory.
The fact he became PM means it was a victory.
As this puts Dave’s achievement into context.
Somewhat remarkable Heath got to fight 1970 from those figures.
In those days - and really up until the end of Kinnock post-1987 - you got to keep fighting General Elections until you won. What proportion of Conservative and Labour leaders between 1945 and 1990 did not end up Prime Minister?
It has to be well under 20%.
Good point. Can only think of Gaitskell. For unfortunate reasons. And Foot for more obvious ones. Not a single Tory. Wonder what changed? I would argue, Kinnock too was a special case, losing an election pretty comfortably he was widely expected to win. Tories under Blair really started the ditching the leader after one defeat. Or none in IDS' case.
Edit. Oops. You've covered that. So, who was the Tory leader before Hague never to be PM? 19th Century I reckon.
I don't think there was one. The modern Conservative Party started with Peel, and every leader until Hague had at least a little time in Number Ten.
'Chamberlain returned to office in H. H. Asquith's wartime coalition government in May 1915, as Secretary of State for India, but resigned to take responsibility for the disastrous Kut Campaign. He again returned to office in David Lloyd George's coalition government, once again serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He then served as Conservative Party leader in the Commons (1921–2), before resigning after the Carlton Club meeting voted to end the Lloyd George Coalition.' From Wilkipedia
Exactly: "He then served as Conservative Party leader in the Commons"
Not leader of the Conservative Party.
There was no title of ‘leader of the party’ until 1922, when the Carlton Club meeting that ousted Chamberlain agreed to create one and elected Bonar Law. Prior to that, whichever was longer serving out of the Leader of the Commons and the Leader of the Lords was considered to have first dibs on being PM if the party won an election (although this wasn’t always followed, Northcote being overlooked for Salisbury in 1885) and when the party was in office the leader of the other house was nominated by the PM.
Only two leaders of either house had to be nominated in opposition between 1846 and 1922 - in 1881 when Disraeli died and Salisbury emerged as leader in the Lords, and 1911 when Balfour resigned and an election was planned but never held as two of the three candidates withdrew.
I would also point out that Wiki as so often is wrong and Austen Chamberlain was never leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. From 1911 until 1925 it was the Unionist party.
From 1922 to 2001 every leader of the Unionist or Conservative party had a least a short time as PM. Of the senior members of a duumvirate that never got to be PM, we would only mention Northcote, Chamberlain and possibly Bentinck, although Bentinck said he thought of Derby as the leader of the party.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
That’s because Starmer is totally useless. Someone mentioned that he was Labour’s IDS earlier.
No, IDS actually had more charisma. True fact.
(Corbyn was Labour’s IDS).
I would say that Corbyn was William Hague: popular and even loved by his party faithful, but not taken seriously by the broader electorate.
I'd put it differently.
Hague was more like Ed Milliband; a perfectly substantial political figure, but not PM material- certainly at the age they got the job of party leader. Character actors, rather than the leading man. They both became more interesting later on.
Similarly IDS and Corbyn both rhyme; pure self-indulgent fanservice. The difference is that the Conservatives ditched IDS before a disastrous election, whereas Corbyn did well enough in '17 to get another shot in '19, which turned into a megadisaster. For all of us.
So then, on the blue side we had Howard. Not really expected to win, but to do enough to wipe the smug grin off Blair's face. (Wasn't that one of the campaign themes?) Which he did, giving enough time and space for Cameron to come to prominence.
And that's where the rhyme breaks down. Starmer isn't Howard exactly- the greybeards who could have taken that role have all been chucked on the bonfire. But neither is he Cameron.
And there we are.
Going back to a theme that's bubbled up a couple of times upthread- I fear the UK is chucking losing politicians in the bin way too quickly at the moment. That's particularly true for ex-PMs. We have six living people who have experience of being Prime Minister- the incumbent and his five predecessors. As a country, we ought to make better use of those people than we do, because they know stuff that others simply can't. Instead, the tendency is to shout "didn't you hear us tell you to f@*& off?" when they say things... especially when they are uncongenial.
However to be fair to Starmer Cameron did not win a majority either, he got in via a hung parliament, polling suggests that is possible for him even if a majority is miles off.
That's a fair point. And maybe we should be looking to Canada for lessons in interpreting poll data; the existence of Quebec/Scotland makes it harder for the Tories/Tories to win than it looks from raw percentages. (The UK projections people were posting earlier this week implied that 36-39 might be the tipping point... I'm assuming that new boundaries and tactical rewind will roughly cancel out.)
It does highlight another challenge for Starmer, though. When Cameron took over, Howard had cleared up a lot of the mess from the IDS years, which Starmer is having to do himself.
Did someone say Corbyn is expecting to be reinstated into labour
Keir Starmer announces support for AUKUS
Corbyn - Starting a new cold war will not bring peace, justice, and human rights to the world #AUKUS
Of course he never comments on China's provocations.
Arhhh but remember they are part of the "Global South" *, so escape any criticism in the weird Corbyn book of the oppressor vs opposed nations.
* one of the most ridiculous wokey terms for developing nations, as half the nations aren't even in the southern hemisphere....and loads that are, aren't included.
Is "wokey" just your general word for inexact and misleading now?
Developing world has now been deemed unacceptable and offensive by some organisations. You must use something like Global South instead, but then that is now controversial in itself among some.
I only reason I use it, was because Jezza does.
Developing world itself was a euphemism 30 years ago. Before that it was developed world and undeveloped world.
I thought it was The Third World.
I mis-remember: it was underdeveloped, not undeveloped. But I think you're right, and underdeveloped was itself a euphemism for 'third world'.
No doubt in fifteen years or so Global South will be felt to be too pejorative and a new term invented.
Global South is now already passing into no no territory....
Language does evolve though. I don't really see the problem.
It does when Mr Rees-Mogg starts talking about the alliance with New Holland against Cathay.
I rather like Rees-Mogg. A mixed bag clearly, but a decent one. Leader of the house is precisely where he is at his best. (I'd quite like to see him as PM in some ways too, but just fictionally)
I'd imagine you'd consider him a bit of a wet lettuce leftie liberal?
Your imagination seems restricted, your wisdom more so.
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
A lot of the time 'the best person for the job' is entirely subjective though
So what? I believe in gender neutral hiring, not positive discrimination.
The whole point of positive discrimination is to produce gender neutral hiring because people's subconscious prejudices often get in the way.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
LOL.....if losing your ministerial role automatically triggered such a response, Brady mail sack would be constantly overflowing with new mail.
The Tories will turn on Boris when it is clear he is no longer of use to them.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
The governing coalition (Independence, Progressive, Left-Green) is down from 52.8% to 45.5% so would lose its majority in the Althing. I'm not quite sure however what alternative Government could take over. The Social Democrats have been out of power since 2013 - Reform was last in Government with Independence from 2013 to 2016.
Meanwhile, in Germany, a better poll tonight for the Union from Infratest:
Changes from 2017 Bundestag election.
Social Democrats: 26% (+5) Union CDU/CSU: 22% (-11) Greens: 15% (+6) FDP: 11% (nc) Alternative for Germany: 11% (-2) Linke: 6% (-3) Free Voters: 3% (+2)
PELOSI invites Boris Johnson to the Capitol after UNGA next week. WH meeting also planned.
“It was my honor to personally invite the Prime Minister to a bipartisan leadership meeting in the United States Capitol when he travels to the United States later this month.”
Does that mean Raab will deputise for Boris at next weeks PMQs ?
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
Cancelled my Labour membership for a variety of reasons, but honestly, the politics of the present leadership being completely fucking boring is prime amongst them.
Surprised she was still a member, as a self identified literal communist i can't imagine a Starmer led Labour party isn't exactly going to align with her world view.
She was a member for two years.
Yet it's a disaster to lose such rock solid supporters. A surprising number of people who are the heart and soul of the party didn't use to back it. I'm not one to say only loyalists matters, but there are surely limits.
Yes. Ash is great but she isn't particularly Labour. Owen Jones is more totemic for me. He's been Labour all his life under all leaders including Blair. If he were to leave, that would be meaningful and serious. You'd have to suspect the fire has gone out.
Do you think the churn of people who go from being members, activists etc of a party, to suddenly refusing to vote for them is higher than your everyday man in the street who doesn't follow it so closely?
As far as I know, most of my friends and family have voted for the same party all their lives, yet on PB there are dozens who go from one extreme (in terms of fervent support) to the other
Ỳes.
Political fanatics are people who like being fanatical, and will often happily change allegiance.
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
A lot of the time 'the best person for the job' is entirely subjective though
So what? I believe in gender neutral hiring, not positive discrimination.
The whole point of positive discrimination is to produce gender neutral hiring because people's subconscious prejudices often get in the way.
I prefer better training of recruiting panels to positive discrimination. If you have tow exactly equal candidates and want to choose the female, I have no issue, . If you want to choose a poorer candidate over a better because they are female, then I have a huge problem with that.
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
A lot of the time 'the best person for the job' is entirely subjective though
So what? I believe in gender neutral hiring, not positive discrimination.
The whole point of positive discrimination is to produce gender neutral hiring because people's subconscious prejudices often get in the way.
Sorry, but no. The objective is to produce a gender balanced workforce. If you want prejudices removed from hiring then you need to go to anonymous applications, blind interviews, etc. Even then you can only ever partly succeed.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Maybe he could hire the best person for the job, and not worry if they are male, female or something else?
A lot of the time 'the best person for the job' is entirely subjective though
So what? I believe in gender neutral hiring, not positive discrimination.
The whole point of positive discrimination is to produce gender neutral hiring because people's subconscious prejudices often get in the way.
It is probably a way of breaking a possibly discriminatory hiring culture. I don't have evidence for this, but it feels like you'll have a fairer crack at a job if they see people like you doing the job already. People are a lot less likely to feel like a woman can't be PM now that we've had one who wasn't useless at it.
PELOSI invites Boris Johnson to the Capitol after UNGA next week. WH meeting also planned.
“It was my honor to personally invite the Prime Minister to a bipartisan leadership meeting in the United States Capitol when he travels to the United States later this month.”
Does that mean Raab will deputise for Boris at next weeks PMQs ?
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
If they have any sense,* they’ll wait. Going too soon and failing would not be optimal. Better to hang on until he’s in trouble and then put the boot in. Heseltine should be their role model (although I hope they don’t have to wait five years).
*I appreciate that Williamson, Gibb, Jenrick etc do not have any sense, but…
An investigation into manipulation of an annual World Bank report has found that Kristalina Georgieva, the bank’s former chief executive, who now leads the International Monetary Fund, directed staff to alter data to placate China.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
Nope, for the second half of her premiership she had someone credible ready to challenge her for the leadership without the need for a stalking horse, and indeed end up challenging her without the need for a stalking horse.
An investigation into manipulation of an annual World Bank report has found that Kristalina Georgieva, the bank’s former chief executive, who now leads the International Monetary Fund, directed staff to alter data to placate China.
Seems to be a bit of theme here....WHO, Olympics, World Bank,....
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
I reckon more than 1/3 of Tory MPs voting against.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
May is asking a very good question, btw.
The orgasmic sighs last night about this deal from PB Tories were hilarious.
On balance I think this sounds like a good thing for the U.K., but it does raise all sorts of questions.
In what way is it a "very good question". A fucking toddler on a cider bender knows that China invading Taiwan is a real risk (AUKUS or no AUKUS) and that we would have a horrible dilemma whether to intervene or not.
Taiwan is super strategic.
Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
The fucking toddler on a cider bender might know that China invading Taiwan is a real risk, but presumably can’t answer how this deal impacts U.K. strategic autonomy, or what additional cost this implies on top of what we need to properly defend our own neighbourhood.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
Nope, for the second half of her premiership she had someone credible ready to challenge her for the leadership without the need for a stalking horse, and indeed end up challenging her without the need for a stalking horse.
Some do argue that Anthony Meyer set the scene for Heseltine by challenging in 1989 and polling a respectable vote.
The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.
I respectufully disagree
Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
Nope, for the second half of her premiership she had someone credible ready to challenge her for the leadership without the need for a stalking horse, and indeed end up challenging her without the need for a stalking horse.
Some do argue that Anthony Meyer set the scene for Heseltine by challenging in 1989 and polling a respectable vote.
Respectable?
Thatcher 314
Meyer 33.
That's a humiliation. That's a Tories in Liverpool showing.
What set the scene for Heseltine's challenge was Howe's resignation, well his resignation speech.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
I would assume that the Priti / The Truss factions will want to bide their time and let Rishi become less popular when he has to start doing his job properly. No point forcing an election if your candidate then loses it.
And is there enough of a Hunt faction to make a difference?
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
No I don't think it did. Under the former rules, the Leader, whether in govt or opposition, had to stand for re-election every year. Until 1989, Mrs Thatcher was unopposed, but was then challenged by Meyer. She should have taken into account the mounting disquiet, but didn't. Then Howe resigned in the early autumn of 1990 and Heseltine duly stood against her in the 'normal' election.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
Nope, for the second half of her premiership she had someone credible ready to challenge her for the leadership without the need for a stalking horse, and indeed end up challenging her without the need for a stalking horse.
Some do argue that Anthony Meyer set the scene for Heseltine by challenging in 1989 and polling a respectable vote.
Respectable?
Thatcher 314
Meyer 33.
That's a humiliation. That's a Tories in Liverpool showing.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
I would assume that the Priti / The Truss factions will want to bide their time and let Rishi become less popular when he has to start doing his job properly. No point forcing an election if your candidate then loses it.
And is there enough of a Hunt faction to make a difference?
If Boris was cunning, he would get Hunt in the tent pissing out, perhaps at a particularly tricky department.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
Nope, for the second half of her premiership she had someone credible ready to challenge her for the leadership without the need for a stalking horse, and indeed end up challenging her without the need for a stalking horse.
Some do argue that Anthony Meyer set the scene for Heseltine by challenging in 1989 and polling a respectable vote.
Respectable?
Thatcher 314
Meyer 33.
That's a humiliation. That's a Tories in Liverpool showing.
Not really. It was more than was generally expected. It also meant that circa 60 Tory MPs failed to support her when abstentions were included.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
No I don't think it did. Under the former rules, the Leader, whether in govt or opposition, had to stand for re-election every year. Until 1989, Mrs Thatcher was unopposed, but was then challenged by Meyer. She should have taken into account the mounting disquiet, but didn't. Then Howe resigned in the early autumn of 1990 and Heseltine duly stood against her in the 'normal' election.
I like the view of Charles Moore.
A leadership challenge was inevitable the moment Willie Whitelaw left the cabinet.
He managed to stop her making blunders like she did post 1988.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
I reckon more than 1/3 of Tory MPs voting against.
That was roughly Major's personal target in '95, wasn't it?
Which anticipates the psychological drama that will surely come at some point in the next decade.
Ultimately, does BoJo crave power (in which case he will cling on until an opponent gets 50% and a bit) or adulation (in which case only winning 2:1 will cause him to run away crying like a Frenchman)?
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
Eileen Drewery, cost the Romford Pele his England career.
What a geezer! Is it true that you narked Glenn Hoddle’s spiritual healer, Eileen Drewery?
I had a bad calf and Glenn sent me to see her. I sat in this seat, I couldn’t see her – I thought she was going to come out with no clothes on or something! Anyway, she placed her hands on my shoulders – I had long hair back then – and I just said: “short back and sides, please, Eileen”.
Cheeky…
In fairness, she laughed. She was quite funny. But she told her husband and it was suddenly in The Sun! I never got picked for England again.
I have met Romford Ray quite a few times, we used to do a running class together down the gym, and he is a really nice bloke. Sat and chatted with him loads, quizzed him about Bergkamp, Wenger etc. I actually asked him what AW made of the paedophile songs; he said Arsene was above even acknowledging it, he would have just thought the people singing it were cretins.
He loves a bet too. Reckons Wenger pulled him on the fake ‘Massage Parlour’ injury in the 02 cup final, and asked him after the game why he didn’t cut him in on it!
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
No I don't think it did. Under the former rules, the Leader, whether in govt or opposition, had to stand for re-election every year. Until 1989, Mrs Thatcher was unopposed, but was then challenged by Meyer. She should have taken into account the mounting disquiet, but didn't. Then Howe resigned in the early autumn of 1990 and Heseltine duly stood against her in the 'normal' election.
I like the view of Charles Moore.
A leadership challenge was inevitable the moment Willie Whitelaw left the cabinet.
He managed to stop her making blunders like she did post 1988.
An investigation into manipulation of an annual World Bank report has found that Kristalina Georgieva, the bank’s former chief executive, who now leads the International Monetary Fund, directed staff to alter data to placate China.
Seems to be a bit of theme here....WHO, Olympics, World Bank,....
Wikipedia (And yes, it's Wikipedia, but - given how often Wikipedia is the top search result for a term - it's still a big deal)
The trick is to win the elections, not the conferences.
Dave won every general election he contested as leader.
Depending what you mean by won. Con maj 2010 was there for the taking.
Most seats/most votes counts as a victory.
The fact he became PM means it was a victory.
As this puts Dave’s achievement into context.
Somewhat remarkable Heath got to fight 1970 from those figures.
In those days - and really up until the end of Kinnock post-1987 - you got to keep fighting General Elections until you won. What proportion of Conservative and Labour leaders between 1945 and 1990 did not end up Prime Minister?
It has to be well under 20%.
Good point. Can only think of Gaitskell. For unfortunate reasons. And Foot for more obvious ones. Not a single Tory. Wonder what changed? I would argue, Kinnock too was a special case, losing an election pretty comfortably he was widely expected to win. Tories under Blair really started the ditching the leader after one defeat. Or none in IDS' case.
Edit. Oops. You've covered that. So, who was the Tory leader before Hague never to be PM? 19th Century I reckon.
I don't think there was one. The modern Conservative Party started with Peel, and every leader until Hague had at least a little time in Number Ten.
'Chamberlain returned to office in H. H. Asquith's wartime coalition government in May 1915, as Secretary of State for India, but resigned to take responsibility for the disastrous Kut Campaign. He again returned to office in David Lloyd George's coalition government, once again serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He then served as Conservative Party leader in the Commons (1921–2), before resigning after the Carlton Club meeting voted to end the Lloyd George Coalition.' From Wilkipedia
Exactly: "He then served as Conservative Party leader in the Commons"
Not leader of the Conservative Party.
There was no title of ‘leader of the party’ until 1922, when the Carlton Club meeting that ousted Chamberlain agreed to create one and elected Bonar Law. Prior to that, whichever was longer serving out of the Leader of the Commons and the Leader of the Lords was considered to have first dibs on being PM if the party won an election (although this wasn’t always followed, Northcote being overlooked for Salisbury in 1885) and when the party was in office the leader of the other house was nominated by the PM.
Only two leaders of either house had to be nominated in opposition between 1846 and 1922 - in 1881 when Disraeli died and Salisbury emerged as leader in the Lords, and 1911 when Balfour resigned and an election was planned but never held as two of the three candidates withdrew.
I would also point out that Wiki as so often is wrong and Austen Chamberlain was never leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. From 1911 until 1925 it was the Unionist party.
From 1922 to 2001 every leader of the Unionist or Conservative party had a least a short time as PM. Of the senior members of a duumvirate that never got to be PM, we would only mention Northcote, Chamberlain and possibly Bentinck, although Bentinck said he thought of Derby as the leader of the party.
Ah hem, from 1922 to 1997. If you extend to 2001, you're including William Hague.
"Aukus pact: UK and US battle to contain international backlash"
The "international backlash" consists of: French whining, Brussels' pointless bloviating, and the Chinese being simultaneously offended yet menacing (they've just said they might nuke Australia for this, always the sign of a reliable friend and neighbour)
Meanwhile most of Asia is greatly relieved that the US is re-engaging in the world, and that there are now serious attempts to contain China. There is ZERO "international backlash"
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
I reckon more than 1/3 of Tory MPs voting against.
That was roughly Major's personal target in '95, wasn't it?
Which anticipates the psychological drama that will surely come at some point in the next decade.
Ultimately, does BoJo crave power (in which case he will cling on until an opponent gets 50% and a bit) or adulation (in which case only winning 2:1 will cause him to run away crying like a Frenchman)?
It was Major's target.
I think Boris Johnson will quit before he's pushed.
As the 2016 contest showed Boris Johnson quits when he knows he's about to lose and be humiliated.
The Commission is pushing a narrative that EU vaccine strategy has been a triumph. And how silly the media was, in spring, to point out how badly it misfired.
I respectufully disagree
Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.
"Aukus pact: UK and US battle to contain international backlash"
The "international backlash" consists of: French whining, Brussels' pointless bloviating, and the Chinese being simultaneously offended yet menacing (they've just said they might nuke Australia for this, always the sign of a reliable friend and neighbour)
Meanwhile most of Asia is greatly relieved that the US is re-engaging in the world, and that there are now serious attempts to contain China. There is ZERO "international backlash"
Backlash is an interesting way of looking at any criticism anyway. Is that to suggest alliances, of whatever nature, should not be permitted if other countries complain they are not part of them, or perceive it is being a reaction to them?
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
No I don't think it did. Under the former rules, the Leader, whether in govt or opposition, had to stand for re-election every year. Until 1989, Mrs Thatcher was unopposed, but was then challenged by Meyer. She should have taken into account the mounting disquiet, but didn't. Then Howe resigned in the early autumn of 1990 and Heseltine duly stood against her in the 'normal' election.
I like the view of Charles Moore.
A leadership challenge was inevitable the moment Willie Whitelaw left the cabinet.
He managed to stop her making blunders like she did post 1988.
This government could really do with a Whitelaw figure. (The nearest they have is Gove, for crying out loud.)
Just don't tell the current incumbent to pay more attention to Willie.
The trick is to win the elections, not the conferences.
Dave won every general election he contested as leader.
Depending what you mean by won. Con maj 2010 was there for the taking.
Most seats/most votes counts as a victory.
The fact he became PM means it was a victory.
As this puts Dave’s achievement into context.
Somewhat remarkable Heath got to fight 1970 from those figures.
In those days - and really up until the end of Kinnock post-1987 - you got to keep fighting General Elections until you won. What proportion of Conservative and Labour leaders between 1945 and 1990 did not end up Prime Minister?
It has to be well under 20%.
Good point. Can only think of Gaitskell. For unfortunate reasons. And Foot for more obvious ones. Not a single Tory. Wonder what changed? I would argue, Kinnock too was a special case, losing an election pretty comfortably he was widely expected to win. Tories under Blair really started the ditching the leader after one defeat. Or none in IDS' case.
Edit. Oops. You've covered that. So, who was the Tory leader before Hague never to be PM? 19th Century I reckon.
I don't think there was one. The modern Conservative Party started with Peel, and every leader until Hague had at least a little time in Number Ten.
'Chamberlain returned to office in H. H. Asquith's wartime coalition government in May 1915, as Secretary of State for India, but resigned to take responsibility for the disastrous Kut Campaign. He again returned to office in David Lloyd George's coalition government, once again serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He then served as Conservative Party leader in the Commons (1921–2), before resigning after the Carlton Club meeting voted to end the Lloyd George Coalition.' From Wilkipedia
Exactly: "He then served as Conservative Party leader in the Commons"
Not leader of the Conservative Party.
There was no title of ‘leader of the party’ until 1922, when the Carlton Club meeting that ousted Chamberlain agreed to create one and elected Bonar Law. Prior to that, whichever was longer serving out of the Leader of the Commons and the Leader of the Lords was considered to have first dibs on being PM if the party won an election (although this wasn’t always followed, Northcote being overlooked for Salisbury in 1885) and when the party was in office the leader of the other house was nominated by the PM.
Only two leaders of either house had to be nominated in opposition between 1846 and 1922 - in 1881 when Disraeli died and Salisbury emerged as leader in the Lords, and 1911 when Balfour resigned and an election was planned but never held as two of the three candidates withdrew.
I would also point out that Wiki as so often is wrong and Austen Chamberlain was never leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. From 1911 until 1925 it was the Unionist party.
From 1922 to 2001 every leader of the Unionist or Conservative party had a least a short time as PM. Of the senior members of a duumvirate that never got to be PM, we would only mention Northcote, Chamberlain and possibly Bentinck, although Bentinck said he thought of Derby as the leader of the party.
Ah hem, from 1922 to 1997. If you extend to 2001, you're including William Hague.
Correct. The run was broken when he resigned in 2001 without havIng been PM. Until that time every leader had been PM.
I could have perhaps expressed myself more clearly by saying ‘no leader had failed to become PM’.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
I would assume that the Priti / The Truss factions will want to bide their time and let Rishi become less popular when he has to start doing his job properly. No point forcing an election if your candidate then loses it.
And is there enough of a Hunt faction to make a difference?
I think there are six or seven ideological factions on the Tory benches, but I don’t think any of them have fixed themselves to a credible contender for power.
The thing that always struck me was a conversation I had with someone close to Norman Lamont.
Lamont was of the view that in hindsight Redwood would have won more votes in 1995 and sunk John Major below his 215 target if Redwood's leadership launch hadn't featured the freak show, featuring the likes of Theresa Gorman and Tony Marlow, and erm Norman Lamont.
Is why its best for former PMs to leave the stage left and not hang around on the backbenchers for long.
Nonsense. If they have their own perspective to offer and enjoy and are good at backbench or legislative/policy scrutiny (even if they were no good as a PM) then absolutely they should stick around. Some might make it back into government as a Minister perhaps.
Becoming PM need not mean your days in politics are numbered once you stop. If they end up making themselves look bitter who cares? Better that than ex PMs have no prospect of political contribution, particularly when they have so many years to live and will be criticised if they cash in.
May regularly asks Johnson more difficult questions than Starmer - on policy - not politics.
May is asking a very good question, btw.
The orgasmic sighs last night about this deal from PB Tories were hilarious.
On balance I think this sounds like a good thing for the U.K., but it does raise all sorts of questions.
In what way is it a "very good question". A fucking toddler on a cider bender knows that China invading Taiwan is a real risk (AUKUS or no AUKUS) and that we would have a horrible dilemma whether to intervene or not.
Taiwan is super strategic.
Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
Personally... I think it's quite hard for China to invade Taiwan.
It's
(a) quite a long way from Mainland China, and China doesn't have that great a navy (b) a heavily armed country, with modern US (and French) fighter jets (c) who may well be nuclear armed
But the big kicker is this: mainland Chinese propaganda is that the Taiwanese are all really Chinese and are desperate to be reunited with their brethren in the mainland. If you speak to Chinese people - even quite senior people in business - they are quite convinced this is true.
And if you spend any time in Taiwan, you will discover that it is very much not true.
This has consequences. It means China can't "soften up" Taiwan by bombing the shit out of it, because these are people who apparently desperate for reunification. And if you can't bomb the shit out of Taiwan, then there's really no way to invade. Any invasion force would face murderous casualities.
And the window for China is closing. Taiwan is building their own fleet of hunter killer submarines whose sole role is going to be patrolling the strait. They're also upgrading all of their US tech right now, and have announced they are increasing military spending 50% over the next five years. Bear in mind, too, that this is not a country that historically skimped on spending.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
I don’t know I’d describe them as a ‘good 25 Tory MPs.’ There were some pretty useless ones among them.
I do wonder how strong the lust for revenge is. I can imagine some people immediately sending off the required letter as an act of retaliation - if only to gain some emotional satisfaction from the act of doing so.
Foolish to do too quickly, though. If Bozza only has 50 h8ers (as I believe they youth put it), he would be strengthened by the ensuing victory.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
It might still be a good tactic to send in 25 letters as 'bankers' - to be topped up later when opportunities arise.
Surely a good 25 Tory MPs have been dropped by Johnson from the Government over the last 2 years. Plenty of potential for alienation there and for sending in letters to Graham Brady.
Doesn't work like that.
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
I am aware of that - but the former system surely required a stalking horse - eg Anthony Meyer - whilst now the requirement is simply a threshold in terms of letters delivered to Brady.
No I don't think it did. Under the former rules, the Leader, whether in govt or opposition, had to stand for re-election every year. Until 1989, Mrs Thatcher was unopposed, but was then challenged by Meyer. She should have taken into account the mounting disquiet, but didn't. Then Howe resigned in the early autumn of 1990 and Heseltine duly stood against her in the 'normal' election.
I like the view of Charles Moore.
A leadership challenge was inevitable the moment Willie Whitelaw left the cabinet.
He managed to stop her making blunders like she did post 1988.
This government could really do with a Whitelaw figure. (The nearest they have is Gove, for crying out loud.)
Just don't tell the current incumbent to pay more attention to Willie.
Every Prime Minister needs a Willie.
Johnson is not challenged in that department. Not only has he amply proved he has a Willie, but he’s surrounded by lots of dicks.
"Aukus pact: UK and US battle to contain international backlash"
The "international backlash" consists of: French whining, Brussels' pointless bloviating, and the Chinese being simultaneously offended yet menacing (they've just said they might nuke Australia for this, always the sign of a reliable friend and neighbour)
Meanwhile most of Asia is greatly relieved that the US is re-engaging in the world, and that there are now serious attempts to contain China. There is ZERO "international backlash"
Backlash is an interesting way of looking at any criticism anyway. Is that to suggest alliances, of whatever nature, should not be permitted if other countries complain they are not part of them, or perceive it is being a reaction to them?
Indeed. "Backlash" is the laziest journalese. Awful writing. Clickbait plus stupidity. British papers - esp the Guardian and the Mail - need to rid themselves of this tendency
Comments
There’s a psychological term for this - having bought the Skoda*, you go out of your way to find reasons to justify your decision.
*Am aware the metaphor no longer works.
It's not the processing power that matters but the garbage inputs that count.
But RIP. Visionary. My generation of software guys were pretty much all ZX owners as kids.
I was a cut above as my dad had access to an Apple II for a while which we messed around on at weekends.
I'm really looking forward to 2024, can you tell?
BBC News - Cladding: Panels failed fire tests 13 years before Grenfell
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58584348
Very bright, and surprisingly funny, but awkward as hell and totally underwhelming as a minister.
It's a shade Orwellian - more than a shade in truth. Having a former leader on the backbenches criticising the current leader is an inconvenient truth for the loyalist who once supported the former leader.
Even in the interregnum periods of leadership elections, the issue is less who do I want to lead the party than who is the best person to lead the party because the loyalist will be "loyal" to the winner.
Loyalists can of course disagree with some aspects of Party policy and those arguments can and do take place internally within the Party. However, there inevitably comes a point or points when that loyalty is stretched to breaking point - when the Party says or does something that is either so antithetical to one's basic principles or so ridiculous as to render continuing support for that party either unethical or illogical.
That's not to denigrate Party membership (of any party) - most people have contradictory or opposing views or views which defy common sense and occasionally even the laws of physics but that's part of being.
Conor Burns really shouldn't be an MP let alone a minister.
The problem is Sunak (and Kwasi) are fiscal hawks and if Gove really wants to level up he needs money.
Will be fascinating to see both what policy they come up with, and the result of Gove v Sunak clashes.
And who will Cummings side with?
I'd advise having nothing to do with that sort.
Hague was more like Ed Milliband; a perfectly substantial political figure, but not PM material- certainly at the age they got the job of party leader. Character actors, rather than the leading man. They both became more interesting later on.
Similarly IDS and Corbyn both rhyme; pure self-indulgent fanservice. The difference is that the Conservatives ditched IDS before a disastrous election, whereas Corbyn did well enough in '17 to get another shot in '19, which turned into a megadisaster. For all of us.
So then, on the blue side we had Howard. Not really expected to win, but to do enough to wipe the smug grin off Blair's face. (Wasn't that one of the campaign themes?) Which he did, giving enough time and space for Cameron to come to prominence.
And that's where the rhyme breaks down. Starmer isn't Howard exactly- the greybeards who could have taken that role have all been chucked on the bonfire. But neither is he Cameron.
And there we are.
Going back to a theme that's bubbled up a couple of times upthread- I fear the UK is chucking losing politicians in the bin way too quickly at the moment. That's particularly true for ex-PMs. We have six living people who have experience of being Prime Minister- the incumbent and his five predecessors. As a country, we ought to make better use of those people than we do, because they know stuff that others simply can't. Instead, the tendency is to shout "didn't you hear us tell you to f@*& off?" when they say things... especially when they are uncongenial.
The other (much smaller but very vocal) group of people want to pretend we're all the same everywhere really, and just because one might live in a corrupt poverty stricken dump doesn't mean you're any different to anyone else on the globe.
So what happens is that very loudly, the second group condemn the first group for calling a country (perfectly accurately) a corrupt poverty stricken dump, and say "you can't say that, it's racist".
So the first group goes off, and instead thinks of a new term, like "3rd world" , which politely summarises "corrupt poverty stricken dump", and all is well with the world until the second group realises what is happening and shouts "racism". Then a new term is devised... And the cycle continues.
The interesting thing is that the speed of the cycle seems to constantly be accelerating, to the point that the current new terms now have half-lives of weeks rather than years. This means people mess up and use the term that's just become racist more than they used to, because it's increasingly difficult to keep up. I think the acceleration factor is probably mostly because of twitter, as it echo chambers this sort of thing very fast.
You see the same with other terms (eg that currently "coloured people" now is racist, "people of colour" isn't quite there yet, although it's day is clearly coming soon.).
Ultimately the (nonsensical) side which believes we can't talk about these sorts of issues is winning, by unleashing twitter mobs on anyone who can't remember the new fashion of the week. I presume making certain subjects impossible to discuss is the ultimate aim, in a very 1984ish sort of way, by ensuring that there are no words available with which to discuss them.
“It was my honor to personally invite the Prime Minister to a bipartisan leadership meeting in the United States Capitol when he travels to the United States later this month.”
"Neil O'Brien has been made a junior minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government."
See:
https://www.politico.eu/article/covid19-coronavirus-twitter-warrior-neil-obrien-brexit-leveling-up/
One thing they have in common is that Matt Forde does brilliant impressions of both of them - Starmer just sounds like a busybody councillor who comes round your house denying your planning permission on a technicality, Ed was more of your "it's so unfair" student
https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1438578554963382272?s=20
https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1438579777380753408?s=20
Gareth Southgate has said he urgently needs to hire more women to work with the England men’s football team, after accepting the current training setup is “nowhere near where we should be” when it comes to gender equality.
Didn’t Glenn Hoddle bring in a female influence? Not sure it worked too well for him...
What a geezer! Is it true that you narked Glenn Hoddle’s spiritual healer, Eileen Drewery?
I had a bad calf and Glenn sent me to see her. I sat in this seat, I couldn’t see her – I thought she was going to come out with no clothes on or something! Anyway, she placed her hands on my shoulders – I had long hair back then – and I just said: “short back and sides, please, Eileen”.
Cheeky…
In fairness, she laughed. She was quite funny. But she told her husband and it was suddenly in The Sun! I never got picked for England again.
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ray-parlour-ask-silly-question
Taiwan is super strategic.
Yesterday's pact just means we have a better chance of deterring that invasion. That's one reason why it is a good thing
Only two leaders of either house had to be nominated in opposition between 1846 and 1922 - in 1881 when Disraeli died and Salisbury emerged as leader in the Lords, and 1911 when Balfour resigned and an election was planned but never held as two of the three candidates withdrew.
I would also point out that Wiki as so often is wrong and Austen Chamberlain was never leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. From 1911 until 1925 it was the Unionist party.
From 1922 to 2001 every leader of the Unionist or Conservative party had a least a short time as PM. Of the senior members of a duumvirate that never got to be PM, we would only mention Northcote, Chamberlain and possibly Bentinck, although Bentinck said he thought of Derby as the leader of the party.
It does highlight another challenge for Starmer, though. When Cameron took over, Howard had cleared up a lot of the mess from the IDS years, which Starmer is having to do himself.
The Tories will turn on Boris when it is clear he is no longer of use to them.
Iceland votes in just nine days on the 25th.
The latest Maskina poll - changes from 2017 Althing election:
Independence Party: 22.0% (-3.2)
Social Democrats: 14.6% (+2.5)
Pirate Party: 13.3% (+4.1)
Reform Party: 12.3% (+5.6)
Progressive Party: 12.0% (+1.3)
Left-Green Movement: 11.5% (-5.4)
Socialist Party: 6.1% (+6.1)
Centre: 5.5% (-5.4)
People's Party: 3.6% (-3.3)
The governing coalition (Independence, Progressive, Left-Green) is down from 52.8% to 45.5% so would lose its majority in the Althing. I'm not quite sure however what alternative Government could take over. The Social Democrats have been out of power since 2013 - Reform was last in Government with Independence from 2013 to 2016.
Meanwhile, in Germany, a better poll tonight for the Union from Infratest:
Changes from 2017 Bundestag election.
Social Democrats: 26% (+5)
Union CDU/CSU: 22% (-11)
Greens: 15% (+6)
FDP: 11% (nc)
Alternative for Germany: 11% (-2)
Linke: 6% (-3)
Free Voters: 3% (+2)
Think about it, during Thatcher's era it only took two (well three) MPs to trigger a leadership challenge, it was only ten years into her premiership when she faced her first leadership challenge and she regularly sacked people.
Political fanatics are people who like being fanatical, and will often happily change allegiance.
. If you want to choose a poorer candidate over a better because they are female, then I have a huge problem with that.
*I appreciate that Williamson, Gibb, Jenrick etc do not have any sense, but…
An investigation into manipulation of an annual World Bank report has found that Kristalina Georgieva, the bank’s former chief executive, who now leads the International Monetary Fund, directed staff to alter data to placate China.
How big would a rebel alliance need to be to cause No 10 serious concern, I wonder?
I respectufully disagree
Just because you ramp up vaccination quickly doesn't make up for a poor start.
A short 🧵 https://t.co/ZQzQNnxYgm
https://twitter.com/spignal/status/1438484167671549964?s=19
Thatcher 314
Meyer 33.
That's a humiliation. That's a Tories in Liverpool showing.
What set the scene for Heseltine's challenge was Howe's resignation, well his resignation speech.
And is there enough of a Hunt faction to make a difference?
A leadership challenge was inevitable the moment Willie Whitelaw left the cabinet.
He managed to stop her making blunders like she did post 1988.
It turns out I'm not the only one, and there's a whole community devoted to keeping the Z88 alive.
If I hadn't started my insurance company, I was thinking of creating a modern Android or Linux based version. A4 sized. Proper (but silent) keyboard.
Which anticipates the psychological drama that will surely come at some point in the next decade.
Ultimately, does BoJo crave power (in which case he will cling on until an opponent gets 50% and a bit) or adulation (in which case only winning 2:1 will cause him to run away crying like a Frenchman)?
He loves a bet too. Reckons Wenger pulled him on the fake ‘Massage Parlour’ injury in the 02 cup final, and asked him after the game why he didn’t cut him in on it!
"Aukus pact: UK and US battle to contain international backlash"
The "international backlash" consists of: French whining, Brussels' pointless bloviating, and the Chinese being simultaneously offended yet menacing (they've just said they might nuke Australia for this, always the sign of a reliable friend and neighbour)
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/16/aukus-pact-uk-and-us-battle-to-contain-international-backlash?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Meanwhile most of Asia is greatly relieved that the US is re-engaging in the world, and that there are now serious attempts to contain China. There is ZERO "international backlash"
I think Boris Johnson will quit before he's pushed.
As the 2016 contest showed Boris Johnson quits when he knows he's about to lose and be humiliated.
France, Italy, Spain, Ireland have all vaccinated a larger proportion of their population than the UK. Our great start has been squandered.
Just don't tell the current incumbent to pay more attention to Willie.
I could have perhaps expressed myself more clearly by saying ‘no leader had failed to become PM’.
Lamont was of the view that in hindsight Redwood would have won more votes in 1995 and sunk John Major below his 215 target if Redwood's leadership launch hadn't featured the freak show, featuring the likes of Theresa Gorman and Tony Marlow, and erm Norman Lamont.
It's
(a) quite a long way from Mainland China, and China doesn't have that great a navy
(b) a heavily armed country, with modern US (and French) fighter jets
(c) who may well be nuclear armed
But the big kicker is this: mainland Chinese propaganda is that the Taiwanese are all really Chinese and are desperate to be reunited with their brethren in the mainland. If you speak to Chinese people - even quite senior people in business - they are quite convinced this is true.
And if you spend any time in Taiwan, you will discover that it is very much not true.
This has consequences. It means China can't "soften up" Taiwan by bombing the shit out of it, because these are people who apparently desperate for reunification. And if you can't bomb the shit out of Taiwan, then there's really no way to invade. Any invasion force would face murderous casualities.
And the window for China is closing. Taiwan is building their own fleet of hunter killer submarines whose sole role is going to be patrolling the strait. They're also upgrading all of their US tech right now, and have announced they are increasing military spending 50% over the next five years. Bear in mind, too, that this is not a country that historically skimped on spending.
Johnson is not challenged in that department. Not only has he amply proved he has a Willie, but he’s surrounded by lots of dicks.