politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » “The next CON leader will not be a white man” – Tory inside

Floater said:

So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

Hattie will not be amused.

Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.

Mr. Flag, if we're counting Jewish as separate, then the Conservatives stay ahead, due to Disraeli. And Howard.

Ninoinoz said:

Barnesian said:

Net immigration is adding about 0.5% a year to our population.

To a first approximation, they are adding 0.5% pa to GDP (and prevented Balls' douible dip recession). They are also adding 0.5% to the tax take.

On the other hand they add 0.5% pa to the demand for NHS, schools, roads, care homes etc.

It balances out.

Actually, it probably doesn't because, on average, immigrants are younger and more likely to be producers of GDP than consumers of care homes and the NHS.

I do think that GDP figures and NHS spending should be expressed in amount per head rather than the grand total to get a feel of what is really going on.

What absolute codswallop.

Immigrants are younger? Absolutely correct, but that's the sort that have children.

So, pay a visit to a maternity unit, or to a Catholic School, and you'll find exactly the effect of immigration. My old primary school has expanded, an entirely new school had to be built, two new schools founded farther south and a sixth-form created at my niece's school.

There are lies, damned lies and your 0.5%'s.

It was one thing for Labour to expose the UK to a massive wave of immigration. Without asking the consent of the UK population.

But it was an even worse crime for them to make no provision whatsoever for their housing, their health, the education of their children, their integration into the existing communities. For that alone, Labour should be debarred from power for a generation or two.

And an apology would be nice. But that would be an admission of error. So no chance.

These figures are pretty high. Half of women and 43% of men are taking at least one form of medication:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30411246

Naturally, being a lean, mean, morris dancing machine I have no need of pills to be in peak wiffle-stick waving condition.

Margaret Hodge:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/09/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-how-junckers-duchy-accommodated-skype-and-the-koch-empire

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, I've always wanted to see them. I remember being pissed off at the news when it once reported that last night (as was) there had been great opportunities to see them. Very bloody useful.

I've always found the bucket list a weird thing. A list of things to do before you die... well, when else are you going to do them?

Fair point on the bucket list, Mr. Dancer, but it keeps you reminded of an inevitable demise - and to do things whilst you still have the inclination and the ability to do them. As my granny used to say, "you're a long time dead". As she continues to prove....

Ninoinoz said:

Barnesian said:

Net immigration is adding about 0.5% a year to our population.

To a first approximation, they are adding 0.5% pa to GDP (and prevented Balls' douible dip recession). They are also adding 0.5% to the tax take.

On the other hand they add 0.5% pa to the demand for NHS, schools, roads, care homes etc.

It balances out.

Actually, it probably doesn't because, on average, immigrants are younger and more likely to be producers of GDP than consumers of care homes and the NHS.

I do think that GDP figures and NHS spending should be expressed in amount per head rather than the grand total to get a feel of what is really going on.

What absolute codswallop.

Immigrants are younger? Absolutely correct, but that's the sort that have children.

So, pay a visit to a maternity unit, or to a Catholic School, and you'll find exactly the effect of immigration. My old primary school has expanded, an entirely new school had to be built, two new schools founded farther south and a sixth-form created at my niece's school.

There are lies, damned lies and your 0.5%'s.

Immigrants are paying for investment in schools through their taxes just like anyone else. But overall they are likely to take less out from the state (schools excepted) than they put in. They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse.

The people who take more out of the public purse are the oldies like me who don't produce much but consume a lot of NHS resources. We are supported by the positive contribution from immigrants.

Objective analysis versus prejudice.

There's no doubt that Theresa May has made quite remarkable progress in terms of her standing in the party. She used to be quite unpopular because of the 'nasty party' phrase, which was indeed very damaging even if the point she was making was a very reasonable one. But her very successful tenure as Home Secretary has certainly boosted her position as well as her profile. It is certainly possible to see her as leader of the party and indeed as PM. She has quite a refreshingly bracing no-nonsense approach, and she certainly has the capability.

I would say, though, that she's not a naturally inspiring speaker, and she doesn't sparkle in Question and Answer sessions. She's better in more relaxed settings (like her Desert Island Discs programme), or face to face.

So what about the competition? It's a pretty strong field, with at least half a dozen figures whom one could reasonably entrust with the role.

The biggest turnaround has been the rise in the popularity of George Osborne in the party. It is common for people to single him out for praise. Of course, as one of those who always maintained he is a very good Chancellor and who urged you all to keep your heads when all around were losing theirs, this is not too much of a surprise to me, but I have been surprised by the extent of the turnaround. On the other hand, it's not obvious that, for all his qualities, Osborne is the answer to the problem of the party being seen as too posh and 'out of touch'. So he's a possibility, but not I think a very likely choice. I see him more as continuing to be the power behind the throne, rather than the front-man.

Sajid Javid, Phil Hammond, and Jeremy Hunt are all possibilities. Owen Paterson would represent a change of direction and might be the candidate to represent the BOOer wing of the party.

You can forget Michael Gove (not popular with councillors, and anyway not really suited to the role). You can also rule out David Davis, and probably Liam Fox; disloyal and troublesome, and, in the case of Fox, not a very good Defence Secretary.

Further to my previous post, I seem to have forgotten Boris!

His position is rather paradoxical. He certainly has the stardust quality - at events where he appears he is mobbed like a rock star, with queues of people wanting their photo taken with him - but is he seen as a potential leader? He would be a high-risk choice; it might work out very well, but in the cold light of day I'm not sure it's a step the party will take. Quite apart from anything else, he's probably not someone who would appeal to the key voters in the midlands and north, where the Conservatives most need to boost their support.

Indigo said:

Financier said:

Tristram Hunt writes:

"....a shocking inequality of opportunity between technical and academic routes."

.. and those that have parents that can afford £20,000 per year to send them to UCS.

Can’t reasonably blame the man for his parent’s choices.

Cameron's statement in Ankara that he supports EU entry for Turkey looks to me a bit of diplomacy rather than real intent. We need to keep the Turks onside particularly with the Jihadi madness in Syria. There is no realistic chance for EU entry in the near future for Turkey because of all the issues mentioned below (and not least the continuing discrimination against Christians in Turkey).

Turkey could only join if it changed considerably as a country, and that does not seem likely, and even if it did then it would mean the end of freedom of movement of people. EU expansion is being prevented most of all by the free movement of people, which acts as a barrier to more of the Balkans, Caucases and Ukraine joining.

isam said:

On topic

Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

I feel tokenism down plays the seriousness of the problem that the establishment has seen fit to institute a policy of official discrimination against the indigenous population. As with most policies in our liberal democracy it has its origin in the official policy of the early Soviet Union of discrimination against Russians for jobs, positions in the bureaucracy and access to universities.

It seems as if we are to be excluded now even in the leadership of our own country.

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Incidentally, I see Cameron has strongly reaffirmed the Government's support for Turkish membership of the EU. I'm no Eurosceptic, as regular PBers will know, but well, hmm, I'm not sure about that.

Neither is David Cameron.

No?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html?WT.mc_id=e_3746653&WT.tsrc=email&etype=politics&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PAM_New_2014_12_10&utm_campaign=3746653

It's not the migrants that concern me so much as the instability: there seems a non-trivial risk that they'll end up with a virtual dictatorship of one kind of another. I take antifrank's point that the EU promotes stability, and it's not done a bad job in e.g. Poland, but there are limits to what it can influence, as we see in Hungary.

I dunno - I can see arguments both ways to be honest.

I don't see that the EU promotes stability. By removing voters ability to change government policy through elections, I think it destabilises countries.

anotherDave said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Incidentally, I see Cameron has strongly reaffirmed the Government's support for Turkish membership of the EU. I'm no Eurosceptic, as regular PBers will know, but well, hmm, I'm not sure about that.

Neither is David Cameron.

No?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html?WT.mc_id=e_3746653&WT.tsrc=email&etype=politics&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PAM_New_2014_12_10&utm_campaign=3746653

It's not the migrants that concern me so much as the instability: there seems a non-trivial risk that they'll end up with a virtual dictatorship of one kind of another. I take antifrank's point that the EU promotes stability, and it's not done a bad job in e.g. Poland, but there are limits to what it can influence, as we see in Hungary.

I dunno - I can see arguments both ways to be honest.

I don't see that the EU promotes stability. By removing voters ability to change government policy through elections, I think it destabilises countries.

By comparison with Soviet-backed dictatorships, the governance of the EU looks good. By comparison with long-established democracies, much less so.

isam said:

On topic

Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

Was tokenism responsible for the preferment of Natasha Bolter over more longer established white male members of UKIP?

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

On topic

Was the statement made because someone knows who it will be, or are they just committed to tokenism?

Was tokenism responsible for the preferment of Natasha Bolter over more longer established white male members of UKIP?

Probably.

How about answering the question I asked instead of playing "My Dads bigger than your Dad"?" Or is that your impression of a politican's answer, and you think it is tokenism?

O/T has anyone else read the report on CIA torture? Unbef>ckinglievable. Literally right out of the Nazism / Japanese P-o-W-camp playbook. The detail about how the torturers found it disturbing reminded me of how at Nazi executions there was a bottle of brandy - for the executioner.

Something very, very wrong with how that country is run.

Socrates said:

I'm not convinced. I think, if a referendum happens, it will be in based on pending renegotiation, not a settled package.

So what? Out is Out.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Alistair, worth also pointing out the financial exodus to London that would've occurred, as well as the decline in 'bilateral' English-Scottish trade.

I was going to do that but figured it would be more than offset by everything being more awesome in an independent Scotland #SexySocialism

TGOHF said:

Alistair said:

Alanbrooke said:

So if oil hits $50 a barrel just how bust would iScotland have been ?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/10/petrol-1-pound-litre-oil-prices-fall-treasury-committee

Conservative estimate (not only reducing tax take by 50% but also reducing activity to be taxed by 50% as well, so effectively a 75% cut in Oil revenue) would leave Scotland with £2 billion less last year.

Scotland's historical tax take varies by more than that on a year by year basis.

Other impacts of a sub £1 a litre petrol price:

a) "Cost of living crisis" strategies look "brave".

b) The M4 will be busier on a Friday.

How's that Tory policy of adjusting tax in the opposite direction of petrol prices getting on?

TGOHF said:

FalseFlag said:

TheWatcher said:

FalseFlag said:

Floater said:

So probably two non white male leaders for the blues compared to errr none for the progressive reds.

Hattie will not be amused.

Ed's Jewish in case you hadn't noticed.

As was the much maligned Michael Howard. What's your point?

That Labour have a non white leader.

I would like to make absolutely clear, I see this as a bad thing.

Jews can't be white ? Eh ?

Quite. I think FalseFlag is interesting for his distinctive view on Ukraine (where the facts are probably less one-sidedly pro-Kiev than it's comfortable to think) but Socrates has previously pointed out that FF seems to have a problem with Jewish people. That seems to me, as he might put it, a bad thing. (I try not to comment on other posters, but this case seems quite glaring.)

After breastgate, boltergate and M4gate, perhaps it's time for class 4C to settle down now?

Would I vote Tory if May took over? Probably not. They still eat babies, you know.
Would I vote Labour if Ed was replaced? Unlikely, as the Badger is going.
Will I vote LD again? Only if they stopped treating Europe as a Deity, and that won't happen?
Will I vote Ukip? Only for fun and to see the "big parties" squirm.
Would I vote Green? No, I'm too old to live in a cave and heat the cave with recycled twigs when the Siberian winds blow.

Overall, they all have some good things in their policies but they also have some unpalatable ones.

Is it possible to sell my vote to the highest bidder on e-bay?

stodge said:

Morning all

As a non-Conservative, it probably doesn't matter what I think but it never stops non-LDs pontificating ad nauseam about the party so if you can't vote for 'em talk about 'em.

IF Cameron loses, Osborne, as the architect of the failed (as it would appear) economic policy (whose paramount aim is to get the Conservatives re-elected as much as it is to improve the public finances) would be discredited and out of the running.

It's too soon for Javid unless it's a 1997-style rout which seems improbable but not impossible. That leaves Theresa May and Boris Johnson and the hardy perennial question which all parties face - do you choose the leader YOU want or the Leader that appeals beyond the Party even if that leader iriitates the Party base ?

It's clear to this non-Conservative that Boris has appeal far beyond the Conservative base though his intellectual positions on policy (well, as they were last week) wouldn't necessarily sit well with many Conservatives. Boris of course will change his opinion if required - he does that as easily as he changes his socks.

Theresa May would be for me the female equivalent of Michael Howard - good for the core vote (and perhaps for recapturing the UKIP defectors) but less good at cutting into the Labour support.

Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

OldKingCole said:

Totally different. Hunt’s clerarly thought about his vs others education. Cameron and Osborne etc have just accepted their privileged status.

How do you figure that out? Or is this a textbook example of prejudice laid bare?

NickPalmer said:

TGOHF said:

Alistair said:

Alanbrooke said:

So if oil hits $50 a barrel just how bust would iScotland have been ?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/dec/10/petrol-1-pound-litre-oil-prices-fall-treasury-committee

Conservative estimate (not only reducing tax take by 50% but also reducing activity to be taxed by 50% as well, so effectively a 75% cut in Oil revenue) would leave Scotland with £2 billion less last year.

Scotland's historical tax take varies by more than that on a year by year basis.

Other impacts of a sub £1 a litre petrol price:

a) "Cost of living crisis" strategies look "brave".

b) The M4 will be busier on a Friday.

How's that Tory policy of adjusting tax in the opposite direction of petrol prices getting on?


Dumped in the Autumn Statement. The supplemental charge for oil and gas companies was reduced from 32% to 30% but there was no corresponding increase in fuel duty.

anotherDave said:

Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

If he is Osborne's preferred candidate (I don't know if he would be, but if he were), then surely that greatly helps his chances?

Very good BES/UKIP article from UK Polling Report: Does the rise of UKIP hurt the Conservatives or Labour more?

"In an attempt to tie things up, it is clear that UKIP are currently taking more 2010 support from the Conservatives than Labour, and in that sense they are hurting the Tories more.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are hurting just the Conservatives. While it is a good thing for Labour when the Tories lose a vote… it is an opportunity lost if that vote goes to a party other than Labour, especially when it is a voter who might have considered Labour earlier this Parliament or might have voted Labour prior to the 2010 election.

There’s also a longer term view – who UKIP are able to appeal to now, with a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition in power, is not necessarily a good guide to who they might be able to draw support from in a different political landscape."

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9093

Kevin Maguire living up to David Cameron's maxim about twitter

@Kevin_Maguire

Cameron timed his Turkey trip to avoid #pmqs? Notorious dodger in the past. Clegg-Harman B Team today

Then an hour later

@Kevin_Maguire

Cameron visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau so withdraw any criticism of missing #pmqs. I went years ago. Urge everybody to so we never forget

O/T

For those history buffs out there my I commend this site:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/

It is a superb, huge collection of digitised and translated historical documents mostly of the period between 1300 and 1800. It includes state papers, court rolls, tax records (including the names and amounts of people paying taxes by area), maps and much much more. A fantastic research resource.

Socrates said:

Barnesian said:

Socrates said:

Barnesian said:

They probably make a positive economic contribution to the public purse...

Objective analysis versus prejudice.

But we have an objective analysis. Between 1995-2011, the net impact of immigrants on the public finances was a £114bn loss. EU immigrants were basically neutral (a small £4bn gain, but this will likely reverse as they age), while non-EU immigrants were a £118bn loss. And this was under a set of optimistic assumptions too. So, when presented with this objective analysis, will you change your prejudice from the pro-mass immigration position?

Then of course there is the stuff that isn't exchequer-related: increased congestion, impact on rising house prices, classes being majority ESL and slowing language development etc.

Socrates Can you give me the link please. I'm prepared to change my mind in the face of evidence and analysis.

Table 6:

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

The piece also says:

"Regarding the net fiscal impact of immigrants, we find for our baseline scenario,7
and considering the immigrant population that resided in the UK over the 1995–2011
period, that over a period during which the fiscal cost of natives cumulated to
£591 billion, EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms),
and non-EEA immigrant contributions were almost 9% lower. On the other hand,
recent immigrants, i.e. those who came after 1999, have made positive fiscal
contributions irrespective of origin. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contributions
of recent A10 immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other
recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent nonEuropean
immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Remarkably, over the same period,
the natives’ fiscal cost amounted to almost £617 billion."

That doesn't seem to match your rhetoric.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone near parliament today?

Porn protest planned outside Parliament

Hundreds of campaigners to simulate sex acts outside Parliament to protest against new porn laws

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11284660/Porn-protest-planned-outside-Parliament.html

Do Victoria's Secret have a range of thermal underwear to promote?

Richard_Nabavi said:

anotherDave said:

Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

If he is Osborne's preferred candidate (I don't know if he would be, but if he were), then surely that greatly helps his chances?

Mr Osborne is presumably Mr Osborne's preferred candidate. If Mr Javid is a follower rather than a leader of a faction, then he's unlikely to be anyone's first choice.

Mr Miliband did not stand against Mr Brown.

I want the next Tory leader to be Sajid Javid.

Not because he impresses, but for the fact it would cause a breakdown on the left as the Tories not only had the first woman leader, they'd have the first ethnic minority leader.

They'd come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons to say the son of an immigrant bus driver doesn't count.

He doesn't count because he's a millionaire banker.

Thread Header said:

Remember that the glory days for the party, the late seventies an eighties, the leader was a woman from a modest background.

I don't think Mrs T's background was important as a thing in itself, though one could argue that it shaped her as a person, thus making her a different person than if she had been an aristocrat, educated at Eton.

I believe the argument has been made that Cameron's problem is less that he is a toff/metropolitan liberal, but that he governs in the interests of toffs/metropolitan liberals.

Would May or Javid be any different?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

O/T has anyone else read the report on CIA torture? Unbef>ckinglievable. Literally right out of the Nazism / Japanese P-o-W-camp playbook. The detail about how the torturers found it disturbing reminded me of how at Nazi executions there was a bottle of brandy - for the executioner.

Something very, very wrong with how that country is run.

Yes, it is absolutely horrendous, even worse than I expected.

It's truly shocking. The torture itself smacks of revenge and frustration over the Bush administration's own inability to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. But that's what happens when the Executive gives the nod, however subtle, to unorthodox interrogation methods. It's a green light for abuse and Dick Cheney, in particular, should be throughly ashamed of himself.

Interesting to note, as well, that not only was it totally ineffective but it also makes victims of the torturerers themselves and has probably weakened the West through totally undermining our reputation and values. Only good thing is that this came out rather than being covered up.

Apologists for civil liberty infringements by government, take note.

Mr. Roger, so because the private sector's pretty good and the state isn't as good, the answer is to harm the good schools?

Attacking success is just plain stupid.

Whomever came up with the term "weatherbomb" deserves to be slapped around the face with a wet Kipper (fish or UKIPer, I'm not fussy)

Honestly, it the worst invention to the English language since pre-prepared.

Richard_Nabavi said:

anotherDave said:

Mr Javid gets presented in the political columns as Mr Osborne's pawn, so I think him being a candidate at all is unlikely.

If he is Osborne's preferred candidate (I don't know if he would be, but if he were), then surely that greatly helps his chances?

Yes I would have thought so. If the Tories win the election I would have thought Osborne would stand a good chance of being next PM, should he be interested. The IMF might beckon as an alternative - or indeed after. If the tories do win the election then I would have thought according to circumstances Cameron would retire about 2018. Then if Osborne were indeed PM then Javid might well have a good chance in either 2020 or 2023.

It seems to me that being Chancellor and Foreign Secretary is not a bad background for being a future PM. Writing the Labour manifesto, just about the worst.

If there is a minority goverment then playing around with PMs might not be easy or clever.