politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sir Vince Cable predicts George Osborne will be the next Pr
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sir Vince Cable predicts George Osborne will be the next Prime Minister
In an interview with the Guardian today Sir Vince Cable predicts that George Osborne will be the next Prime Minister. Sir Vince like Mark Antony comes to bury Osborne, not praise him by saying Osborne is “extremely shrewd politically, very cynical” and “The economy turned out all right, but I don’t think that was because of [Osborne].”
Comments
-
F1: still waiting for all the Ladbrokes markets to appear...0
-
-
Osborne will not be the next leader of the Conservative Party for the sole reason of him being a raging Europhile who is more concerned with what is in the interests of big business.
He did not want the current referendum so as long as he is leader he would never entertain another referendum. Try getting that past the members when a majority of them are Eurosceptic.0 -
Mr. SE, depends who would be his opponent. The membership are presented with just the two.0
-
Philip Hammond - though he seems to have been quiet this week, is he on holiday?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. SE, depends who would be his opponent. The membership are presented with just the two.
0 -
Osborne v Fox = OsborneMorris_Dancer said:Mr. SE, depends who would be his opponent. The membership are presented with just the two.
Osborne v May? not certain for either.
Don't think it will be Osborne v Johnson.0 -
I can tell you one thing; the economic success over the last few years is more likely attributable to GO than VC.
Him losing his seat was highlight of the GE night, for me. Not a man suited to government. Not a man suited to leadership.0 -
Details of today's Populus poll for The Times:
"Did the photo of the Syrian boy make you more in favour of accepting more refugees?
In favour 36%, Opposed 17%, No difference 47%.
Would you support military action in Syria?
Support 41%, Oppose 38%, Don't know 21%"0 -
The last thread by David Herdson was very good.0
-
Incidentally, I think it will be Hammond too. Providing he and May get on, which I imagine they do, and he would be happy for GO to remain in post as Chancellor.tlg86 said:
Philip Hammond - though he seems to have been quiet this week, is he on holiday?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. SE, depends who would be his opponent. The membership are presented with just the two.
Tories when in Govt. tend to realise that the best way for MPs to keep their seats is if leadership elections are concluded swiftly and without too much hoo-har. Has there even been a Tory party leadership election when in Govt. in an age of mass membership voting?
I for one would be happy for it to go back to the old style of election by MPs.
0 -
Osborne wasn't fairly unknown prior to his suddenly becoming the favourite, he was actively dismissed by many as even being a viable candidate, so perhaps now being the favourite so far out will not hurt as much, as he's overcome a significant hurdle already?
But in the end the economy is the big question, as you say - his chances may well be laughable again at some point in any case. In which case he should revert to what I presume was the initial plan, of being the eminence grise of the next leader as you say, which I think he is trying to move away from since the GE, when he's thought perhaps he could actually take the job himself.0 -
One week until Corbyn's bizarre win or shock failure.
What time will the declaration be? Will Laura Kuenssberg emulate her predecessor and talk over the declaration with her own inaccurate prediction?0 -
(FPT)
All the evidence you have of this patently absurd Assad activity (how exactly is dumping chlorine on civilians to ward off revolution? Has he run out of actual bombs that could kill rebels on these risky helicopter sorties?) is 'the sound of helicopters' reported by some witnesses in rebel areas. This is flimsy beyond belief.
AIUI part of the reason there is little evidence of *who* used them is that the UN inspectors were not allowed, by Assad and Russia, to say *who* used them.
Why was that?
I suggest you look much more closely at where the 2013 attacks were, in comparison to where the rebels and Syrian army were, just before the attacks. Basically, Assad as scared that Damascus was going to fall.
And for the record, not that this should need saying, I have not banged on about how wonderful the opposition is, and have particular annoyance at someone suggesting it. For instance, a few months ago I was warning about the dangers of arming the Peshmerga. It also does well to remember that there are many different 'oppositions', and the situation has changed over the months and years.
An awful lot of bloody water has gone under that particular Bridge of Sorrows, but it doesn't help to excuse the guilty just because it suits our purposes to now do so.
The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title.
'Zaher Sahloul, a Chicago-based 47-year-old physician specializing in pulmonary disease, is another anti-Assad activist and the volunteer director of the Syrian American Medical Society.'
Assad may be many things, stupid is not one of them. The rebels have motive, means, and opportunity. Here are all the facts laid out clearly and baldly, as opposed to newspaper emotive spin: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/about-those-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria/
'In order to prevail, the Syrian opposition needs foreign intervention. In order to prevail, the Syrian government needs to prevent foreign intervention.'0 -
Incidentally, there was an FT weekend article in early March that signalled to me that Osborne was working actively on his media image/public perception. I now wonder if it was fear of becoming too bunker-ised, rather than through any desire to take the top job himself.kle4 said:Osborne wasn't fairly unknown prior to his suddenly becoming the favourite, he was actively dismissed by many as even being a viable candidate, so perhaps now being the favourite so far out will not hurt as much, as he's overcome a significant hurdle already?
But in the end the economy is the big question, as you say - his chances may well be laughable again at some point in any case. In which case he should revert to what I presume was the initial plan, of being the eminence grise of the next leader as you say, which I think he is trying to move away from since the GE, when he's thought perhaps he could actually take the job himself.
The realisation of how much of an electoral asset DC was in '05, when he was (apparently) Howard's favoured candidate of the centre, shows his self-awareness is head and shoulders above almost every other leading politician of the 21st century.
That still stands - and he'll be keener for the Tories to carry on winning now they've got a majority. I imagine he'll only stand if there is no-one more obviously electable than him willing to do it.
0 -
FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=0 -
All the evidence you have of this patently absurd Assad activity (how exactly is dumping chlorine on civilians to ward off revolution? Has he run out of actual bombs that could kill rebels on these risky helicopter sorties?) is 'the sound of helicopters' reported by some witnesses in rebel areas. This is flimsy beyond belief.Luckyguy1983 said:(FPT)
AIUI part of the reason there is little evidence of *who* used them is that the UN inspectors were not allowed, by Assad and Russia, to say *who* used them.
Why was that?
I suggest you look much more closely at where the 2013 attacks were, in comparison to where the rebels and Syrian army were, just before the attacks. Basically, Assad as scared that Damascus was going to fall.
And for the record, not that this should need saying, I have not banged on about how wonderful the opposition is, and have particular annoyance at someone suggesting it. For instance, a few months ago I was warning about the dangers of arming the Peshmerga. It also does well to remember that there are many different 'oppositions', and the situation has changed over the months and years.
An awful lot of bloody water has gone under that particular Bridge of Sorrows, but it doesn't help to excuse the guilty just because it suits our purposes to now do so.
The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title.
'Zaher Sahloul, a Chicago-based 47-year-old physician specializing in pulmonary disease, is another anti-Assad activist and the volunteer director of the Syrian American Medical Society.'
Assad may be many things, stupid is not one of them. The rebels have motive, means, and opportunity. Here are all the facts laid out clearly and baldly, as opposed to newspaper emotive spin: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/about-those-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria/
'In order to prevail, the Syrian opposition needs foreign intervention. In order to prevail, the Syrian government needs to prevent foreign intervention.'
I'm of the 'cock-up rather than conspiracy' school of history. William of Ockham is our guiding light.
You do seem to be rather fonder of any conspiracy, even when reams of assumptions have to be made, than most....
0 -
Mike and I checked earlier on this week, it was at 4.42pm.Morris_Dancer said:One week until Corbyn's bizarre win or shock failure.
What time will the declaration be? Will Laura Kuenssberg emulate her predecessor and talk over the declaration with her own inaccurate prediction?
It might be later as this time they have to announce the Deputy Leader.
PS - I hope you enjoyed the subtle Caesar reference in the thread header.
Osborne = Caesar.0 -
Interesting that TSE namechecks Sajid Javid. I'm also looking at him as a very credible next Tory leader who should do more than ok against anyone Labour picks next week or down the line.0
-
I'm of the 'cock-up rather than conspiracy' school of history. William of Ockham is our guiding light.Mortimer said:
All the evidence you have of this patently absurd Assad activity (how exactly is dumping chlorine on civilians to ward off revolution? Has he run out of actual bombs that could kill rebels on these risky helicopter sorties?) is 'the sound of helicopters' reported by some witnesses in rebel areas. This is flimsy beyond belief.Luckyguy1983 said:(FPT)
AIUI part of the reason there is little evidence of *who* used them is that the UN inspectors were not allowed, by Assad and Russia, to say *who* used them.
Why was that?
I suggest you look much more closely at where the 2013 attacks were, in comparison to where the rebels and Syrian army were, just before the attacks. Basically, Assad as scared that Damascus was going to fall.
And for the record, not that this should need saying, I have not banged on about how wonderful the opposition is, and have particular annoyance at someone suggesting it. For instance, a few months ago I was warning about the dangers of arming the Peshmerga. It also does well to remember that there are many different 'oppositions', and the situation has changed over the months and years.
An awful lot of bloody water has gone under that particular Bridge of Sorrows, but it doesn't help to excuse the guilty just because it suits our purposes to now do so.
The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title.
'Zaher Sahloul, a Chicago-based 47-year-old physician specializing in pulmonary disease, is another anti-Assad activist and the volunteer director of the Syrian American Medical Society.'
Assad may be many things, stupid is not one of them. The rebels have motive, means, and opportunity. Here are all the facts laid out clearly and baldly, as opposed to newspaper emotive spin: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/about-those-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria/
'In order to prevail, the Syrian opposition needs foreign intervention. In order to prevail, the Syrian government needs to prevent foreign intervention.'
You do seem to be rather fonder of any conspiracy, even when reams of assumptions have to be made, than most....
Not sure where conspiracies come into this. Blame for the attacks has to lie somewhere. Where you apportion them is up to you, I merely suggest what I regard to be the least implausible answer.0 -
Mr. Eagles, cheers for the time information.
Who was it who uttered that line? Brutus?0 -
Err - Isn’t Vince Cable’s powers of prediction right up there with YouGov….?0
-
I've long been tipping Javid, I think as high as 66/1.david_herdson said:Interesting that TSE namechecks Sajid Javid. I'm also looking at him as a very credible next Tory leader who should do more than ok against anyone Labour picks next week or down the line.
He's an Osborneite, very close to Osborne, he's also been showing some Eurosceptic leg, telling the CBI to behave in the referendum. Were Osborne not to run, I expect Osborne to be fully behind Javid's bid.0 -
Mark Antony as told to Bill ShakespeareMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, cheers for the time information.
Who was it who uttered that line? Brutus?0 -
Corbyn 1.33
Cooper 6.6
Burnham 11.5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.1039468860 -
Mr. Eagles, really? Must say I'm surprised, I thought he worked (briefly) with Octavian to hunt down Brutus to avenge Caesar.
Still, modern literature isn't my thing.0 -
A play written in 1599 is modern?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, really? Must say I'm surprised, I thought he worked (briefly) with Octavian to hunt down Brutus to avenge Caesar.
Still, modern literature isn't my thing.0 -
Mr. Eagles, compared to Livy or Polybius (let alone Hesiod or Thucydides).0
-
He also has a picture of Baroness Thatcher on the wall in his office.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've long been tipping Javid, I think as high as 66/1.david_herdson said:Interesting that TSE namechecks Sajid Javid. I'm also looking at him as a very credible next Tory leader who should do more than ok against anyone Labour picks next week or down the line.
He's an Osborneite, very close to Osborne, he's also been showing some Eurosceptic leg, telling the CBI to behave in the referendum. Were Osborne not to run, I expect Osborne to be fully behind Javid's bid.
0 -
Vince cable calls another politician 'cynical'. Pot calls kettle......0
-
This might explain the German position regarding refugees and migrants. (The article was published in June this year):
"Germany dominance over as demographic crunch worsens
Germany's workforce will shrink by 6m over the next 15 years, declining even faster than Japan's
Germany’s birth rate has collapsed to the lowest level in the world and its workforce will start plunging at a faster rate than Japan's by the early 2020s, seriously threatening the long-term viability of Europe’s leading economy.
A study by the World Economy Institute in Hamburg (HWWI) found that the average number of births per 1,000 population dropped to 8.2 over the five years from 2008 to 2013, further compounding a demographic crisis already in the pipeline. Even Japan did slightly better at 8.4."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11644660/Germany-dominance-over-as-demographic-crunch-worsens.html0 -
Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider0 -
Betting Post
F1: pre-race piece up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/italy-pre-race.html
Includes 2 tips. Or 5, depending on your perspective.
Laid Hamilton to lead lap 1, and backed Vettel/Raikkonen each way to win. Got a feeling Rosberg's old engine (less power than Hamilton's and with six races of mileage on it) could prove a problem for him.0 -
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider0 -
Worth noting that that is - I believe - a single year, 2015.CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=0 -
Don't forget Jeremy Hunt. Quiet, proven efficiency, decently ambitious but not shoving it in your face.
Boris is a clown and can I please be the first to start an ABB campaign.
And what happened to GO's desired FS position?
Oh and let's imagine I am reasonably typical in my economic right, social centre/soft Toryism, on balance the EU is a good thing (Bonjour @RobD), then I am rapidly edging from in to out.
This last week of migrant-based incompetence and lack of cohesion makes me think that the UK's current position is like being a bit pregnant. Of course it always was but the EU, as we have seen it this week, seems even worse than that.0 -
Nonetheless, Eden was Foreign Secretary and Macmillan Chancellor, and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary and then Major who was Chancellor, so the pattern has not changed much. In power the Tories pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead themdavid_herdson said:
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider0 -
The French number is particularly interesting, given that Syria used to be their bailiwick.MattW said:
Worth noting that that is - I believe - a single year, 2015.CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=0 -
Home was selected by the magic cicleHYUFD said:
Nonetheless, Eden was Foreign Secretary and Macmillan Chancellor, and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary and then Major who was Chancellor, so the pattern has not changed much. In power the Tories pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead themdavid_herdson said:
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider0 -
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
0 -
It seems to me that the media have been overwhelmed themselves in this crisis and do not even attempt to be sensible. Just heard an Amnesty representative trash the UK without any counter response on Sky news and the presenter concluded the interview after a long unchallenged statement by a simple thank you very much. No reference to the 1 billion we have put into the Syrian refugee camps, nor that we have granted 5000 Syrians asylum nor that David Cameron has accepted that thousands will be repatriated to UK from the camps which is the only place the refugees should come from. Anything else legitimise the people smugglers and the mass illegal migration to the EU.0
-
They were not elected by the members.HYUFD said:
Nonetheless, Eden was Foreign Secretary and Macmillan Chancellor, and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary and then Major who was Chancellor, so the pattern has not changed much. In power the Tories pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead themdavid_herdson said:
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider
0 -
Love the interview.
Mr Cable sounds like a curmudgeonly old Scarborough Lobster resenting the invasion of the North Sea by King Crabs.0 -
Mr. NorthWales, it reminds me, writ large, of the media wetting itself when the Coalition failed to magically teleport every worker in Libya to safety, after the workers chose to stay there following Arab Spring revolutions to countries east and west.
Cameron's handling this well so far. If they are to come, his way is far better than Merkel's deranged policy.0 -
I'm busy for the rest of tonight so if anything major breaks and it isn't covered straight away, you know why.
There is speculation that there maybe a YouGov poll on the Labour leadership in tonight's Sunday Times.0 -
There's no doubt George Osborne is 'growing' into the role but still some way to go in my opinion. Sajid Javid may tick a few boxes but he does not have enough 'gravitas' for me. I like Theresa May but feel her time may have gone. She is a very private lady and would be torn to pieces by the media. I do like the fact that she doesn't work the 'tea-room' and pander to all the sycophants.
Regards the 'migrant crisis' does anyone feel as I do, that this whole situation is becoming a 'tinderbox'? There is lots of compassion around at the moment but the harsh reality may be very different in a few months, or even years.
Thank goodness, Labour are not in power. If they want unlimited migrants to come, then I'm sure they would only be too delighted if they all went to 'their' constituencies. I'd love to be a fly on wall at some of their surgeries, when people are complaining about being pushed even further down the housing list, or their children can't get into the local schools etc.
Yes, we do need to take some but the situation also needs some hard-headed pragmatism, which I think David Cameron is showing at the moment.0 -
Sky News is the TV version of a comic..so are its presenters.0
-
I am fairly sure that the EU budget does have a line item for aid for international humanitarian crises the apportionment of which the EC would control. Can't be bothered to check that, though.GeoffM said:
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=0 -
Cheating fugging Aussies.0
-
Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!0 -
They would almost certainly all have won a membership vote, and of course MPs select the final two anywayTCPoliticalBetting said:
They were not elected by the members.HYUFD said:
Nonetheless, Eden was Foreign Secretary and Macmillan Chancellor, and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary and then Major who was Chancellor, so the pattern has not changed much. In power the Tories pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead themdavid_herdson said:
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider0 -
The last to be, correct, however he was again Foreign Secretary, so a holder of one of the great offices of StateTheScreamingEagles said:
Home was selected by the magic cicleHYUFD said:
Nonetheless, Eden was Foreign Secretary and Macmillan Chancellor, and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary and then Major who was Chancellor, so the pattern has not changed much. In power the Tories pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead themdavid_herdson said:
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider0 -
So you were talking bollocks when you saidHYUFD said:
The last to be, correct, however he was again Foreign Secretary, so a holder of one of the great offices of StateTheScreamingEagles said:
Home was selected by the magic cicleHYUFD said:
Nonetheless, Eden was Foreign Secretary and Macmillan Chancellor, and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary and then Major who was Chancellor, so the pattern has not changed much. In power the Tories pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead themdavid_herdson said:
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider
"and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary"0 -
Mr. Dodd, Sarah Jane Mee is delightful.0
-
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....linkrider said:Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
0 -
I was thinking of the Home, Butler contest which was, I suppose not really a contest as Heath was the first Tory leader elected by MPs. My general contention, that since the War the Tories have only ever picked the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead them when in government remains, of course, correct, so on that basis only Osborne or Hammond would be in contention to succeed CameronTheScreamingEagles said:
So you were talking bollocks when you saidHYUFD said:
The last to be, correct, however he was again Foreign Secretary, so a holder of one of the great offices of StateTheScreamingEagles said:
Home was selected by the magic cicleHYUFD said:
Nonetheless, Eden was Foreign Secretary and Macmillan Chancellor, and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary and then Major who was Chancellor, so the pattern has not changed much. In power the Tories pick the Chancellor or Foreign Secretary to lead themdavid_herdson said:
I would ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections. The Magic Circle did things very differently and comparisons are not really valid.HYUFD said:Actually, when the Tories are in government, the favourite often wins, eg Eden and Macmillan. Of the others Osborne will be encouraged that Major was also Chancellor when he became Tory leader and PM. Home was Foreign Secretary, suggesting Osborne's most likely rival could be Hammond.
Thatcher, Hague, IDS and Cameron became Tory leader in opposition, when the Tories are more likely to pick an outsider
"and since the Magic Circle's influence has ended the Tories in government have picked Home, who was Foreign Secretary"
(David Herdson's comment 'ignore all pre-1964 leadership (s)elections', confused me slightly as Home was Tory leader in 1964 and Heath was not elected leader until 1965)0 -
SOP for BBC programmes is to invite all the main parties to nominate 20 or 30 people to take part. Obviously not every party always manages to fill its list, but otherwise all speakers should find supporters in the audience.linkrider said:Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
0 -
True. The UK contribution to the EU budget is 12% of the total after rebate. Which means that the UK contributed a further £36 million to the crisis relief last year on top of the £475 million already listed separately.GeoffM said:
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
Edited to correct to last year not this.0 -
Yes - 2014 (2013):MattW said:
Worth noting that that is - I believe - a single year, 2015.CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
US: 443 (297)
UK: 108 (138)
Germ: 50 (54)
Fra: Too small to be separately listed (ditto)
https://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R5_A1044___1509050303.pdf
https://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R5_A1007___1509050303.pdf0 -
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015Mortimer said:
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....linkrider said:Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!0 -
No breakdown is provided - and perhaps the French think that's their 'contribution'.GeoffM said:
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
The Govt need to get a lot more explicit with the numbers - this 'the UK isn't doing anything while heroic Germany leaps to the rescue' really needs to be dealt with......we've spent more than twice as much for each of the last three years.....and as for the French government..0 -
That's like saying the UK Government does not have money of its own - only money it takes from taxpayers.GeoffM said:
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
While philosophically that is correct, the UK Government (and the EU) do have budgets and taxes/funding they raise that way and this expenditure is coming from that.0 -
MD Agreed .. delightful ..but dumb..if autocue broke down they would literally be speechless..0
-
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.HYUFD said:
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015Mortimer said:
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....linkrider said:Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
0 -
I agree, the EU commission decides how to spend the money it gets. The French contribution is shocking.Philip_Thompson said:
That's like saying the UK Government does not have money of its own - only money it takes from taxpayers.GeoffM said:
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
While philosophically that is correct, the UK Government (and the EU) do have budgets and taxes/funding they raise that way and this expenditure is coming from that.0 -
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroadsMortimer said:
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.HYUFD said:
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015Mortimer said:
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....linkrider said:Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.0 -
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.TheScreamingEagles said:Cheating fugging Aussies.
0 -
Orban intends to deploy the military on Hungary's border
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-hungary-may-deploy-military-to-southern-border-says-pm-viktor-orban-10488073.html0 -
I disagree. The Commission spend has come from the taxpayers of the individual countries. The idea that there is a separate EU demos that is providing funds separate from those raised by the constituent states is false. As I said below the UK contribution should be viewed in this way, adding a further $36 million to what we gave last year and taking our contribution above half a billion dollars for the year.Philip_Thompson said:
That's like saying the UK Government does not have money of its own - only money it takes from taxpayers.GeoffM said:
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
While philosophically that is correct, the UK Government (and the EU) do have budgets and taxes/funding they raise that way and this expenditure is coming from that.0 -
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.kle4 said:
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.TheScreamingEagles said:Cheating fugging Aussies.
0 -
Ha
clickbait TSE ! :-)0 -
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.HYUFD said:
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in Dorset, Clegg and Ed Miliband clearly had less appeal. Most seats in Dorset will always be Tory, as they were even in the Blair years (ie Bournemouth East and West, Dorset North, Dorset West and Poole stayed Tory throughout the nineties and noughties) but given the right leader and circumstances Labour and the LDs can make inroadsMortimer said:
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.HYUFD said:
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015Mortimer said:
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....linkrider said:Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.
0 -
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "Luckyguy1983 said:(FPT)
All the evidence you have of this patently absurd Assad activity (how exactly is dumping chlorine on civilians to ward off revolution? Has he run out of actual bombs that could kill rebels on these risky helicopter sorties?) is 'the sound of helicopters' reported by some witnesses in rebel areas. This is flimsy beyond belief.
The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title.
'Zaher Sahloul, a Chicago-based 47-year-old physician specializing in pulmonary disease, is another anti-Assad activist and the volunteer director of the Syrian American Medical Society.'
Assad may be many things, stupid is not one of them. The rebels have motive, means, and opportunity. Here are all the facts laid out clearly and baldly, as opposed to newspaper emotive spin: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/about-those-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria/
'In order to prevail, the Syrian opposition needs foreign intervention. In order to prevail, the Syrian government needs to prevent foreign intervention.'
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.0 -
My vote for Post of the Day.JosiasJessop said:
"The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title. "Luckyguy1983 said:(FPT)
All the evidence you have of this patently absurd Assad activity (how exactly is dumping chlorine on civilians to ward off revolution? Has he run out of actual bombs that could kill rebels on these risky helicopter sorties?) is 'the sound of helicopters' reported by some witnesses in rebel areas. This is flimsy beyond belief.
The Syrian American Medical Society upon who's evidence one of your sources relies, is a pro-revolutionary group. The clue's in the title.
'Zaher Sahloul, a Chicago-based 47-year-old physician specializing in pulmonary disease, is another anti-Assad activist and the volunteer director of the Syrian American Medical Society.'
Assad may be many things, stupid is not one of them. The rebels have motive, means, and opportunity. Here are all the facts laid out clearly and baldly, as opposed to newspaper emotive spin: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/about-those-chlorine-gas-attacks-in-syria/
'In order to prevail, the Syrian opposition needs foreign intervention. In order to prevail, the Syrian government needs to prevent foreign intervention.'
There were multiple sources: I see you ignore those. And the accusation about the source is a bit funny from someone who, just last week, posted as a source a media organisation owned by a personal friend of Bashar Assad, ffs.
It is not flimsy: far from. The only thing that is flimsy are your repeated attempts to propagate Russian propaganda. As for your comments on chlorine: I believe you are utterly wrong about why Assad would want to use them. However there is at least one expert on PB on such matters, and it would be interesting to know his view on why they would be used.
Your linked article again relies on the fact that the OPCW did not ascribe blame for the attacks. That is because, as mentioned before, ascribing blame was not in their mandate. If Assad was not responsible, and it was a rebel group, you'd have expected him to be rather keen for them to ascribe blame.
And the last quote on your post was hilarious: given the number of Iranian and now Russian troops in Syria helping Assad's forces, it's clear that in order to prevail, the Syrian government needs foreign intervention. It's just that you probably don't see them as 'foreign'.
0 -
Yes, but the country has been getting more conservative, when Labour won seats in Dorset we had a Labour government with a comfortable majority, when the LDs won seats in Dorset they won around 20% of the vote and entered a Coalition government, at the last election the Tories won a majority government. I also forgot to mention Christchurch, which while always Tory at general elections was won by the LDs in 1993 in a sensational by-election reflecting the unpopularity of the Tory government at the time. So you are correct to say that at the moment Dorset is strongly Tory and all its seats are blue, however, while the Tories will always win a majority of seats in Dorset, if and when the Tories lose their majority again nationally and Labour wins an election then one or two of those Dorset seats may turn red or yellowMortimer said:
I know you don't like to agree with me, but given I've canvassed across Dorset for more than a decade, it might be worth taking my word for this one. Dorset is getting more Conservative, and has been for years.HYUFD said:
Blair and Charles Kennedy won seats in DoMortimer said:
Nope - Mid Dorset/North Poole went LD in 01, almost came back to us in 2010, and is now Tory with a thumping majority.HYUFD said:
Labour won Dorset South in 2005 and held it until 2010 and the LDs won Dorset Mid and Poole North in 2005 and held it until 2015Mortimer said:
Dorset has been getting bluer for years. Can't see if going any other way in the next couple of decades....linkrider said:Just to endorse Plato's earlier comment about the apparently Labour/Corbyn enthusiastic audience at this week's Any Questions from Dorchester. To add to Plato's comment that all Dorset MPs are Conservative, Labour have just 18 out of 244 councillors on Dorset County Council and its District Councils, and they are all in Weymouth. (There are also no Labour councillors out of 96 in the two unitary councils which are geographically part of Dorset.)
It's only the BBC trying to even things up!
Similarly, South Dorset went Labour in 01, came back to us in 2010.
I've helped out in both in the past 3 elections - I know what I'm talking about. Both became thumpingly safe seats in 2015.
The demographic is older and wealthier. Formerly run down owner-occupied streets are really smartening up. Councils are getting bluer too.
As I said, Dorset has been getting bluer for years.0 -
Do not any of those people tipping Osborne to be next PM realise how poor Osborne comes across as a communicator on TV or that the next recession will expose much of Osborne`s rhetoric about dealing with the UK`s structural debt problems as a mirage0
-
'When the Tories lose their majority again nationally'HYUFD said:
Yes, but the country has been getting more conservative, when Labour won seats in Dorset we had a Labour government with a comfortable majority, when the LDs won seats in Dorset they won around 20% of the vote and entered a Coalition government, at the last election the Tories just won a majority government. I also forgot to mention Christchurch, which while always Tory at general elections was won by the LDs in 1993 in a sensational by-election reflecting the unpopularity of the Tory government at the time. So you are correct to say that at the moment Dorset is strongly Tory and all its seats are blue, however, while the Tories will always win a majority of seats in Dorset, if and when the Tories lose their majority again nationally and Labour wins an election then one or two of those Dorset seats may turn red or yellowMortimer said:
'Labour wins an election'
'Then one or two of those Dorset seats may turn red or yellow'
You're letting history get in the way of the future. There is no guarantee that:
a) The tories will lose their majority
b) Labour will ever win a majority again
c) Either of those eventualities lead to any of the Dorset seats being anything but Tory.
The demographic of the county is getting wealthier. It is getting older. There are more and more holiday homes in cheaper properties. There are more expensive properties. There is less public sector dependency.
It has been widely missed, but the increasing wealth and confidence of the South of England is evident to all who visit. Hence even strongholds like several of the Cornish seats and Soton Itchen went blue in 2015.
This is economic progress; not a prevalence of pendulum swinging marginal seats. You're mistaking the South for the Midlands.
0 -
Whether you like it or not the Commission has a budget that has been abrogated to it to spend. To pretend the money being spent by the Commission is being spent by the French national government etc is false - it is being sourced from French and English taxpayers yes, as has our government's expenditure has been sourced from our taxpayers.Richard_Tyndall said:
I disagree. The Commission spend has come from the taxpayers of the individual countries. The idea that there is a separate EU demos that is providing funds separate from those raised by the constituent states is false. As I said below the UK contribution should be viewed in this way, adding a further $36 million to what we gave last year and taking our contribution above half a billion dollars for the year.Philip_Thompson said:
That's like saying the UK Government does not have money of its own - only money it takes from taxpayers.GeoffM said:
The "EU Commission" does not have money of its own - only the money it takes from member countries, yes? So why is that number not subdivided between member states?CarlottaVance said:FPT
Funding for the Syrian crisis (USD, million, selected Western countries)
US: 1,120
UK: 475
EU Comm: 301
Germ: 225
Neth: 70
Den: 23
Belg: 17
Fra: 12
https://fts.unocha.org/pageloader.aspx?page=search-reporting_display&CQ=cq020315114425TxF7oSVtRX&orderby=USD_commitdisbu&showDetails=
While philosophically that is correct, the UK Government (and the EU) do have budgets and taxes/funding they raise that way and this expenditure is coming from that.
But the ultimate source of taxes is not the UK government, it is taxpayers. Spending by the EU Commission is no more spending by Westminster than spending from Holyrood is. It may be sourced from British taxes, but it is not the British government it is the EU Commission that is spending the money.0 -
My money's on Elizabeth Truss.
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot0 -
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.kle4 said:
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.TheScreamingEagles said:Cheating fugging Aussies.
Smith should not have appealed.0 -
It may only be a passing phase of thought - he was rarely tipped as a potential leader until the economy started picking up, and even then pretty rarely IIRC, and so it's not been until the unexpected majority that his chances have picked up substantially thanks to a)seeming vindication of the Cameroon strategy of which he has been a key part, b) the success meaning Cameron has remained in place, diminishing the most obvious opponent in Boris and raising the possibility a still popular Cameron, or at least still powerful Cameron, would better be able to steer the party to his chosen successor, or merely that a continuity candidate like Osborne would be more appealing than once seemed likely, and c) fresh off victory and with the opposition currently scattered, any weaknesses of Osborne's are for the moment easy to believe would not necessarily be catastrophic to his chances.Metatron said:Do not any of those people tipping Osborne to be next PM realise how poor Osborne comes across as a communicator on TV or that the next recession will expose much of Osborne`s rhetoric about dealing with the UK`s structural debt problems as a mirage
I have my doubts he will be the next Tory leader let alone PM, but it isn't as ridiculous as it once was, and his becoming favourite in some ways - Labourlist readers in a 'poll' also picked him as the biggest threat apparently, though maybe that was just them messing with Tories who are currently messing with them, by claiming to see him as the larger threat - though perhaps overstating it, is probably due more to things outside his control, which will be the making or breaking of his chances.0 -
No.bunnco said:My money's on Elizabeth Truss.
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
It will be a eurosceptic because most members are.
So who does that leave?
0 -
At the moment it may not look likely that the Tories will lose their majority or Labour will win again, but that is not the same as for all eternity, eventually the pendulum will turn again as it always does. If the swing is enough then of course it is possible the Tories can again lose the 3 seats in Dorset they have lost in the last 3 decades, even if they are always likely to hold the 5 they have consistently held throughout those periods.Mortimer said:
'When the Tories lose their majority again nationally'HYUFD said:
Yes, but the country has been getting more conservative, when Labour won seats in Dorset we had a Labour government with a comfortable majority, when the LDs won seats in Dorset they won around 20% of the vote and entered a Coalition government, at the last election the Tories just won a majority government.Mortimer said:
'Labour wins an election'
'Then one or two of those Dorset seats may turn red or yellow'
The demographic of the county is getting wealthier. It is getting older. There are more and more holiday homes in cheaper properties. There are more expensive properties. There is less public sector dependency.
It has been widely missed, but the increasing wealth and confidence of the South of England is evident to all who visit. Hence even strongholds like several of the Cornish seats and Soton Itchen went blue in 2015.
This is economic progress; not a prevalence of pendulum swinging marginal seats. You're mistaking the South for the Midlands.'
Dorset has always been a relatively affluent place filled with relatively wealthy retirees, often from the home counties and London, indeed I used to visit an elderly relatively who lived in a hotel near the seafront and was a staunch Tory.
Southampton Itchen and all the Cornish seats were won by Thatcher of course, that did not stop them going Labour or LD a decade later!
I never said Dorset was a bellweather area like the Midlands, and it clearly leans Tory, but nor is it an ultra Tory stronghold like Surrey either, where, apart from Guildford in 2001, every seat was won by the Tories throughout the Blair years
0 -
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.isam said:
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.kle4 said:
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.TheScreamingEagles said:Cheating fugging Aussies.
Smith should not have appealed.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).0 -
Obviously you are not a cricketer.Philip_Thompson said:
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.isam said:
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.kle4 said:
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.TheScreamingEagles said:Cheating fugging Aussies.
Smith should not have appealed.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).0 -
If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.0
-
And everybody needs to read the article in the DT about the guy from Eritrea who was granted asylum in Italy and has now been arrested for being a major partner in the trafficking of people through Libya to Italy. Based on Italian monitoring of phone calls, the prosecutor estimates there are a million people waiting in Libya to be helped across the Med. As we know, the traffickers set the boats on their way and then phone the coastguard to tell them to pick them up! Europe has been taken for a sucker and until it takes real action the flow will continue.Big_G_NorthWales said:It seems to me that the media have been overwhelmed themselves in this crisis and do not even attempt to be sensible. Just heard an Amnesty representative trash the UK without any counter response on Sky news and the presenter concluded the interview after a long unchallenged statement by a simple thank you very much. No reference to the 1 billion we have put into the Syrian refugee camps, nor that we have granted 5000 Syrians asylum nor that David Cameron has accepted that thousands will be repatriated to UK from the camps which is the only place the refugees should come from. Anything else legitimise the people smugglers and the mass illegal migration to the EU.
0 -
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.isam said:
Obviously you are not a cricketer.Philip_Thompson said:
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.isam said:
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.kle4 said:
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.TheScreamingEagles said:Cheating fugging Aussies.
Smith should not have appealed.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).0 -
We won the ashes.0
-
I think you really underestimate the fundamental problems the left of centre are facing outside metropolitan areas, and especially in the South where it has never really become fully established. Socialism is a cooked goose for a generation afterHYUFD said:Mortimer said:
At the moment it may not look likely that the Tories will lose their majority or Labour will win again, but that is not the same as for all eternity, eventually the pendulum will turn again as it always does. If the swing is enough then of course it is possible the Tories can again lose the 3 seats in Dorset they have lost in the last 3 decades, even if they are always likely to hold the 5 they have consistently held throughout those periods.
Dorset has always been a relatively affluent place filled with relatively wealthy retirees, often from the home counties and London, indeed I used to visit an elderly relatively who lived in a hotel near the seafront and was a staunch Tory.
Southampton Itchen and all the Cornish seats were won by Thatcher of course, that did not stop them going Labour or LD a decade later!
I never said Dorset was a bellweather area like the Midlands, and it clearly leans Tory, but nor is it an ultra Tory stronghold like Surrey either, where, apart from Guildford in 2001, every seat was won by the Tories throughout the Blair years
a) the acceptance of a need to limit public spending
b) the successful reduction in the size of the client state
What I am saying is that Dorset has become Surrey. It might not have been until very recently, and you can use wikipedia to your heart's content to find historical counter arguments, but it is now.0 -
Looking forward to being peppered with throwbacks when I next bat...0
-
That's all the ever matters. :-DScrapheap_as_was said:We won the ashes.
In my last year living in Australia (1992- Jan 2000) I went to an ODI in Melbourne. Australia had just retained the Ashes and had just had its republic referendum only a couple of months earlier. The Aussie fans were chanting "We own the Ashes" to which we were retorting with chants of "We own your country."0 -
Me neither funny enough, but I know that, whether on the village green of the home or Cricket, you play within the spirit of the game, and if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be playingPhilip_Thompson said:
I grew up in Australia and am a massive cricket fan. I also clarified I was talking about Professional cricket - this may suprise you but no I am not a Professional Cricketer.isam said:
Obviously you are not a cricketer.Philip_Thompson said:
Competitive sport is not a game of morals. It is upto the players to appeal if they think their opponent may be out. It is upto the umpires (and especially the Third Umpire) to determine who is out or not.isam said:
...as per £3 Tories voting for Corbyn, an abdication of moral responsibility. Everyone's a try on merchant. No one is guided by a sense of right and wrong, but by what they can get away with.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed completely but the Aussies are within their rights to appeal. The third umpire should have given the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. That was not possibly wilful.kle4 said:
Certainly when the law requires specific 'willful' action of a particular intent, and given the rapid reaction required, it seems reasonable for the benefit of the doubt to be with the batsman in such instances.TheScreamingEagles said:Cheating fugging Aussies.
Smith should not have appealed.
Professional cricketers are not umpires and should not be presuming to do the umpires job for them.
(There is a very big ethical difference here where there is an element of doubt, versus where a player appeals when he knows the batsman is Not Out - eg a 'catcher' who knows for certain the ball bounced).
The aussies made a big deal about the spirit of cricket after Philip Hughes tragic death... this was their chance to show they meant it0 -
Well, I did start a debate didn't I..................? (Dorset is now and forever Blue.)0
-
Not necessarily so. True, it would set back the prospects of 'In' camp leaders, but it's perfectly possible that someone in the fringe of that group might get voted in - there are so many other factors in play.SandyRentool said:If we vote to leave the EU then the next Tory leader must surely be from the Out camp. The opposite also applies. So don't bet on next PM until you are confident of the result of the referendum.
Never underestimate the capability of the Conservative Party and its members to evolve as the world changes. (*) Labour also learnt this under Blair, but it now looks as if it heading towards senility.
(*) I recently likened them to a 200+-year old Zombie, living off the dead corpses of different political philosophies.0 -
I haven't ignored multiple sources, I've correctly identified that the only evidence we've so far been presented with (in any of your links) that these devices have been dropped from helicopters has been unverified eye witness accounts. And that the only eye witness with a researchable identity happens to come from a pro-revolutionary NGO. Eye witness accounts were not nearly enough for you to go on when they reported seeing fighter planes escorting MH17, so I'm surprised you find them so plausible now. Feel free to provide anything else of more substance.JosiasJessop said:
Snip
I make no point about the OPCW not having a mandate to ascribe blame - I simply take that as it is. You're the one darkly hinting 'they all know he did it'. This sequence of events:
'According to its report, in May 2014, an OPCW team tried to investigate at the site of alleged chlorine gas attacks. The Syrian government gave the OPCW team passage to the rebel controlled area but the convoy was attacked by a rebel faction. None of the team members was injured but that stopped their on-site investigation. Instead, the OPCW worked with the well-funded opposition-supporting Violations Documentation Center to arrange interviews with numerous people from three villages. The interviews were conducted outside Syria, probably in Turkey. They gathered photographs, videos and other evidence and expressed “high confidence that chlorine had been used as a weapon in Syria” in three villages. They did not ascribe responsibility.'
-hardly indicates Assad involvement.
As for your last paragraph, facetiousness is not a substitute for an argument. You are asking us to believe, on the scantiest of evidence, that having just escaped US bombing, by the skin of his teeth, as a result of a Kerry slip up and a clever Russian wheeze, Assad, having agreed to give up his entire chemical arsenal, would start dropping chlorine on people half a mile from where weapons inspectors were staying, thus crossing Obama's 'red line'. To what end? For what purpose? As opposed to the insurgents, who have been using it for years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022100166.html (2007 Iraq) -and were desperate to secure Western intervention. Right, ok then.
0 -
