Even if Remain wins I find it hard to see how George Osborne is the man to heal the wounds of the referendum campaign. What you'd want would be a widely respected moderate sceptic, surely. Someone who won't try to reopen the issue but would reassure Leavers that he (or she) wouldn't sign up for Son of Lisbon.
Osborne strikes me as a run-against-the-party candidate with the fatal (especially for that type of candidate) flaw that the public don't like him. I don't see how he wins in the membership vote unless he's up against an obvious duffer.
Osborne will play the moderate sceptic well. You only need to see the fights he has had against the FTT, the regulation of UK banks, the protection of the City and his regular critiques of EZ economic policy to see that. He will make it clear that we stay in for now but that we keep the EZ issue under review and watch developments carefully.
And the idea he is running against the party is absurd. He is utterly dominant within it in terms of policy and the placement of acolytes. He may be less popular with the membership as a whole but he will definitely be one of the candidates and there is no outstanding opponent who will sweep him away.
That's interesting re his potential positioning as a moderate sceptic. I'll have to think about that.
When I say "running against the party" I mean against the membership. I realise his grip on the machine is very strong. (I'm also using a deliberately provocative phrase, I confess.) But my point is that once the decision is in the hands of the membership the type of power Osborne has will not help him.
I could add that I rather like him myself. My current betting view is that his odds are too short. I might be wrong.
I think that unless Out wins he is nailed on. And although I am inclined to a soft out (EEA) myself I think that is incredibly unlikely. The only question was did he want it and increasingly it seems the answer to that is yes.
Whether he will be a good PM is a different question. I think he is a much more divisive politician than Cameron (as your and other comments show) and he is often too clever for his own good, too focussed on the game rather than the big picture. But I think there is very little doubt he will have a go.
Well, if your first sentence is right then there may be value in him after all.
I think it's extremely doubtful that he would make a good PM. What I find appealing in him is the Machiavellian game playing and sarcasm. Not quite the qualities needed, maybe.
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
If they lose 51:49 then they will hammer Cameron on the details of the 'deal'. Any backsliding will be moral trigger for EuURef 2: Ref Harder.
Your knowledge of grassroots Conservatives is far greater than mine.
The Conservative members round my way are mostly socially conservative types. I can't see them voting for Osborne and I think they think the Conservative Party has moved too far to the left.
I guess they are atypical or I'm wrong about them.
Socially conservative, yes. But also quite pragmatic in my experience.
Whether they will vote for Osborne depends hugely on who the alternative choice is. It's probably the case that Osborne isn't particularly 'liked' by party members (nor is Cameron, for that matter). However, being liked isn't the most important thing; Boris is very much liked, but I'm not sure that would translate into votes in a leadership contest.
The Labour party is in that unhappy place where whom they choose does not matter much and they can indulge themselves with a Corbyn in the same way the Tories did when they chose IDS instead of Ken Clarke. Of course one of the problems for Labour is that they did not have a candidate for leader worthy of cleaning Clarke's hushpuppies.
The Tories, in contrast, will be choosing a PM which completely rules out some of the fruitier options.
The mistake was in selecting Duncan-Smith over Michael Portillo. Once Portillo was out, it's foolish to think there was any other option.
Portillo would have been an interesting leader, quite similar to Cameron and Osborne I think.
Thatcherite Portillo or Cameroon Portillo?
He was always a Cameroon Portillo at heart. As others have said he looks at Cameron and thinks, that should have been me.
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
The nature of the campaign will depend on the result but I'd suggest they respect the immediate result and vow to hold the PM and the EU to account on the renegotiated terms.
They should not demobilise but continue to challenge, expose and pick away at any failings or reneging.
I think that's almost inevitable and the EU could change very rapidly in the next 5 years. BOO only push for a second referendum once Leave starts scoring a clear movement on the centre-left too with regular double digit opinion poll leads.
The 2025-2030 Parliament might be the next realistic opportunity.
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
There's the bogus-hold-the-feet-to-the-fire option. Having spent the referendum campaign describing the renegotiation as negligible, change horses and give the most drastic interpretation to its wording, then say that Cameron is backsliding from what was promised.
Split over what? The referendum will have happened. That's it, game over. There's nothing to split over.
Yes that's how I'm seeing it as well. The one big hope for the Opposition is the Tories splitting over the EU, but it increasingly looks like it won't happen. In fact it's only if Cameron enforces collective responsibility that it looks like there's any prospect.
The party knows how split it is on the EU and that's precisely why there's a referendum. There's nothing Cameron can offer the likes of MaxPB that will be acceptable, but if my local Tory party are anything to go by, there are several "Nabavi" pragmatists for every "MaxPB." And the number who will leave in a huff over the EU? Tiny - they've long gone. So I guess that in a year's time when the dust settles, we'll realise just how strong the Tories are, and how weak the Opposition by comparison.
Vaguely on-topic, is there a market in how many MPs will campaign for out? We have 6 new Tories to add to the list, but am I right that there are less than 50 named outers at the moment? Are we looking at 100-150 in total?
I'm not going to leave the party if the country votes to stay in, if Dave's deal is good enough to win it then so be it. My issue is with what happens afterwards. If the result is relatively close (which I think it will be) then having a leader closely associated with the remain campaign is going to hurt the party's standing with the 40-50% of people who just voted to leave the EU and will not want the vote to be the end of the matter.
Richard is not a pragmatist, he is a fully paid up "Osborne is a perfect chancellor" (or was it near perfect) member.
As for what Dave could offer me to vote to remain, an opt out of the CAP, an opt out of the CFP, control over our environmental sustainability and a permanent veto on all financial regulations and decisions.
Thanks - given how strongly you clearly feel about the EU, if people like you are saying you'll stay in the party even if unhappy with an "in" vote, hard to see how the Tories will split afterwards. 40% may have voted out, but their only options will be UKIP, a new "Tories for out" party, or grumpily staying put, and looks like that's what the vast majority will do.
If it is a close in with the majority of the party for out, I think someone like Hammond would be your perfect leader, a statesmanlike figure who gets the nuance but clearly sees how the EU should be improved.
Even though we'll likely be on different sides, I'm with you on wishing that Cameron had gone for CAP reform - that would have been good for the UK and I think got plenty of support.
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
Easy, treaty changes or we will force another referendum in which the In side will be shown as flaky at best or traitors at worst.
Your knowledge of grassroots Conservatives is far greater than mine.
The Conservative members round my way are mostly socially conservative types. I can't see them voting for Osborne and I think they think the Conservative Party has moved too far to the left.
I guess they are atypical or I'm wrong about them.
Socially conservative, yes. But also quite pragmatic in my experience.
Whether they will vote for Osborne depends hugely on who the alternative choice is. It's probably the case that Osborne isn't particularly 'liked' by party members (nor is Cameron, for that matter). However, being liked isn't the most important thing; Boris is very much liked, but I'm not sure that would translate into votes in a leadership contest.
The Labour party is in that unhappy place where whom they choose does not matter much and they can indulge themselves with a Corbyn in the same way the Tories did when they chose IDS instead of Ken Clarke. Of course one of the problems for Labour is that they did not have a candidate for leader worthy of cleaning Clarke's hushpuppies.
The Tories, in contrast, will be choosing a PM which completely rules out some of the fruitier options.
Probably the best (Tory) PM we never had since the war. Most of the other candidates, Healey, Jenkins, Mason were in the Labour party.
Good analogy. Osborne is exactly like Clarke.
Both would have split the party.
No, Osborne is exactly like Gordon Brown -- de facto domestic PM for several years but lacking that instinctive connection to the British people, or even to his own side (hence omnishambles and even parts of last year's budget).
In the Tory party he's like Clarke because members and MPs are now talking about Anyone But Osborne the same way they did about Clarke 15 years ago.
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
Its obvious, like Nicola they would focus on every development and say why that means they were right after all and that the issue should be looked at again. And there would be such issues. The EZ require Treaty changes. That will not happen in the time frame of our referendum but there will be another Treaty within a relatively short period of time with a very strong centralising theme, at least for the EZ. Whether it directly affects us or not it will be the perfect opportunity to say "I told you so".
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
Easy, treaty changes or we will force another referendum in which the In side will be shown as flaky at best or traitors at worst.
"Traitors"? And they wonder why the diehard Leavers have a reputation for being a bit monomaniac.
Well, I'm assuming as a default that it would Osborne vs May.
Your last point is key but I wonder if it helps Osborne. Will people who dislike him think, "Ah, but he'd be a good leader"? His polling is bad and his style is, as @DavidL says, divisive.
Clearly Osborne could do the job of PM, and do it well. He's effectively been doing much of it for the last five years, and very successfully. So he'd certainly be an extremely safe choice in terms of competence of government. That matters a lot in changing leader whilst in office. If it were Osborne vs Boris, I reckon that would decide the matter in Osborne's favour. If it were Osborne vs May, Hammond, or several others, Osborne might have the advantage on that measure, but not decisively so.
The next question would be: could he deliver a majority at the next election, or would the alternative choice be more likely to do so? That's a question which is less obvious to me. It's not just about polling and likeability, but electability, which is a different thing, as Maggie demonstrated so clearly.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
In the decade and a half of its existence, Holyrood has produced enough hot air to panic the climate scientists. We in Scotland have become masters of the false debate, of missing the point, of refusing to take responsibility, of retreating to safe ground and throwing blame at others. Even now we are caught in a pointless post-referendum stand-off, where every issue, no matter how complex, is reduced to the binary simplicity of Yes or No.
Part of the problem has been the lack of a leader who has led in the areas that matter — the ones that affect the daily lives of ordinary Scots. We need someone who wants to get their hands dirty, who signals by their behavior and priorities that we are moving on, and who is willing to use up what political capital they have in pursuit of a better society.
Another good thread. O/T Thanks to HurstLlama in particular for his interesting and IMO accurate thoughts on careers in the last thread - if there's one thing I'd improve in schools, it would be realistic career advice like that. (I also share his wariness about changes to the prescription system - I'd rather pick up pills when it suits me than have some unknown hub try to get them through my narrow letterbox.)
Talking of likeability of Conservative leaders, anyone who missed Tim Bell's account of Christmases-from-hell spent with Maggie at Chequers can find it here:
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
Easy, treaty changes or we will force another referendum in which the In side will be shown as flaky at best or traitors at worst.
"Traitors"? And they wonder why the diehard Leavers have a reputation for being a bit monomaniac.
How else would you describe promising treaty change to win a vote and then not delivering it? The remain side are not to be trusted, I'm sure the deal will be done in good faith, but the EU will not be able deliver treaty change before the vote, and once we have voted to remain they will see no need to deliver it.
Cameron has no objection to destroying the Tory party. His political hero is Robert Peel, who did precisely that. As long as he wins the euroref, Cameron will be happy to 'chillax' and take whatever preferment his support for the desired establishment outcome brings him.
Cameron has no objection to destroying the Tory party
Cameron has no objection to destroying the Tory party. His political hero is Robert Peel, who did precisely that. As long as he wins the euroref, Cameron will be happy to 'chillax' and take whatever preferment his support for the desired establishment outcome brings him.
Cameron has no objection to destroying the Tory party
You have the inside track on this I presume.
LG83 believes his tinfoil hat allows him to read minds.
Another good thread. O/T Thanks to HurstLlama in particular for his interesting and IMO accurate thoughts on careers in the last thread - if there's one thing I'd improve in schools, it would be realistic career advice like that. (I also share his wariness about changes to the prescription system - I'd rather pick up pills when it suits me than have some unknown hub try to get them through my narrow letterbox.)
I think you can collect them from a pharmacy still but you have to nominate which one? I agree pills through letterbox is rubbish, not in my case because it's too narrow but because it's inevitable they will go through the wrong one.
Talking of likeability of Conservative leaders, anyone who missed Tim Bell's account of Christmases-from-hell spent with Maggie at Chequers can find it here:
Claims that the new Jahadi John is Abu Rumaysah...if it is, it is going to be rather embarrassing for UK. He is well known extremist who skipped bail from the UK and traveled to Syria.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
@nigelfletcher: Why, on a day when Corbyn set out to lead the news with rail fares, has he torpedoed his own story with damaging reshuffle noise? Madness.
@nigelfletcher: Why, on a day when Corbyn set out to lead the news with rail fares, has he torpedoed his own story with damaging reshuffle noise? Madness.
Voted a mixture of for and against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas Show votes Has never voted on replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system Voted a mixture of for and against more EU integration Show votes Voted a mixture of for and against a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU Show votes Generally voted for strengthening the Military Covenant Show votes
I'm not going to leave the party if the country votes to stay in, if Dave's deal is good enough to win it then so be it. My issue is with what happens afterwards. If the result is relatively close (which I think it will be) then having a leader closely associated with the remain campaign is going to hurt the party's standing with the 40-50% of people who just voted to leave the EU and will not want the vote to be the end of the matter.
Richard is not a pragmatist, he is a fully paid up "Osborne is a perfect chancellor" (or was it near perfect) member.
As for what Dave could offer me to vote to remain, an opt out of the CAP, an opt out of the CFP, control over our environmental sustainability and a permanent veto on all financial regulations and decisions.
I do get the feeling that, for most Tories at least, this is no longer an existential threat. Even if Cameron campaigns for REMAIN (which I agree is virtually laid on) the decision is not his. I think that's very important. To make sure it remains important, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish with no new old Labour nastiness afterwards.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
I think the Tories have to go to a newer generation for their next leader. None of the choices currently being talked about enthuse and they will look old hat by the time of the next election or the one after. They need to do what they did when choosing Cameron - picking the unexpected and fresh choice which made voters look at the Tories again in a new light. Otherwise, they risk falling prey to the "time for a change" vote, no matter how risky or insane a vote for Labour under Corbyn might be.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
Yes, 'headbanger' sounds more appropriate applied to Europhobes.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
I think the Tories have to go to a newer generation for their next leader. None of the choices currently being talked about enthuse and they will look old hat by the time of the next election or the one after. They need to do what they did when choosing Cameron - picking the unexpected and fresh choice which made voters look at the Tories again in a new light. Otherwise, they risk falling prey to the "time for a change" vote, no matter how risky or insane a vote for Labour under Corbyn might be.
"Ruth Davidson: Next Conservative leader will be an outsider with 'warmth and intelligence' The Scottish Conservative leader has dismissed the current front-runners to replace David Cameron and claimed it will be one of the 2010 intake instead"
I think the Tories have to go to a newer generation for their next leader. None of the choices currently being talked about enthuse and they will look old hat by the time of the next election or the one after. They need to do what they did when choosing Cameron - picking the unexpected and fresh choice which made voters look at the Tories again in a new light. Otherwise, they risk falling prey to the "time for a change" vote, no matter how risky or insane a vote for Labour under Corbyn might be.
Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense, although it's easier to go for a younger leader when you're in opposition and he or or she has time to gain experience before being thrown into No 10. Being in government effectively limits the choice to the current cabinet and those attending cabinet, but amongst those there are several good candidates who may well grow in stature over the next couple of years.
I do get the feeling that, for most Tories at least, this is no longer an existential threat. Even if Cameron campaigns for REMAIN (which I agree is virtually laid on) the decision is not his. I think that's very important. To make sure it remains important, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish with no new old Labour nastiness afterwards.
Obviously, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish.
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
Obviously, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish.
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
No, but those wanting to leave could (and should) say 'the PM did well to get those changes, but overall the long-term direction of the EU is not the direction the UK should take, and in the long term we're better off out'.
In the decade and a half of its existence, Holyrood has produced enough hot air to panic the climate scientists. We in Scotland have become masters of the false debate, of missing the point, of refusing to take responsibility, of retreating to safe ground and throwing blame at others. Even now we are caught in a pointless post-referendum stand-off, where every issue, no matter how complex, is reduced to the binary simplicity of Yes or No.
Part of the problem has been the lack of a leader who has led in the areas that matter — the ones that affect the daily lives of ordinary Scots. We need someone who wants to get their hands dirty, who signals by their behavior and priorities that we are moving on, and who is willing to use up what political capital they have in pursuit of a better society.
Another good thread. O/T Thanks to HurstLlama in particular for his interesting and IMO accurate thoughts on careers in the last thread - if there's one thing I'd improve in schools, it would be realistic career advice like that. (I also share his wariness about changes to the prescription system - I'd rather pick up pills when it suits me than have some unknown hub try to get them through my narrow letterbox.)
Agree wholeheartedly with you. HurstLlama's post on that was tremendous.
I would add two things to what he said:-
1. Try and understand what your strengths and weaknesses are - not in relation to specific topics/degrees/skills etc but in how you work / what engages you or not. The key to a good job is to do something which plays to your strengths and where your weaknesses don't matter (or not much). This is harder than it looks because, certainly at the start of your working life, people tend to think about specific jobs / careers etc rather than about what they are / are not good at - and it often takes a few jobs to make you realise what you are good at and what matters to you about your work. But it is invaluable. Once you have that knowledge, go with your instinct. Never rationalise yourself into taking a job that does not feel right, however good it may objectively sound or look to others.
2. Learn how you make your best decisions and how you make your worst. This is less about the content of the decisions and more about how you arrived at them. Once you know that - and I think this applies in personal matters as well - it's easier to avoid making the same mistakes. You need to listen to that small still voice of calm - in yourself - that tells you whether or not you are doing the right thing for you. Most people learn this the hard way but once learnt it's an invaluable lesson, if you pay attention to it.
In a funny sort of way if you do these things and are open to opportunities you do find yourself doing stuff that does work for you and makes you shine rather than not. What you must not do is accept the often superficial and limited observations that are made of you as a teenager ("not good at maths" or "not creative") and let them define your choices. Often wrong; if not wrong often limited by the parameters of what is taught at school and unnecessarily limiting.
There is a world of knowledge and experience out there. Grab it. The high points of your life are to come not your 7 "A*" at the age of 18.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
I think the Tories have to go to a newer generation for their next leader. None of the choices currently being talked about enthuse and they will look old hat by the time of the next election or the one after. They need to do what they did when choosing Cameron - picking the unexpected and fresh choice which made voters look at the Tories again in a new light. Otherwise, they risk falling prey to the "time for a change" vote, no matter how risky or insane a vote for Labour under Corbyn might be.
"Ruth Davidson: Next Conservative leader will be an outsider with 'warmth and intelligence' The Scottish Conservative leader has dismissed the current front-runners to replace David Cameron and claimed it will be one of the 2010 intake instead"
No I'm not. (Though I would certainly be a fresh and unexpected choice! ) But I did mention her the other day when this topic came up.
Even if Remain wins I find it hard to see how George Osborne is the man to heal the wounds of the referendum campaign. What you'd want would be a widely respected moderate sceptic, surely. Someone who won't try to reopen the issue but would reassure Leavers that he (or she) wouldn't sign up for Son of Lisbon.
Osborne strikes me as a run-against-the-party candidate with the fatal (especially for that type of candidate) flaw that the public don't like him. I don't see how he wins in the membership vote unless he's up against an obvious duffer.
Osborne will play the moderate sceptic well. You only need to see the fights he has had against the FTT, the regulation of UK banks, the protection of the City and his regular critiques of EZ economic policy to see that. He will make it clear that we stay in for now but that we keep the EZ issue under review and watch developments carefully.
And the idea he is running against the party is absurd. He is utterly dominant within it in terms of policy and the placement of acolytes. He may be less popular with the membership as a whole but he will definitely be one of the candidates and there is no outstanding opponent who will sweep him away.
Hmmm
bit of a conservative blind spot methinks.
Tories :
Corbyn is popular with the membership but the public dislike him so he'll never get elected
Osborne may be disliked by the public but he'll get elected because the membership back him
David Cameron has announced his departure during this term. That means that there will not be the same impetus from Leavers to get rid of him after the referendum result: they can wait for him to go of his own accord. Why rock the boat unduly at an early stage when the opportunity will come soon enough. In any case, most MPs are not so much Europhile or Eurosceptic as keen to make the subject go away. If the referendum result is reasonably clear, it will achieve that aim in the short term.
There is a question behind the question which Keiran Pedley asks: what will the really committed BOOers do if they decisively lose the referendum? For many of them, this is as all-consuming an ambition as independence is for the Scottish nationalists. In the wake of such a landmark defeat, how will they regroup? Will they want to retire from politics completely? Will they respect the result? Are there smaller scale aims that they can still salvage from the wreckage?
I don't think they've begun to think about that at all.
I think it very much depends on the magnitude of the result.
If Leave lose 62-38 (perfectly possible with the shambles they are making of the campaign at the moment) then yes - BOO are out of the picture for perhaps 15-20 years.
If leave lose 54-46 then it will affect the future of Conservative politics much more immediately.
But they won't shut up on either scenario and nor should they.
What do you think they should do if they lose? They can't campaign in the short term for another referendum, even if it's 51:49. They have to at least pretend to respect the verdict of the British public.
Easy, treaty changes or we will force another referendum in which the In side will be shown as flaky at best or traitors at worst.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
Errr no. I'm likely to vote leave, but you keep up hiking up Mount Wrongness
Obviously, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish.
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
No, but those wanting to leave could (and should) say 'the PM did well to get those changes, but overall the long-term direction of the EU is not the direction the UK should take, and in the long term we're better off out'.
That would be fighting with one hand behind the back. The only way to win will be to go after the PM's deal as a sham, though maybe leave that to Nige.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
I think that's all true. I think she's also fairly centrist at heart. But of the big beasts she's the best on offer.
What swings it for me is that she understands the migration and security challenges the country is facing, and has scored some impressive wins through her steeliness and tenacity - deporting Hamza, telling the Police Federation how it is and stopping McKinnons extradition - where others wouldn't have bothered or taken the easy option.
I think the Tories have to go to a newer generation for their next leader. None of the choices currently being talked about enthuse and they will look old hat by the time of the next election or the one after. They need to do what they did when choosing Cameron - picking the unexpected and fresh choice which made voters look at the Tories again in a new light. Otherwise, they risk falling prey to the "time for a change" vote, no matter how risky or insane a vote for Labour under Corbyn might be.
Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense, although it's easier to go for a younger leader when you're in opposition and he or or she has time to gain experience before being thrown into No 10. Being in government effectively limits the choice to the current cabinet and those attending cabinet, but amongst those there are several good candidates who may well grow in stature over the next couple of years.
Why limit yourself to the Cabinet? I can see why. Experience etc. But maybe an off the wall question, why?
Cameron has no objection to destroying the Tory party. His political hero is Robert Peel, who did precisely that. As long as he wins the euroref, Cameron will be happy to 'chillax' and take whatever preferment his support for the desired establishment outcome brings him.
Cameron has no objection to destroying the Tory party
You have the inside track on this I presume.
LG83 believes his tinfoil hat allows him to read minds.
That would be fighting with one hand behind the back. The only way to win will be to go after the PM's deal as a sham, though maybe leave that to Nige.
No, that would be a disastrous mistake for the Leave side, which already looks too much like a barmy army obsessed for some strange reason with David Cameron and incapable of recognising that people (and precisely the people they need to win over) have nuanced views on the subject . It's a mistake I fully expect them to make, however.
I do get the feeling that, for most Tories at least, this is no longer an existential threat. Even if Cameron campaigns for REMAIN (which I agree is virtually laid on) the decision is not his. I think that's very important. To make sure it remains important, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish with no new old Labour nastiness afterwards.
Obviously, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish.
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
And they would not say that, because that would not have happened. Clearly there is no sham in these negotiations, the only people pretending this are terrified Outers. There are significant numbers of people working on these negotiations, its daft to say they are a sham.
Even if Remain wins I find it hard to see how George Osborne is the man to heal the wounds of the referendum campaign. What you'd want would be a widely respected moderate sceptic, surely. Someone who won't try to reopen the issue but would reassure Leavers that he (or she) wouldn't sign up for Son of Lisbon.
Osborne strikes me as a run-against-the-party candidate with the fatal (especially for that type of candidate) flaw that the public don't like him. I don't see how he wins in the membership vote unless he's up against an obvious duffer.
Osborne will play the moderate sceptic well. You only need to see the fights he has had against the FTT, the regulation of UK banks, the protection of the City and his regular critiques of EZ economic policy to see that. He will make it clear that we stay in for now but that we keep the EZ issue under review and watch developments carefully.
And the idea he is running against the party is absurd. He is utterly dominant within it in terms of policy and the placement of acolytes. He may be less popular with the membership as a whole but he will definitely be one of the candidates and there is no outstanding opponent who will sweep him away.
Hmmm
bit of a conservative blind spot methinks.
Tories :
Corbyn is popular with the membership but the public dislike him so he'll never get elected
Osborne may be disliked by the public but he'll get elected because the membership back him
Same coin, same sides.
One is competent and has shown that he is capable of running the country, the other is simply not. Not that difficult.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
I think that's all true. I think she's also fairly centrist at heart. But of the big beasts she's the best on offer.
What swings it for me is that she understands the migration and security challenges the country is facing, and has scored some impressive wins through her steeliness and tenacity - deporting Hamza, telling the Police Federation how it is and stopping McKinnons extradition - where others wouldn't have bothered or taken the easy option.
You mean, in terms of suggesting she'd ban Trump from the UK?
Another good thread. O/T Thanks to HurstLlama in particular for his interesting and IMO accurate thoughts on careers in the last thread - if there's one thing I'd improve in schools, it would be realistic career advice like that. (I also share his wariness about changes to the prescription system - I'd rather pick up pills when it suits me than have some unknown hub try to get them through my narrow letterbox.)
I think you can collect them from a pharmacy still but you have to nominate which one? I agree pills through letterbox is rubbish, not in my case because it's too narrow but because it's inevitable they will go through the wrong one.
My GP runs an internet based scheme called Patient Access. You input what you need and where you would like the prescription filled and you pick up your medication a couple of days later. The system works brilliantly.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
It won't happen. In the 90s, and through to 2001, there were serious questions of policy up for grabs: in the first instance, whether to ratify the Maastricht Treaty or not, and then whether to join the Euro or not. While those questions remained live, division was always going to follow.
By contrast, with this vote, where does either side go after it's taken place? Unless there's only a few points in it (in which case either side could look for a re-vote, though probably in vain), the issue of membership is resolved for the foreseeable future. True, there'll be other issues but nothing of the scale of withdrawing from the Union at one extreme, or joining the Euro at the other.
Even if Remain wins I find it hard to see how George Osborne is the man to heal the wounds of the referendum campaign. What you'd want would be a widely respected moderate sceptic, surely. Someone who won't try to reopen the issue but would reassure Leavers that he (or she) wouldn't sign up for Son of Lisbon.
Osborne strikes me as a run-against-the-party candidate with the fatal (especially for that type of candidate) flaw that the public don't like him. I don't see how he wins in the membership vote unless he's up against an obvious duffer.
Osborne will play the moderate sceptic well. You only need to see the fights he has had against the FTT, the regulation of UK banks, the protection of the City and his regular critiques of EZ economic policy to see that. He will make it clear that we stay in for now but that we keep the EZ issue under review and watch developments carefully.
And the idea he is running against the party is absurd. He is utterly dominant within it in terms of policy and the placement of acolytes. He may be less popular with the membership as a whole but he will definitely be one of the candidates and there is no outstanding opponent who will sweep him away.
Hmmm
bit of a conservative blind spot methinks.
Tories :
Corbyn is popular with the membership but the public dislike him so he'll never get elected
Osborne may be disliked by the public but he'll get elected because the membership back him
Same coin, same sides.
One is competent and has shown that he is capable of running the country, the other is simply not. Not that difficult.
You rate Corbyn more highly than I do,
At least we both agree Oddborne is a useless twat who has done little with his great office of state.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
I think that's all true. I think she's also fairly centrist at heart. But of the big beasts she's the best on offer.
What swings it for me is that she understands the migration and security challenges the country is facing, and has scored some impressive wins through her steeliness and tenacity - deporting Hamza, telling the Police Federation how it is and stopping McKinnons extradition - where others wouldn't have bothered or taken the easy option.
You mean, in terms of suggesting she'd ban Trump from the UK?
That is a strong negative against her. I also think she would continue new Labour lite social / cultural policy and not be good on civil liberties.
Jahadi Jez doesn't really get this free press stuff. I bet he is a huge admirer of the Red Star OS. Day 1 of a Jez government, all journalists must now use Red Star OS only...
Why limit yourself to the Cabinet? I can see why. Experience etc. But maybe an off the wall question, why?
Simply because on the day after the selection the new leader is going to become PM, and has to not only run the mechanics of government but also command the respect of the Cabinet. There's no time to learn beforehand. This would always be so, but is particularly important for the Conservatives in this electoral cycle because the message is clearly going to be security and competence vs the Corbyn shambles.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
Errr no. I'm likely to vote leave, but you keep up hiking up Mount Wrongness
I do wish my fellow Leavers would stop doing this.
Maybe Corby's waiting for an email from a "member of the public" telling who to put where.
LOL. How about a new tv show, Britian Got [No] Talented Labour MPs...where the public can vote on who gets which job, but rather than the panel of Simon Cowell et al, it can be Jezza, McMao, and the NonceFinder General.
Ant & Dec..."This week we have asked contests to perform extracts from Mao's little red book"....lets see how they get on....
I do get the feeling that, for most Tories at least, this is no longer an existential threat. Even if Cameron campaigns for REMAIN (which I agree is virtually laid on) the decision is not his. I think that's very important. To make sure it remains important, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish with no new old Labour nastiness afterwards.
Obviously, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish.
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
Surely this is a matter of style rather than substance. If a politician can't be nuanced then he ain't a proper politician vide Comrade JJ
I think the Tories have to go to a newer generation for their next leader. None of the choices currently being talked about enthuse and they will look old hat by the time of the next election or the one after. They need to do what they did when choosing Cameron - picking the unexpected and fresh choice which made voters look at the Tories again in a new light. Otherwise, they risk falling prey to the "time for a change" vote, no matter how risky or insane a vote for Labour under Corbyn might be.
Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense, although it's easier to go for a younger leader when you're in opposition and he or or she has time to gain experience before being thrown into No 10. Being in government effectively limits the choice to the current cabinet and those attending cabinet, but amongst those there are several good candidates who may well grow in stature over the next couple of years.
The next leader will not come from anybody from outside the top tier of ministers who have been in post for at least 12 months. Skipping a generation is for parties in opposition and as we see with EdM that does not always work. Equally as we see with Labour currently, if a party indulges itself by diving into a cosy extreme it is in for trouble. Being a party leader isn't easy and changing leader is dangerous. Every single tory MP and party member should be on their bended knees before Cameron and begging him to stay. And he would be wise to ignore them.
May is far from perfect but in the political climate I expect in 2019/2020 (and assuming she polishes up her rhetoric) I think on May v. Osborne that May wins.
She certainly might win in that scenario, but I don't sense great enthusiasm for her. Many members haven't forgiven her for the 'nasty party' label. She's also not a terribly good speaker, she has a tendency to waffle when answering questions. Overall she'd be a sound choice, which might be enough.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
On the plus side I think she has a good TV manner and a pleasant smile. She's quite reassuringly not mad.
That would be fighting with one hand behind the back. The only way to win will be to go after the PM's deal as a sham, though maybe leave that to Nige.
No, that would be a disastrous mistake for the Leave side, which already looks too much like a barmy army obsessed for some strange reason with David Cameron and incapable of recognising that people (and precisely the people they need to win over) have nuanced views on the subject . It's a mistake I fully expect them to make, however.
Which is why I said it would be best left to Nige given his one-dimensional nature. It's a shame the PM had a massive lack of ambition with these negotiations. He could have reshaped the nature of the continent, instead he is settling for the bare minimum and hoping it will convince enough people to get 51-57% of the vote.
Imagine an EU with a proper single market for services, the CAP/farming subsidies being shifted to a national budget remit, proper rules on freedom of movement based on per capita income. I guess the problem is that the EU would have been shown as the inflexible hostile organisation it really is and people would have voted to leave once the PM's requests were rejected.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
Errr no. I'm likely to vote leave, but you keep up hiking up Mount Wrongness
I do wish my fellow Leavers would stop doing this.
I think the biggest threat to Leave is the in-temperateness of some of its supporters.
Obviously, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish.
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
No, but those wanting to leave could (and should) say 'the PM did well to get those changes, but overall the long-term direction of the EU is not the direction the UK should take, and in the long term we're better off out'.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
Errr no. I'm likely to vote leave, but you keep up hiking up Mount Wrongness
I do wish my fellow Leavers would stop doing this.
I'm taking the Churchillian view. There should be a United States of Europe but Le Royaume-Uni should have nothing to do with it.
Allows me to be consistent to my Pro-EU position yet allows me to vote to leave.
The EU going forward is going to be dominated by the Eurozone and the only way we'd have any influence is if we join the Euro and I'd rather have Corbyn as PM than join the Euro.
@theobertram: We had a grid in my day. Simple idea: coordinate one big story a day. Today is trains. It's trains. TRAINS. GODDAM YOU ALL I WAS UP AT 5!
I do get the feeling that, for most Tories at least, this is no longer an existential threat. Even if Cameron campaigns for REMAIN (which I agree is virtually laid on) the decision is not his. I think that's very important. To make sure it remains important, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish with no new old Labour nastiness afterwards.
Obviously, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish.
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
Surely this is a matter of style rather than substance. If a politician can't be nuanced then he ain't a proper politician vide Comrade JJ
Why limit yourself to the Cabinet? I can see why. Experience etc. But maybe an off the wall question, why?
Simply because on the day after the selection the new leader is going to become PM, and has to not only run the mechanics of government but also command the respect of the Cabinet. There's no time to learn beforehand. This would always be so, but is particularly important for the Conservatives in this electoral cycle because the message is clearly going to be security and competence vs the Corbyn shambles.
I see that. Makes sense.
I think that commanding the respect of the Cabinet is probably more important than the mechanics of government point, given the civil service machine etc.
Just that if there was someone bold enough to make a bid and win over the parliamentary party and the membership that in itself would demonstrate some courage and steel which could be used to counter the arguments you make, particularly if that person was able to say that there would be some level of continuity with colleagues in Cabinet etc. A high risk strategy I grant you and maybe someone trying this is laying down a marker for the future. But sometimes the unexpected apparently high risk taker of chances is the one that turns out to be the better choice.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
Errr no. I'm likely to vote leave, but you keep up hiking up Mount Wrongness
I do wish my fellow Leavers would stop doing this.
I'm taking the Churchillian view. There should be a United States of Europe but Le Royaume-Uni should have nothing to do with it.
Allows me to be consistent to my Pro-EU position yet allows me to vote to leave.
The EU going forward is going to be dominated by the Eurozone and the only way we'd have any influence is if we join the Euro and I'd rather have Corbyn as PM than join the Euro.
I agree entirely with your final paragraph.
I have no strong view either way on the right political settlement for the continent. But I do think NATO and the Council of Europe are important.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
Errr no. I'm likely to vote leave, but you keep up hiking up Mount Wrongness
I do wish my fellow Leavers would stop doing this.
I think the biggest threat to Leave is the in-temperateness of some of its supporters.
@DMcCaffreySKY: NEW: Labour have now actually placed someone on the stairwell to make sure that no journalists are hanging around outside Corbyn's office.
Even if Remain wins I find it hard to see how George Osborne is the man to heal the wounds of the referendum campaign. What you'd want would be a widely respected moderate sceptic, surely. Someone who won't try to reopen the issue but would reassure Leavers that he (or she) wouldn't sign up for Son of Lisbon.
Osborne strikes me as a run-against-the-party candidate with the fatal (especially for that type of candidate) flaw that the public don't like him. I don't see how he wins in the membership vote unless he's up against an obvious duffer.
Osborne will play the moderate sceptic well. You only need to see the fights he has had against the FTT, the regulation of UK banks, the protection of the City and his regular critiques of EZ economic policy to see that. He will make it clear that we stay in for now but that we keep the EZ issue under review and watch developments carefully.
And the idea he is running against the party is absurd. He is utterly dominant within it in terms of policy and the placement of acolytes. He may be less popular with the membership as a whole but he will definitely be one of the candidates and there is no outstanding opponent who will sweep him away.
Hmmm
bit of a conservative blind spot methinks.
Tories :
Corbyn is popular with the membership but the public dislike him so he'll never get elected
Osborne may be disliked by the public but he'll get elected because the membership back him
Same coin, same sides.
The difference is that Osborne could still get elected as long as the economy appears to be ticking along ok - but it'd be a loveless, technical endorsement he'd get.
Which is why I said it would be best left to Nige given his one-dimensional nature. It's a shame the PM had a massive lack of ambition with these negotiations. He could have reshaped the nature of the continent, instead he is settling for the bare minimum and hoping it will convince enough people to get 51-57% of the vote.
Imagine an EU with a proper single market for services, the CAP/farming subsidies being shifted to a national budget remit, proper rules on freedom of movement based on per capita income. I guess the problem is that the EU would have been shown as the inflexible hostile organisation it really is and people would have voted to leave once the PM's requests were rejected.
There's no point tilting at windmills. He is negotiating to get the best amelioration of the unsatisfactory situation he inherited, subject to what is attainable. That will be better than the status quo, and the Leave side still have the option of persuading the country - not David Cameron - that we're better off out. I really can't understand what the BOOers are bitching about - this obsession with Cameron and nonsense about a 'sham' or 'lack of ambition' is just a distraction. They've got the referendum, exactly as promised (they seem to have forgotten that they said he couldn't be trusted on that), and it's up to them to make the case for leaving and laying out what the alternative might look like. It's not David Cameron's fault that they seem remarkably uninterested in doing so.
Here's the message: if the country you come from is a bit of a shithole and, if, by hook or by crook, you make it here to the UK legally or otherwise, you'll get asylum.
Even if Remain wins I find it hard to see how George Osborne is the man to heal the wounds of the referendum campaign. What you'd want would be a widely respected moderate sceptic, surely. Someone who won't try to reopen the issue but would reassure Leavers that he (or she) wouldn't sign up for Son of Lisbon.
Osborne strikes me as a run-against-the-party candidate with the fatal (especially for that type of candidate) flaw that the public don't like him. I don't see how he wins in the membership vote unless he's up against an obvious duffer.
Osborne will play the moderate sceptic well. You only need to see the fights he has had against the FTT, the regulation of UK banks, the protection of the City and his regular critiques of EZ economic policy to see that. He will make it clear that we stay in for now but that we keep the EZ issue under review and watch developments carefully.
And the idea he is running against the party is absurd. He is utterly dominant within it in terms of policy and the placement of acolytes. He may be less popular with the membership as a whole but he will definitely be one of the candidates and there is no outstanding opponent who will sweep him away.
Hmmm
bit of a conservative blind spot methinks.
Tories :
Corbyn is popular with the membership but the public dislike him so he'll never get elected
Osborne may be disliked by the public but he'll get elected because the membership back him
Same coin, same sides.
The difference is that Osborne could still get elected as long as the economy appears to be ticking along ok - but it'd be a loveless, technical endorsement he'd get.
My biggest fear for this year and 2020 for the Tory party is that we revert back to the 90s and are obsessed by the EU and destroy our electoral prospects.
The only way to unite the party is have the PM campaign for Leave. The Europhile headbangers can f*** off to the Lib Dems then.
You sound like a Corbynite true believer.
You sound like a europhile who would sell this country down a river to win this referendum. Oh wait, you are one.
Errr no. I'm likely to vote leave, but you keep up hiking up Mount Wrongness
I do wish my fellow Leavers would stop doing this.
I'm taking the Churchillian view. There should be a United States of Europe but Le Royaume-Uni should have nothing to do with it.
Allows me to be consistent to my Pro-EU position yet allows me to vote to leave.
The EU going forward is going to be dominated by the Eurozone and the only way we'd have any influence is if we join the Euro and I'd rather have Corbyn as PM than join the Euro.
As I've been saying for some time: I think Brexit is in the best interests of both the UK and the European Union.
Here's the message: if the country you come from is a bit of a shithole and, if, by hook or by crook, you make it here to the UK legally or otherwise, you'll get asylum.
Comments
They should not demobilise but continue to challenge, expose and pick away at any failings or reneging.
I think that's almost inevitable and the EU could change very rapidly in the next 5 years. BOO only push for a second referendum once Leave starts scoring a clear movement on the centre-left too with regular double digit opinion poll leads.
The 2025-2030 Parliament might be the next realistic opportunity.
If it is a close in with the majority of the party for out, I think someone like Hammond would be your perfect leader, a statesmanlike figure who gets the nuance but clearly sees how the EU should be improved.
Even though we'll likely be on different sides, I'm with you on wishing that Cameron had gone for CAP reform - that would have been good for the UK and I think got plenty of support.
And this mood is growing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2881377/Merry-Christmas-Not-Maggie-wasn-t-friend-adviser-Lord-Bell-adored-Mrs-T-12-Christmases-spent-Chequers-hilariously-excruciating.html
It's hilarious!
(And Jimmy Savile wasn't there).
You have the inside track on this I presume.
"Margaret didn’t laugh at herself as much as she might."
Brilliant.
Speaking personally, I don't know which of the two I'd go for if that were the choice.
@stephenkb: .@georgeeaton has the latest reshuffle gossip: Dugher out, M. Eagle to Culture, Nandy to Defence: https://t.co/l5rmfSR3ia
Also, liveblog
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12080687/Jeremy-Corbyn-begins-Labour-shadow-cabinet-revenge-reshuffle-live.html
https://twitter.com/mattsmithetc/status/683625929294372864/photo/1
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24831/lisa_nandy/wigan/votes
Voted a mixture of for and against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas Show votes
Has never voted on replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system
Voted a mixture of for and against more EU integration Show votes
Voted a mixture of for and against a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU Show votes
Generally voted for strengthening the Military Covenant Show votes
MaxPB
I'm not going to leave the party if the country votes to stay in, if Dave's deal is good enough to win it then so be it. My issue is with what happens afterwards. If the result is relatively close (which I think it will be) then having a leader closely associated with the remain campaign is going to hurt the party's standing with the 40-50% of people who just voted to leave the EU and will not want the vote to be the end of the matter.
Richard is not a pragmatist, he is a fully paid up "Osborne is a perfect chancellor" (or was it near perfect) member.
As for what Dave could offer me to vote to remain, an opt out of the CAP, an opt out of the CFP, control over our environmental sustainability and a permanent veto on all financial regulations and decisions.
I do get the feeling that, for most Tories at least, this is no longer an existential threat. Even if Cameron campaigns for REMAIN (which I agree is virtually laid on) the decision is not his. I think that's very important. To make sure it remains important, all MPs should be allowed to campaign as they wish with no new old Labour nastiness afterwards.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/12078577/Ruth-Davidson-Next-Conservative-leader-will-be-an-outsider-with-warmth-and-intelligence.html
"Ruth Davidson: Next Conservative leader will be an outsider with 'warmth and intelligence'
The Scottish Conservative leader has dismissed the current front-runners to replace David Cameron and claimed it will be one of the 2010 intake instead"
But there is an issue with Ministers and the renegotiation. While Ministers can clearly say "I think Britain would be better off outside the European Union", what they probably cannot say is "The Prime Minister's renegotiation was a sham and a disaster. He failed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12080369/Calais-migrant-who-walked-length-of-Channel-Tunnel-to-Britain-is-granted-asylum.html
What a joke.
Ha Ha Ha , only someone as stupid as you would be impressed by Deerin, Hee Haw Hee Haw
I would add two things to what he said:-
1. Try and understand what your strengths and weaknesses are - not in relation to specific topics/degrees/skills etc but in how you work / what engages you or not. The key to a good job is to do something which plays to your strengths and where your weaknesses don't matter (or not much). This is harder than it looks because, certainly at the start of your working life, people tend to think about specific jobs / careers etc rather than about what they are / are not good at - and it often takes a few jobs to make you realise what you are good at and what matters to you about your work. But it is invaluable. Once you have that knowledge, go with your instinct. Never rationalise yourself into taking a job that does not feel right, however good it may objectively sound or look to others.
2. Learn how you make your best decisions and how you make your worst. This is less about the content of the decisions and more about how you arrived at them. Once you know that - and I think this applies in personal matters as well - it's easier to avoid making the same mistakes. You need to listen to that small still voice of calm - in yourself - that tells you whether or not you are doing the right thing for you. Most people learn this the hard way but once learnt it's an invaluable lesson, if you pay attention to it.
In a funny sort of way if you do these things and are open to opportunities you do find yourself doing stuff that does work for you and makes you shine rather than not. What you must not do is accept the often superficial and limited observations that are made of you as a teenager ("not good at maths" or "not creative") and let them define your choices. Often wrong; if not wrong often limited by the parameters of what is taught at school and unnecessarily limiting.
There is a world of knowledge and experience out there. Grab it. The high points of your life are to come not your 7 "A*" at the age of 18.
bit of a conservative blind spot methinks.
Tories :
Corbyn is popular with the membership but the public dislike him so he'll never get elected
Osborne may be disliked by the public but he'll get elected because the membership back him
Same coin, same sides.
What swings it for me is that she understands the migration and security challenges the country is facing, and has scored some impressive wins through her steeliness and tenacity - deporting Hamza, telling the Police Federation how it is and stopping McKinnons extradition - where others wouldn't have bothered or taken the easy option.
@Nick_Hoadley: @MrHarryCole who made him the hallway monitor?
@JoeMurphyLondon: Comedy classic - Jeremy Corbyn chasing @MrHarryCole & co down the corridor https://t.co/WEJvylEdex
Such criminal trespass should be grounds for automatic disqualification.
By contrast, with this vote, where does either side go after it's taken place? Unless there's only a few points in it (in which case either side could look for a re-vote, though probably in vain), the issue of membership is resolved for the foreseeable future. True, there'll be other issues but nothing of the scale of withdrawing from the Union at one extreme, or joining the Euro at the other.
At least we both agree Oddborne is a useless twat who has done little with his great office of state.
But there is no perfect candidate.
Ant & Dec..."This week we have asked contests to perform extracts from Mao's little red book"....lets see how they get on....
Being a party leader isn't easy and changing leader is dangerous. Every single tory MP and party member should be on their bended knees before Cameron and begging him to stay. And he would be wise to ignore them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35220941
Imagine an EU with a proper single market for services, the CAP/farming subsidies being shifted to a national budget remit, proper rules on freedom of movement based on per capita income. I guess the problem is that the EU would have been shown as the inflexible hostile organisation it really is and people would have voted to leave once the PM's requests were rejected.
Allows me to be consistent to my Pro-EU position yet allows me to vote to leave.
The EU going forward is going to be dominated by the Eurozone and the only way we'd have any influence is if we join the Euro and I'd rather have Corbyn as PM than join the Euro.
https://t.co/ajFJmGPWAb
@theobertram: We had a grid in my day. Simple idea: coordinate one big story a day. Today is trains. It's trains. TRAINS. GODDAM YOU ALL I WAS UP AT 5!
(I assume you mean JC, not JJ?)
I think that commanding the respect of the Cabinet is probably more important than the mechanics of government point, given the civil service machine etc.
Just that if there was someone bold enough to make a bid and win over the parliamentary party and the membership that in itself would demonstrate some courage and steel which could be used to counter the arguments you make, particularly if that person was able to say that there would be some level of continuity with colleagues in Cabinet etc. A high risk strategy I grant you and maybe someone trying this is laying down a marker for the future. But sometimes the unexpected apparently high risk taker of chances is the one that turns out to be the better choice.
I have no strong view either way on the right political settlement for the continent. But I do think NATO and the Council of Europe are important.
And some wonder why we have a migration crisis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12080007/Britains-factories-face-stagnation-despite-oil-boost.html
GOWNBPM
I'm equally fascinated by the twin blind spot Conservatives have:
Gordon Bown borrowing lots of money and spending it badly is a bad thing
George Osborne borrowing lots of money and spending it badly is a good thing
QTWTAIN. – asked throughout 2015 and repeated in 2016, 2017 etc, but still no.