kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

RobD said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?

Not sure where you're getting this from.

I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.

I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.

The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.

But should it? I say no.

Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.

The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.

You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.

I recall a lot of mockery toward Labour for supposedly not having a policy on another big issue, Trident. For the government not to have policies would be pretty silly I feel.

The Government's policy is to have a referendum on the EU, giving the choice to the people. The Government's role in that scenario is to ensure that it has solid plans in place for every contingency.

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Mortimer said:

RobD said:

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Just to get it officially confirmed, could the Conservative posters on here confirm whether they believe that no Conservative is fit to serve as Prime Minister, Cabinet minister, junior minister or even MP if he or she believes in voting Remain in the referendum?

Not sure where you're getting this from.

I object to using the instruments of a Tory government to promote Remain when the party of government is officially neutral.

I'm actively suggesting a moderate Remainer becomes interim PM.

The party of government may be neutral, but the government itself has a position.

But should it? I say no.

Would have been much easier to unite the party during and afterwards if not.

The government has a policy on charging for plastic bags in supermarkets, devolving powers to elected mayors and using animals in circuses. It should have a policy on membership of the EU.

You don't like that policy. Fine. But to argue that the government shouldn't have one is absurd.

No - it would be temporary and entirely sensible politics in a party with a history of being riven by Europe.

I very much doubt you would say that if the policy was to leave.

I really would.

I suspect you find this hard to believe, but the continuance of the party as an election winning force is more important to me than the result of the referendum....

Either way....

To be an election-winning force you need to maintain a reputation for competence. Not having a policy on a matter of national importance isn't competent. It's like Labour not having a policy on Trident. Ridiculous.

Plato_Says said:

Well said

dyingswan said:

IDS should go with our thanks,respect and sympathy. A decent religious man who wanted to do his best. Having listened to him on Marr I am quite certain that the pressures of the job overwhelmed him.The position that he held requires a very thick skin. I do not think that he has one. His friends say that he is passionate about his views on welfare. That is usually a euphemism for thin skinned and angry. Gordon Brown was described as passionate when he allegedly hurled mobiles at staff.
To do the job that IDS did you have to put up with the constant impugning of your own personal morality by clamant groups, disability charities and opponents. I can almost hear his wife imploring him not to take things personally but to remember that he was only enacting public policy. We get the merest hint on PB of the barrage of abuse that ministers face by reading the deeply unpleasant rants of our Caledonian friend.
So thank you IDS. You will feel free today. Free to campaign for Brexit without the heavy burden of running a difficult department.
Stephen Crabb will bring pragmatism to a difficult job. I wish him every success.

Plato, you've been in PR, you surely know a smear when you read one.

Plato_Says said:

Well said

dyingswan said:

IDS should go with our thanks,respect and sympathy. A decent religious man who wanted to do his best. Having listened to him on Marr I am quite certain that the pressures of the job overwhelmed him.The position that he held requires a very thick skin. I do not think that he has one. His friends say that he is passionate about his views on welfare. That is usually a euphemism for thin skinned and angry. Gordon Brown was described as passionate when he allegedly hurled mobiles at staff.
To do the job that IDS did you have to put up with the constant impugning of your own personal morality by clamant groups, disability charities and opponents. I can almost hear his wife imploring him not to take things personally but to remember that he was only enacting public policy. We get the merest hint on PB of the barrage of abuse that ministers face by reading the deeply unpleasant rants of our Caledonian friend.
So thank you IDS. You will feel free today. Free to campaign for Brexit without the heavy burden of running a difficult department.
Stephen Crabb will bring pragmatism to a difficult job. I wish him every success.

Hmm. You fail to mention IDS's consistent refusal to listen to expert advice and civil servants regarding the practicalities of his reforms. I'm not a fan. Good riddance. At least Crabb has an MBA - maybe he'll be able to handle the day-to-day administration of the department.

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

As for centrists vs left- or right- wing:

Cameron: centre-rigth.competent - PM
Howard: right-centre-right:crap - not PM.
IDS: right. crap - Not PM
Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts).crap - Not PM
Major: centre-right.competent - PM
Thatcher right-centre-rightcompetent - PM

I think the "crap" assignations there are hindsight bias. If he'd lost in 1992 we'd have no problem putting Major in the "crap" column, and if Howard had won you'd be calling him competent.

Apparently IDS has private correspondence showing Cameron wanted bigger cuts on the disabled.

chestnut said:

Tory Leave currently averages 55% across seven pollsters.
UKIP Leave averages 95%
LD/Labour/SNP are around 30%.

This, of course, assumes accurate polls.

The national norm is for them to underscore the right-wing outcome whilst overscoring the left. That was true of phones and online during the GE.

Much of the focus in the GE was on the Con/Lab inaccuracy, rather than the Right/Left one.

What's more likely with a phone pollsters? A Shy Remain or a Shy Leave? Which view is right and which is left?

On Scotland the polls got the SNP right and of course the middle-class back Remain and have higher turnout

rottenborough said:

At least Crabb has an MBA - maybe he'll be able to handle the day-to-day administration of the department.

If there's one thing that doesn't reliably point to practical administrative competence, it's an MBA.

foxinsoxuk said:

dr_spyn said:

Plato_Says said:

She's a nitwit on so many levels, few ministers have impressed me less.

Pulpstar said:

Interesting to see Amber Rudd will be dieing in a ditch for Osborne.

Last night she announced that she was switching her light bulbs off at 8.30 for an hour last night, as if this piece of virtue signalling would make a difference to the demand for power as millions watched the final match of The Six Nations. Amber Rudd doesn't appear to be the brightest light in the showroom.

It was a worldwide event. Not one set by sporting contests in any particular country.

I was reminded of Lloyd George asking would you rather be with the wise virgins in the light or the unwise virgins in the dark. John Grigg's biography left the reader with no doubt about The Goat's likely choice.

HYUFD said:

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

As for centrists vs left- or right- wing:

Cameron: centre-rigth.competent - PM
Howard: right-centre-right:crap - not PM.
IDS: right. crap - Not PM
Hague: oddly right (I think it was against his instincts).crap - Not PM
Major: centre-right.competent - PM
Thatcher right-centre-rightcompetent - PM

Howard was a competent opposition leader

Indeed.

NorfolkTilIDie said:

Apparently IDS has private correspondence showing Cameron wanted bigger cuts on the disabled.

Because having been a recipient of benefits for the disabledin opposition he decided that lower orders shouldn't have the same from his government

justin124 said:

Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs.
Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.

Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).

This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.

dr_spyn said:

foxinsoxuk said:

dr_spyn said:

Plato_Says said:

She's a nitwit on so many levels, few ministers have impressed me less.

Pulpstar said:

Interesting to see Amber Rudd will be dieing in a ditch for Osborne.

Last night she announced that she was switching her light bulbs off at 8.30 for an hour last night, as if this piece of virtue signalling would make a difference to the demand for power as millions watched the final match of The Six Nations. Amber Rudd doesn't appear to be the brightest light in the showroom.

It was a worldwide event. Not one set by sporting contests in any particular country.

I was reminded of Lloyd George asking would you rather be with the wise virgins in the light or the unwise virgins in the dark. John Grigg's biography left the reader with no doubt about The Goat's likely choice.

Surely Lloyd George didn't care about light, dark, foolish, wise etc? As long as they were virgins when he met them and not when they left him he was quite happy!

He wasn't called the Goat for nothing!

Luckyguy1983 said:

Plato_Says said:

Well said

dyingswan said:

IDS should go with our thanks,respect and sympathy. A decent religious man who wanted to do his best. Having listened to him on Marr I am quite certain that the pressures of the job overwhelmed him.The position that he held requires a very thick skin. I do not think that he has one. His friends say that he is passionate about his views on welfare. That is usually a euphemism for thin skinned and angry. Gordon Brown was described as passionate when he allegedly hurled mobiles at staff.
To do the job that IDS did you have to put up with the constant impugning of your own personal morality by clamant groups, disability charities and opponents. I can almost hear his wife imploring him not to take things personally but to remember that he was only enacting public policy. We get the merest hint on PB of the barrage of abuse that ministers face by reading the deeply unpleasant rants of our Caledonian friend.
So thank you IDS. You will feel free today. Free to campaign for Brexit without the heavy burden of running a difficult department.
Stephen Crabb will bring pragmatism to a difficult job. I wish him every success.

Plato, you've been in PR, you surely know a smear when you read one.

One man's smear is another man's truth.

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs.
Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.

Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).

This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.

A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.

Indeed. However the weakness of all Jenkins' biographies from Dilke to Churchill is that a lot of the time they are based on personal like and dislike as much as legitimate analysis. Dilke was a good Liberal ergo good, Chamberlain became a Unionist ergo was bad, therefore he entered into a conspiracy to ruin Dilke (excreta of male bovines). Asquith held the Liberals together and was good, Lloyd George destroyed them and was bad. Spot the irony there!

In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs.
Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.

Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).

This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.

A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.

Indeed. However the weakness of all Jenkins' biographies from Dilke to Churchill is that a lot of the time they are based on personal like and dislike as much as legitimate analysis. Dilke was a good Liberal ergo good, Chamberlain became a Unionist ergo was bad, therefore he entered into a conspiracy to ruin Dilke (excreta of male bovines). Asquith held the Liberals together and was good, Lloyd George destroyed them and was bad. Spot the irony there!

In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.

But these are your judgements of Jenkins!

Fair cop!

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

Asquith was a very effective PM before World War 1 - a serene figure who was very capable at keeping his team together.In a different way Baldwin was also good at managing his colleagues - notwithstanding his disinterest in foreign affairs.
Present day PMs have other communication modes available to them which these predecessors lacked - telephone - email - videoconferencing etc.Much of this travel is strictly unnecessary - and done for media purposes.

Asquith posed as an effective PM before WW1, but the reality is somewhat more nuanced. He had one unambiguous and brilliant personal success - the Parliament Act. Otherwise his modus operandi was to let everyone do whatever they wanted and assure them he would make everyone else fall in line. He actually spent more time in Cabinet meetings writing love letters to teenage girls than he did actually steering discussions (although helpfully these letters in amongst the somewhat creepy stuff do allow us some insight into what was going on in Cabinet).

This cost him Seely in peacetime, then Haldane, Churchill, and ultimately Bonar Law and Lloyd George in wartime. It also cost him the trust of military leaders, including Kitchener, French and Haig, and left the national defence effort in an inchoate muddle. It also ultimately led to the Liberal party fracturing into three different factions twice and contributed greatly to their ruin.

A legitimate view - though Roy Jenkins differed sharply.

Indeed. However the weakness of all Jenkins' biographies from Dilke to Churchill is that a lot of the time they are based on personal like and dislike as much as legitimate analysis. Dilke was a good Liberal ergo good, Chamberlain became a Unionist ergo was bad, therefore he entered into a conspiracy to ruin Dilke (excreta of male bovines). Asquith held the Liberals together and was good, Lloyd George destroyed them and was bad. Spot the irony there!

In particular, I remember his strange dismissal of Reginald McKenna as the most insubstantial politician he had ever come across. It seems to be largely because McKenna had an extremely successful political and business career and somebody had compared Jenkins (who had the same seat) to him, rather unfavourably, and Jenkins could not deal with being second best behind somebody who never made it to PM.

That is a very common failing of biographies in general.

NickPalmer said:

david_herdson said:

I'd question whether Asquith or Baldwin were particularly effective PMs. Asquith led a government but the driving force in it was Lloyd George.

O/T anecdote: I was giving a seminar for a Chinese group on care for families of fallen soliers with my cousin (Anthony Palmer, former deputy Chief of Defence Staff), and Anthony mentioned that Asquith introduced a policy in WW1 that soldiers should not normally be brought home but buried near where they had fallen (for overpowering logistical reasons in a major war - the rules have since changed). This was much-criticised by wealthy families with private family mausoleums, like Asquith himself.

The policy was instantly tested when Asquith's own son died on the front, days later. Asquith applied it to himself without hesitation or complaint. 100 years later, that moral certainty still rings true, whether or not he was otherwise effective - how sure are we that the average modern politician would not seek to find a way round?

Asquith was not wealthy. His wife was (his second wife, Margot Tennant) but his family were fairly low in the middle classes. They would not have had a private mausoleum.

The timeframe is also wrong. The decision was taken early in 1915. Raymond was killed on the first day of the Somme in summer 1916.

I think your friend with the anecdote is guilty of hero worship outrunning the facts.

ydoethur said:

Asquith was not wealthy. His wife was (his second wife, Margot Tennant) but his family were fairly low in the middle classes. They would not have had a private mausoleum.

The timeframe is also wrong. The decision was taken early in 1915. Raymond was killed on the first day of the Somme in summer 1916.

I think your friend with the anecdote is guilty of hero worship outrunning the facts.

Interesting, thanks. I'll delete the anecdote from my repertoire!