Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the CON conference starting David Herdson says what’s wan

13

Comments

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.

    I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
    Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.

    It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
    I am rapidly going off Ruth Davidson. Fair enough that she campaigned for Remain, but to say things like she'd still vote Remain if we had a second referendum are not helpful. Neither is her feud with Boris.

    Even in Scotland, a majority of 2017 Tory supporters probably voted Leave.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695

    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.

    I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
    Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.

    It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
    That would be Ruth 'stop WFA in England and Wales but keep it in Scotland' Davidson ?
    Yep!
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    jonny83 said:

    I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.

    Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.

    And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.


    May's not going to sack him for the following reasons;
    -her position is too weak and she'd likely lose a leadership contest
    -it is exactly what Boris wants to trigger a contest...he wants to force May's hand
    -she's not that decisive anyhow even if she was in a more powerful position



  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: mixed feelings, given if I'd offered a tip for pole it probably would've been Vettel, but I did check Raikkonen's odds and they were 13. Ho hum.

    I see Boris has been reading How To Make Friends And Influence People again.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.

    Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
    Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.

    Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.

    We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.

    We are not nothing.

    Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.

    I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire

    We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
    The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.

    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2017
    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
  • RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.

    The Scottish referendum process showed one of the benefits of an unwritten constitution. In most other countries, not just Spain, it could not have happened.


  • Mr Observer tells us again how much money was in the kitty in 2010 at the end of thirteen years of Labour government.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.

    Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
    Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.

    Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.

    We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.

    We are not nothing.

    Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.

    I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire

    We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
    The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.

    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.
    My entire GCSE in History was entirely about the industrial revolution. At the time I was pretty pissed off as I wanted to learn all about Kings and battles.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.

    Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
    Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.

    Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.

    We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.

    We are not nothing.

    Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.

    I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire

    We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
    The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.

    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.
    Amazing is not the word I would use!

    Countries like France and the USA appreciate the importance of teaching the national narrative, and how that dovetails with citizenship. We have no clue.
  • stevef said:

    What is needed is for a new leader to relaunch the Conservative Party in the same way that Peel and Disraeli did in the 19th Century (both in opposition however). I am not a Conservative. I have supported Labour all my life but believe Corbyn will destroy Labour and is unfit to be PM. To keep him out, and save the Labour party, the Tories will need to save themselves.

    There must surely be others like stevef?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    F1: mixed feelings, given if I'd offered a tip for pole it probably would've been Vettel, but I did check Raikkonen's odds and they were 13. Ho hum.

    I see Boris has been reading How To Make Friends And Influence People again.

    Any idea what Lewis’ odds were after P3? I thought to myself about backing him, knowing both how far the engine can be turned up and how good he is at nailing one lap where it matters. I’d guess he was probably 4 or 5.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,261
    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.

    Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.

    And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.


    May's not going to sack him for the following reasons;
    -her position is too weak and she'd likely lose a leadership contest
    -it is exactly what Boris wants to trigger a contest...he wants to force May's hand
    -she's not that decisive anyhow even if she was in a more powerful position



    If May knows she is pretty much finished or comes to that viewpoint then what does she have to lose?

    If I was her I would go down fighting.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Just a thought. Next GE debate

    Jacob Rees Mogg v Jeremy Corbyn v Vince Cable v Henry Bolton v Nicola Sturgeon

    Now that would be worth listening to

    Well certainly no-one could say that all politicians are the same!
    They would, you know. I met people in June who assured me that Corbyn and May were exactly the same.
    Wow! They're only the same in that they've dedicated their careers to making their country a better place, I'd say they disagree vehemently on almost everything else - except maybe increasing sentences for animal killers and torturers. Well done for that campaign by the way :)
    Thanks, Sandpit! One feature of being in Parliament is to find that people actually agree on much more than they admit in public - as you say, there's a generally similar starting point (make the country/world better) and that gives a common basis which is missing if you meet people who really don't give a toss about that and just want to get rich.

    One reason I like Corbyn is that he is scrupulous about acknowledging that in private, in the same way that he doesn't do personal abuse in public, even when it might frankly be justified - there are Tories here who are more abusive about May and Boris than he is. There are MPs who will tell you that the Tories are liars, scum, etc. - Corbyn merely says that they're mistaken on X, but partly right on Y. Although that's partly just a personality trait, it's important in a national leader, since accepting that other people may have a legitimate view is pretty fundamental to democracy. To be fair I think May would be similar on that, though I've never spoken to her.
    Thanks for that insight Nick. It is probably true that we have two of the more polite, well behaved political leaders in my memory. They (Theresa and Jeremy) personally do not seem to deal the snideness, name calling, bullying, nastiness, narcissism, lying, scheming and conniving that we have come to expect from our political leaders.

    Boris Johnson is a complete and utter unscrupulous shit who ticks all the above boxes.

  • RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.

    Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
    Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.

    Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.

    We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.

    We are not nothing.

    Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.

    I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire

    We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
    The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.

    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.
    My entire GCSE in History was entirely about the industrial revolution. At the time I was pretty pissed off as I wanted to learn all about Kings and battles.
    Shame. My GCSE in history touched on WW2, China and India, IIRC.
  • Mr. Blue, can't risk teaching something positive about British history ;)

    Mr. Sandpit, no idea, I've only just logged on.

    Suspect Vettel would've had pole, but for reliability woe.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.

    My entire GCSE in History was entirely about the industrial revolution. At the time I was pretty pissed off as I wanted to learn all about Kings and battles.

    @above

    We probably did the same course. I loved studying the Industrial Revolution....it made me really proud of Manchester and my northern heritage.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited September 2017
    kle4 said:

    The UK's biggest issue is that productivity has been static for the last decade.

    A country's prosperity is only increased by a higher GDP per head and this is achieved by higher productivity.

    The Conservative's vision should be to raise productivity.

    In particular this applies to the service sector and public sector which are the bulk of activity.

    It seems like everyone has said this for as long as I can recall - how do we improve productivity?

    Apply technology. For example look at what Uber has done for productivity in transport

    Utilise robots.

    Re-design processes.

    Empower work teams to organise themselves.

    Continuous improvement (cf the Japanese and cars)

    Eliminate unnecessary activity.

    Economies of scale.

    More privatisation of the NHS (the UK's biggest employer).

    Use algorithms for medical diagnosis and to teach older children.
  • HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    Lucky you. We had these guys.

    https://twitter.com/linzlewis38/status/513024596279574528
  • HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
    Iraq's government has decided not to recognise the Kurdistan Referendum from earlier in the week:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan_independence_referendum,_2017
  • The Coalition cut the Defence budget by 8%. It was also the first government in the history of the Deterrent to pay for renewal from the MoD budget rather than as a separate item. We lost in Helmand and Basra. The two Aircraft Carriers look nice but are ruinously expensive. So a triple whammy of losing small wars, prioritising Boys Toys and Austerity mean our military punch simply isn't what it once was. Personally I think that's broadly a good thing.

    Post 9/11 our uncritical support for The Long War has been Militarily disasterous. We have however put extra cash into stuff that's actually useful like DFID and our Intelligence services. Any country our size should be perfectly satisfied with meeting the 2% NATO target plus the 0.7% GNI aid target. Anything much more than that looks like post imperial delusion to me.

    In the medium to long term post Brexit I think we'd be better advised to concentrate on The Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. Anyone of those ( or God forbid two or all three ) could flare up or we might need to just manage an orderly transition as the demographics inexorably grind on.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.

    Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
    Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.

    Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.

    We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.

    We are not nothing.

    Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.

    I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire

    We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
    The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.

    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.
    It certainly was taught in the NW.Every school trip was to some kind of industrial museum. My kids in the NE learn a lot about the Romans for similar reasons. School trips to forts and the Wall.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    jonny83 said:

    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.

    Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.

    And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.


    May's not going to sack him for the following reasons;
    -her position is too weak and she'd likely lose a leadership contest
    -it is exactly what Boris wants to trigger a contest...he wants to force May's hand
    -she's not that decisive anyhow even if she was in a more powerful position



    If May knows she is pretty much finished or comes to that viewpoint then what does she have to lose?

    If I was her I would go down fighting.
    Tenacity is a great strength though. May is the longest serving Home Secretary...to do that shows mettle. The longer she holds on now the more likely something turns up to give her a boost.
  • HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    Lucky you. We had these guys.

    https://twitter.com/linzlewis38/status/513024596279574528
    George Square - the most impressive part of Glasgow.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited September 2017


    Shame. My GCSE in history touched on WW2, China and India, IIRC.

    I can't remember what was in my O level history but my A level was brilliant. The underlying idea was to teach how to study history so they had two distinct subjects taught by two different teachers.

    The first was Anglo-Saxon history which of course has very limited written source material and so relies to a large extent on non documentary sources such as archaeology. This taught us how to operate in a low source environment.

    The other was what was known as 'Mid Victorian Prosperity' and covered the period from the 1820s to the 1880s. Absolutely masses of documentary evidence, laws, speeches, books, papers and novels. It taught us how to grade and analyse written source material when so much of it exists.

    Whether it was the course or the teachers, both not only laid a fantastic groundwork for studying history but also managed to instil a fascination in both periods.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth among Tories and knuckle draggers
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.

    I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
    Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.

    It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
    Almost 80% of Tory voters now back Leave, they cannot capitulate on that without hitting their core vote.

    I agree though if Corbyn did win a dose of Corbyn and McDonnell socialism and strikes would see a quicker Tory revival in opposition than Lazarus
    Not all those 80% will be leavers primarily though. A lot of them will be following the party lead and would switch back to remain if the party changed its policy.
  • HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
    To be fair - and I disagree entirely with Spain banning the referendum and getting heavy - Spain does have the unfortunate distinction of having had a brutal civil war just about within living memory. And one in which Catalonia was clearly associated with one side. Whilst I may not agree with them I can see why the Spaniards might be opposed to anything that would risk a return to that.

    Unfortunately I think that by their actions the Spanish Government are making that more likely rather than less.

  • Shame. My GCSE in history touched on WW2, China and India, IIRC.

    I can't remember what was in my O level history but my A level was brilliant. The underlying idea was to teach how to study history so they had two distinct subjects taught by two different teachers.

    The first was Anglo-Saxon history which of course has very limited written source material and so relies to a large extent on non documentary sources such as archaeology. This taught us how to operate in a low source environment.

    The other was what was known as 'Mid Victorian Prosperity' and covered the period from the 1820s to the 1880s. Absolutely masses of documentary evidence, laws, speeches, books, papers and novels. It taught us how to grade and analyse written source material when so much of it exists.

    Whether it was the course or the teachers, both not only laid a fantastic groundwork for studying history but also managed to instil a fascination in both periods.
    I loved History as a subject. It was my joint favourite at school, alongside Chemistry. Unfortunately, I decided to concentrate on sciences for A-level, and my subsequent career...

    Still, I regard myself as an amateur railway historian at least :)
  • tyson said:


    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.

    My entire GCSE in History was entirely about the industrial revolution. At the time I was pretty pissed off as I wanted to learn all about Kings and battles.

    @above

    We probably did the same course. I loved studying the Industrial Revolution....it made me really proud of Manchester and my northern heritage.


    I was in Birmingham, so probably the same logic applied. We were surrounded by industrial revolution stuff and canals.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,274
    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.

    Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.

    And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.


    May's not going to sack him for the following reasons;
    -her position is too weak and she'd likely lose a leadership contest
    -it is exactly what Boris wants to trigger a contest...he wants to force May's hand
    -she's not that decisive anyhow even if she was in a more powerful position



    If May knows she is pretty much finished or comes to that viewpoint then what does she have to lose?

    If I was her I would go down fighting.
    Tenacity is a great strength though. May is the longest serving Home Secretary...to do that shows mettle. The longer she holds on now the more likely something turns up to give her a boost.
    Why doesn't he just resign and challenge her rather than trying to provoke her to sack him?
  • The Coalition cut the Defence budget by 8%. It was also the first government in the history of the Deterrent to pay for renewal from the MoD budget rather than as a separate item. We lost in Helmand and Basra. The two Aircraft Carriers look nice but are ruinously expensive. So a triple whammy of losing small wars, prioritising Boys Toys and Austerity mean our military punch simply isn't what it once was. Personally I think that's broadly a good thing.

    Post 9/11 our uncritical support for The Long War has been Militarily disasterous. We have however put extra cash into stuff that's actually useful like DFID and our Intelligence services. Any country our size should be perfectly satisfied with meeting the 2% NATO target plus the 0.7% GNI aid target. Anything much more than that looks like post imperial delusion to me.

    In the medium to long term post Brexit I think we'd be better advised to concentrate on The Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. Anyone of those ( or God forbid two or all three ) could flare up or we might need to just manage an orderly transition as the demographics inexorably grind on.

    I broadly agree. Though I would say we should recognise that the main threat to our security outside of terrorism comes from threats to our sea lanes. We should be prioritising both the Navy and naval airpower over the army in the medium to long term.

    This has the added benefit of also serving a useful peacetime purpose as was shown in various natural disasters over the last couple of decades.
  • @Another_Richard It's nearly 30 years since I deliberately skipped GCSE History as the syllabus was nothing else but the Industrial Revolution. Fortunately our Religious Studies GCSE was dominated by historical topics offering a much broader canvas. A Level History was brilliant however as it taught the discipline of History as opposed to anyone period/theme as a hobby horse.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    kle4 said:

    It's not going to end well. Two implacable nationalisms are colliding and feeding off each other. The Spanish government has managed to turn many Catalans who largely accepted a dual identity into firebrand separatists. That's quite an achievement. Meanwhile, I am in Valencia this weekend and Spanish flags hang from balconies across the city. You didn't see that anywhere in Spain even a year ago - let alone Valencia, which is culturally and linguistically very close to Catalonia.

    even if the catalans vote fior independence it's hard to see what theyt can do about it

    they have no legal basis for the vote, no international support and no means of enforcing it

    The ones who bother to participate will overwhelmingly vote for independence. It will be declared. And nothing much will happen, until the Spanish government invokes constitutional powers to run things from Madrid. Then it will really kick off. Either Catalonia gets what the Basques have or, in the end, Catalonia becomrs independent. But it's going to take a while. In the meantime, Spain will not be a happy place. This is a bigger story than Brexit outside the UK.

    It's pretty incredible. I still find it hard to believe they will declare if turnout is low, but maybe they will justify it on turnout couldn't be higher due to Spanish interference. Given trying to hold the item has seen figures arrested presumably any local mps who participate in a declaration will be arrested and as you say there will be direct rule, since it's not as though the entire place is so in favour a declaration woukd or even could lead to immediate changes. Madrid has bigger problems than most right now. At leadt they don't have any elections coming up!
    If this poll is right, Sí could be close to getting more than 50% of the total electorate which I guess would be the ideal result for the Yessers. Then the argy bargy will continue thus.

    Barcelona: More than 50% of Catalonians want indy

    Madrid: Ah, but this was nothing like a properly conducted referendum.

    Barcelona: Give us a properly conducted referendum then.

    Madrid: No bloody fear, you might win it.

    & so on into eternity.

    https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/914036328903446528
    Looks like the Catalans have way more backbone than spineless Scots. Hopefully a resounding yes and two fingers to Madrid.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,261

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.

    I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
    Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.

    It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
    Almost 80% of Tory voters now back Leave, they cannot capitulate on that without hitting their core vote.

    I agree though if Corbyn did win a dose of Corbyn and McDonnell socialism and strikes would see a quicker Tory revival in opposition than Lazarus
    Not all those 80% will be leavers primarily though. A lot of them will be following the party lead and would switch back to remain if the party changed its policy.
    I voted Remain and will back leave now largely because of respecting the result and know there is no going back,it has to happen.

    If the position changed to Remain and there was a strong case for it then I could easily get back behind it. I think there would need to be another referendum and a Remain result though for many to back it.

  • Shame. My GCSE in history touched on WW2, China and India, IIRC.

    I can't remember what was in my O level history but my A level was brilliant. The underlying idea was to teach how to study history so they had two distinct subjects taught by two different teachers.

    The first was Anglo-Saxon history which of course has very limited written source material and so relies to a large extent on non documentary sources such as archaeology. This taught us how to operate in a low source environment.

    The other was what was known as 'Mid Victorian Prosperity' and covered the period from the 1820s to the 1880s. Absolutely masses of documentary evidence, laws, speeches, books, papers and novels. It taught us how to grade and analyse written source material when so much of it exists.

    Whether it was the course or the teachers, both not only laid a fantastic groundwork for studying history but also managed to instil a fascination in both periods.
    I loved History as a subject. It was my joint favourite at school, alongside Chemistry. Unfortunately, I decided to concentrate on sciences for A-level, and my subsequent career...

    Still, I regard myself as an amateur railway historian at least :)
    I made a similar move. I actually went to university to get a science degree in archaeology - only offered at two places in the country at the time. But after the first year I realised there was no money in the career I was aiming for (this was pre Maggie and her PPG16 revolution which transformed archaeology) and so I switched to Geology.

    Mind you in the long term that was a perfect decision. I am a consultant geologist by trade but at the same time have now been able to set up an archaeology unit as well so I get the best of both worlds.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.

    I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
    Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.

    It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
    If Davidson is your great white hope then the Tories are really in trouble! She is just Boris in trousers , a great self aggrandising windbag.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    jonny83 said:

    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.

    Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.

    And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.


    May's not going to sack him for the following reasons;
    -her position is too weak and she'd likely lose a leadership contest
    -it is exactly what Boris wants to trigger a contest...he wants to force May's hand
    -she's not that decisive anyhow even if she was in a more powerful position



    If May knows she is pretty much finished or comes to that viewpoint then what does she have to lose?

    If I was her I would go down fighting.
    She is too crap to take the initiative, will hang on like grim death as long as she can, mediocre to the bitter end.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited September 2017

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Just a thought. Next GE debate

    Jacob Rees Mogg v Jeremy Corbyn v Vince Cable v Henry Bolton v Nicola Sturgeon

    Now that would be worth listening to

    Well certainly no-one could say that all politicians are the same!
    They would, you know. I met people in June who assured me that Corbyn and May were exactly the same.
    Wow! They're only the same in that they've dedicated their careers to making their country a better place, I'd say they disagree vehemently on almost everything else - except maybe increasing sentences for animal killers and torturers. Well done for that campaign by the way :)
    Thanks, Sandpit! One feature of being in Parliament is to find that people actually agree on much more than they admit in public - as you say, there's a generally similar starting point (make the country/world better) and that gives a common basis which is missing if you meet people who really don't give a toss about that and just want to get rich.

    One reason I like Corbyn is that he is scrupulous about acknowledging that in private, in the same way that he doesn't do personal abuse in public, even when it might frankly be justified - there are Tories here who are more abusive about May and Boris than he is. There are MPs who will tell you that the Tories are liars, scum, etc. - Corbyn merely says that they're mistaken on X, but partly right on Y. Although that's partly just a personality trait, it's important in a national leader, since accepting that other people may have a legitimate view is pretty fundamental to democracy. To be fair I think May would be similar on that, though I've never spoken to her.
    I agree with you that politics and politicians project a better image to the public when they're not being tribal and unreasonably partisan - people don't want to hear that the other side are evil people who who are unpleasant to certain groups because they enjoy it. That's just not the case, they happen to think that different policies will help without being malicious about it.

    Mr Corbyn and Mrs May both fit into the polite group though, and leave the dirty politics to others. As you say it's important to understand and be able to reason with those holding a different view, rather than dismissing their argument out of hand or attacking them personally. A lot of politicians have forgotten what they learned in the sixth form debating society.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2017

    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.

    Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.

    And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.


    May's not going to sack him for the following reasons;
    -her position is too weak and she'd likely lose a leadership contest
    -it is exactly what Boris wants to trigger a contest...he wants to force May's hand
    -she's not that decisive anyhow even if she was in a more powerful position



    If May knows she is pretty much finished or comes to that viewpoint then what does she have to lose?

    If I was her I would go down fighting.
    Tenacity is a great strength though. May is the longest serving Home Secretary...to do that shows mettle. The longer she holds on now the more likely something turns up to give her a boost.
    Why doesn't he just resign and challenge her rather than trying to provoke her to sack him?
    It's easier to stir than to risk all.
    It's a kind of slowly slowly manoeuvre; getting the headbangers on side first. I expect the next step for Boris is to concentrate on scoring a few goals against Labour. He needs to present himself as a viable winner against May the demonstrable loser.
  • You're not spoling us, Mr Ambassador.

    https://twitter.com/KarnaMikko/status/913658956492484610
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    Lucky you. We had these guys.

    https://twitter.com/linzlewis38/status/513024596279574528
    George Square - the most impressive part of Glasgow.
    To be fair it has many impressive parts
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    Looks like the Spanish have managed to get good support together for their cause. But what exactly are they doing if the Madrid government are determined that the referendum doesn't go ahead? The videos of people cheering the Guardia Civil as they leave their stations to head for Catalonia just seem weird. An overly heavy-handed approach is only likely to embolden the Catalan separatists.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Well, looks like there are ways to reduce wasteful defence spending sometimes.

    Billion dollar boats will soon be using video game handsets in the control room.

    The US Navy is going to start using Xbox controllers to work some of the equipment on their newest submarines.

    The people who make the submarines, a company called Lockheed Martin, built a controller for it that cost almost $40,000 (£30,000), but the sailors on the boat weren't very impressed
    .

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/41346541
  • Mr. kle4, the US should be careful. They might buy subs only to discover that the sonar is DLC.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Remain in the EU modern confederacy.

    SCUMBAG MILLIONAIRERich builder keeps 120 migrants in illegal back garden ‘shanty town’

    Back garden sheds housing Eastern Europeans compared to third world slum as court orders it to be torn down

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4580547/rich-builder-keeps-120-migrants-in-illegal-back-garden-shanty-town/
  • Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited September 2017
    kle4 said:

    Well, looks like there are ways to reduce wasteful defence spending sometimes.

    Billion dollar boats will soon be using video game handsets in the control room.

    The US Navy is going to start using Xbox controllers to work some of the equipment on their newest submarines.

    The people who make the submarines, a company called Lockheed Martin, built a controller for it that cost almost $40,000 (£30,000), but the sailors on the boat weren't very impressed
    .

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/41346541

    Defence procurement have been finding new and expensive ways to reinvent the wheel for decades now.

    Microsoft and Sony would have spent millions on designing their game controllers, what makes Lockheed think that they can do a better job with what’s bacically a low-volume prototype copy?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Mr. kle4, the US should be careful. They might buy subs only to discover that the sonar is DLC.

    I'd be more concerned about what if the operators are Sony fans - sure, they could get used to the Xbox controllers, but then it might mess up their gaming skills, and that'll affect morale.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    George 'I want to see her chopped up in bags in my freezer' Osborne? I think that option is a non-starter.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    On topic, we need a duumvirate, with a second PM in charge of everything which is not Brexit, on the grounds that if Mrs May could not organise a piss-up in a brewery it is unreasonable to expect her to organise two simultaneous piss-ups in two widely separated breweries. The Romans had two consuls at any one time, but similar arrangements are far to seek these days. Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    It is very likely indeed that what will scupper the tories is not brexit per se, it is other stuff that happens because their eye is exclusively on the brexit ball. Dame Louise Casey's warning yesterdayof a potential Universal Credit administrative fiasco is particularly chilling.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    The UK has not had global influence since Indian independence in 1948 and Suez in 1957.

    Brexit was about regaining sovereignty and reducing immigration not being a superpower
    Sorry, but this totally and utterly wrong. For a start, both of your dates are incorrect, but more importantly, influence is a question of degree. It is not a question of having 100% or nothing.

    Are we less influential than in 1945? Undoubtedly. Were we less influential in 1945 than in 1918? Yes.

    We are still one of a handful of nuclear powers, and one of the even smaller club that can project military force thousands of miles from our territory. We educate more global leaders than any other nation, including the US.

    We are not nothing.

    Indian independence should have been 1947 my mistake although Suez did not end until 1957 though it began in 1956.

    I never said we were nothing but apart from the Falklands we have not fought any wars since that time without being alongside the US in some shape or form and economically post Empire we will never be a country which dominates global trade and the economy in a way we were with the Empire

    We are an upper middle rank power the only real superpowers today are the USA and China, with Russia and India not far behind
    The thing that catapulted us from being Europe's leading power to being of global significance was the Industrial Revolution, not the Empire. At one point we were making nearly half the world's manufactured goods, and made two-thirds of the world's ships until the 1960s. Until the rise of oil, we were also a net exporter of energy.

    It really is amazing how little the industrial revolution is promoted and taught in this country.

    Its almost regarded as being a negative change from the cheery yeomen of merry olde englande to slaving away in dark satanic mills. See Tolkien and his depiction of the Shire for example.
    My entire GCSE in History was entirely about the industrial revolution. At the time I was pretty pissed off as I wanted to learn all about Kings and battles.
    I got the kings and battles.

    Romans, Vikings, Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Jacobites, Zulus, Russia 1890-1930, WW1, Germany 1919-1939, WW2
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    On a tangent, I've never understood why this is the case - every tv show I've ever seen has displayed the vice-presidency as a useless, soul destroying position used at best as a launching pad for a run at the presidency, and usually showing them to have zero working relationship with the president, just being forced to defend them and take shit jobs. If that is at all accurate it just seems a waste of a position, it feels like there should be a lot of worth for a president to have a trusted ally providing advice and assistance across a variety of issues.
  • Mr. Z, a diarchy is a less ugly term, as the Spartans had.
  • Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    She would be facing challenge within days and would lose.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, we need a duumvirate, with a second PM in charge of everything which is not Brexit, on the grounds that if Mrs May could not organise a piss-up in a brewery it is unreasonable to expect her to organise two simultaneous piss-ups in two widely separated breweries. The Romans had two consuls at any one time, but similar arrangements are far to seek these days. Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    It is very likely indeed that what will scupper the tories is not brexit per se, it is other stuff that happens because their eye is exclusively on the brexit ball. Dame Louise Casey's warning yesterdayof a potential Universal Credit administrative fiasco is particularly chilling.

    Yes on the potential of UC to wreck the government. this is a slow-motion disaster.
  • kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    On a tangent, I've never understood why this is the case - every tv show I've ever seen has displayed the vice-presidency as a useless, soul destroying position used at best as a launching pad for a run at the presidency, and usually showing them to have zero working relationship with the president, just being forced to defend them and take shit jobs. If that is at all accurate it just seems a waste of a position, it feels like there should be a lot of worth for a president to have a trusted ally providing advice and assistance across a variety of issues.
    The greatest President of the 20th century started as a VP.
  • malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    Lucky you. We had these guys.

    https://twitter.com/linzlewis38/status/513024596279574528
    George Square - the most impressive part of Glasgow.
    To be fair it has many impressive parts
    I did the Subway earlier this month - finally :)
  • kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    On a tangent, I've never understood why this is the case - every tv show I've ever seen has displayed the vice-presidency as a useless, soul destroying position used at best as a launching pad for a run at the presidency, and usually showing them to have zero working relationship with the president, just being forced to defend them and take shit jobs. If that is at all accurate it just seems a waste of a position, it feels like there should be a lot of worth for a president to have a trusted ally providing advice and assistance across a variety of issues.
    The greatest President of the 20th century started as a VP.
    :+1:
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Mr. Z, a diarchy is a less ugly term, as the Spartans had.

    I am ashamed to say that duumvirate is not just ugly, it is a solecism: it should be the even uglier duorumvirate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, we need a duumvirate, with a second PM in charge of everything which is not Brexit, on the grounds that if Mrs May could not organise a piss-up in a brewery it is unreasonable to expect her to organise two simultaneous piss-ups in two widely separated breweries. The Romans had two consuls at any one time, but similar arrangements are far to seek these days. Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    It is very likely indeed that what will scupper the tories is not brexit per se, it is other stuff that happens because their eye is exclusively on the brexit ball. Dame Louise Casey's warning yesterdayof a potential Universal Credit administrative fiasco is particularly chilling.

    As I said yesterday UC will certainly not wreck the Tories indeed once the teething problems are sorted out it will get more people into work (and is already beginning to do so) and start to move them away from being benefit dependent Labour voters
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2017

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    If she did that Boris would oust her in 5 minutes and sack both of them

    Given Osborne is now loathed by both Labour and most Tory voters the only person who would love it would be TSE
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    On a tangent, I've never understood why this is the case - every tv show I've ever seen has displayed the vice-presidency as a useless, soul destroying position used at best as a launching pad for a run at the presidency, and usually showing them to have zero working relationship with the president, just being forced to defend them and take shit jobs. If that is at all accurate it just seems a waste of a position, it feels like there should be a lot of worth for a president to have a trusted ally providing advice and assistance across a variety of issues.
    Over here I imagine a deputy PM with real power would be engaged in a permanent turf war with HO, FO and Exchequer and have the PM him/herself casting nervous glances over their shoulder as well.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited September 2017
    Mr. Z, it's also technically wrong, I think, because the 'vir', I believe, refers to a man.

    Edited extra bit: on second thoughts, I think that's fine (like 'man overboard'). But it is an ugly term.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, we need a duumvirate, with a second PM in charge of everything which is not Brexit, on the grounds that if Mrs May could not organise a piss-up in a brewery it is unreasonable to expect her to organise two simultaneous piss-ups in two widely separated breweries. The Romans had two consuls at any one time, but similar arrangements are far to seek these days. Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    It is very likely indeed that what will scupper the tories is not brexit per se, it is other stuff that happens because their eye is exclusively on the brexit ball. Dame Louise Casey's warning yesterdayof a potential Universal Credit administrative fiasco is particularly chilling.

    As I said yesterday UC will certainly not wreck the Tories indeed once the teething problems are sorted out it will get more people into work (and is already beginning to do so) and start to move them away from being benefit dependent Labour voters
    You say teething problems, Dame Louise Casey is talking about extinction-level administrative failings.

    Whom to believe?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    On a tangent, I've never understood why this is the case - every tv show I've ever seen has displayed the vice-presidency as a useless, soul destroying position used at best as a launching pad for a run at the presidency, and usually showing them to have zero working relationship with the president, just being forced to defend them and take shit jobs. If that is at all accurate it just seems a waste of a position, it feels like there should be a lot of worth for a president to have a trusted ally providing advice and assistance across a variety of issues.
    Over here I imagine a deputy PM with real power would be engaged in a permanent turf war with HO, FO and Exchequer and have the PM him/herself casting nervous glances over their shoulder as well.
    Well sure, but a PM is merely first among equals, and could be replaced at any time if the circumstances were right, whereas a Vice-President has far less opportunity. Best for both to be as effective as possible, working together.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    edited September 2017

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    She would be facing challenge within days and would lose.
    Not at all. George's presence would be immensely therapeutic, reminding the Tories of the bygone age when they won everything. Boris, in contrast, is the face of Brexit, and the only person reaping dividends from that is Jeremy Corbyn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
    To be fair - and I disagree entirely with Spain banning the referendum and getting heavy - Spain does have the unfortunate distinction of having had a brutal civil war just about within living memory. And one in which Catalonia was clearly associated with one side. Whilst I may not agree with them I can see why the Spaniards might be opposed to anything that would risk a return to that.

    Unfortunately I think that by their actions the Spanish Government are making that more likely rather than less.
    Sadly so
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited September 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    On a tangent, I've never understood why this is the case - every tv show I've ever seen has displayed the vice-presidency as a useless, soul destroying position used at best as a launching pad for a run at the presidency, and usually showing them to have zero working relationship with the president, just being forced to defend them and take shit jobs. If that is at all accurate it just seems a waste of a position, it feels like there should be a lot of worth for a president to have a trusted ally providing advice and assistance across a variety of issues.
    Over here I imagine a deputy PM with real power would be engaged in a permanent turf war with HO, FO and Exchequer and have the PM him/herself casting nervous glances over their shoulder as well.
    Wasn’t that Nick Clegg’s biggest regret of the coalition years? That he should have taken an important ministry for himself, rather than the honorific but impotent DPM role.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    On another tangent I've just seen Blade Runner for the first time - it's not all it's cracked up to be, I think it has been oversold to me over the years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2017

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well to be fair everyone holds Theresa in contempt since she blew the election but nobody wishes to be rude and unpleasant to her... Well except for Osborne but he's a nasty piece of work.

    I think everyone is still just hoping Teresa will realize the games up and do the honorable thing...
    Theresa May isn't a problem to which the answer is Boris Johnson. They need a leader to recalibrate, who wasn't involved in the Brexit wars - Ruth Davidson would tick that box. That leader would, in the Vietnam phrase, declare victory and bring the boys home. They would need to convince the party that Brexit will be crap, but it's a done deal and they need to make the best of a bad job. Hopefully move onto areas more profitable to them.

    It's a tricky brief and one where the party may need to to be in opposition to play out. Which means we get Corbyn.
    Almost 80% of Tory voters now back Leave, they cannot capitulate on that without hitting their core vote.

    I agree though if Corbyn did win a dose of Corbyn and McDonnell socialism and strikes would see a quicker Tory revival in opposition than Lazarus
    Not all those 80% will be leavers primarily though. A lot of them will be following the party lead and would switch back to remain if the party changed its policy.
    Up to 50% at least would not and UKIP would see a quicker revival than Lazarus and Henry Bolton would get an early Christmas present, indeed as Farage's candidate he may well pave the way for the return of Nigel
  • kle4 said:

    On another tangent I've just seen Blade Runner for the first time - it's not all it's cracked up to be, I think it has been oversold to me over the years.

    You have no soul.
  • Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    She would be facing challenge within days and would lose.
    Not at all. George's presence would be immensely therapeutic, reminding the Tories of the bygone age when they won everything. Boris, in contrast, is the face of Brexit, and the only person reaping dividends from that is Jeremy Corbyn.
    LOL. You get more delusional by the day.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Sandpit said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    On a tangent, I've never understood why this is the case - every tv show I've ever seen has displayed the vice-presidency as a useless, soul destroying position used at best as a launching pad for a run at the presidency, and usually showing them to have zero working relationship with the president, just being forced to defend them and take shit jobs. If that is at all accurate it just seems a waste of a position, it feels like there should be a lot of worth for a president to have a trusted ally providing advice and assistance across a variety of issues.
    Over here I imagine a deputy PM with real power would be engaged in a permanent turf war with HO, FO and Exchequer and have the PM him/herself casting nervous glances over their shoulder as well.
    Wasn’t that Nick Clegg’s biggest regret of the coalition years? That he should have taken an important ministry for himself, rather than the honorific but impotent DPM role.
    Probably should have pushed for a Great Office of State, but they had done worse than predicted and the Tories may have stuck firm on that, particularly given the Foreign Office was the most likely I'd have thought, and the Tory divisions would make a LD foreign secretary less than desirable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
    Iraq's government has decided not to recognise the Kurdistan Referendum from earlier in the week:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan_independence_referendum,_2017
    Iraq may face similar problems to Spain, Turkey would be affected too
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited September 2017

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    Err, nope. Why would she replace one backstabber with an even bigger one? I’d say say that the behaviour of a certain someone since he left No.11 proves not only that the PM was right to sack him, but that the vast majority of the PCP agrees with her on this.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
    Iraq's government has decided not to recognise the Kurdistan Referendum from earlier in the week:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan_independence_referendum,_2017
    Iraq may face similar problems to Spain, Turkey would be affected too
    Given that the Kurds are probably the most effective fighting force in the region the Iraqis may not have much choice in the matter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2017

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    She would be facing challenge within days and would lose.
    Not at all. George's presence would be immensely therapeutic, reminding the Tories of the bygone age when they won everything. Boris, in contrast, is the face of Brexit, and the only person reaping dividends from that is Jeremy Corbyn.
    Osborne ran the 2010 Tory general election campaign in which they failed to win a majority and lost an EU referendum, Crosby won the 2015 campaign.

    Boris won 2 London Mayoral elections and an EU referendum

    The only people who like Osborne are centrist Europhiles like you, Leave voters hate him now almost as much as Corbynistas hate him
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
    Iraq's government has decided not to recognise the Kurdistan Referendum from earlier in the week:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan_independence_referendum,_2017
    Iraq may face similar problems to Spain, Turkey would be affected too
    Given that the Kurds are probably the most effective fighting force in the region the Iraqis may not have much choice in the matter.
    Probably why they have been less punchy in their rhetoric and demands than the Catalans even - they know they have a lot more strength to fall back on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, we need a duumvirate, with a second PM in charge of everything which is not Brexit, on the grounds that if Mrs May could not organise a piss-up in a brewery it is unreasonable to expect her to organise two simultaneous piss-ups in two widely separated breweries. The Romans had two consuls at any one time, but similar arrangements are far to seek these days. Deputy PMs are no more use than vice presidents.

    It is very likely indeed that what will scupper the tories is not brexit per se, it is other stuff that happens because their eye is exclusively on the brexit ball. Dame Louise Casey's warning yesterdayof a potential Universal Credit administrative fiasco is particularly chilling.

    As I said yesterday UC will certainly not wreck the Tories indeed once the teething problems are sorted out it will get more people into work (and is already beginning to do so) and start to move them away from being benefit dependent Labour voters
    You say teething problems, Dame Louise Casey is talking about extinction-level administrative failings.

    Whom to believe?
    When has the civil service ever been a great fan of real reform?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    This just shows how different Spain is. Here, there was very broad support for the idea that Scotland could hold a referendum if they wished. In Spain, 60% think they should not have that right, and that they should be stopped.
    Indeed at least we avoided the tensions that seem to now be coming to the boil in Spain and Catalonia.

    Canada did the same as us with Quebec allowing 2 independence referendums in 1980 and then 15 years later in 1995. It will be interesting to see if Spain's outright ban on even 1 independence referendum works or not
    Iraq's government has decided not to recognise the Kurdistan Referendum from earlier in the week:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan_independence_referendum,_2017
    Iraq may face similar problems to Spain, Turkey would be affected too
    Given that the Kurds are probably the most effective fighting force in the region the Iraqis may not have much choice in the matter.
    Given the quality of the Iraqi army fighting ISIS in comparison to Kurdish fighters probably true
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited September 2017

    kle4 said:

    On another tangent I've just seen Blade Runner for the first time - it's not all it's cracked up to be, I think it has been oversold to me over the years.

    You have no soul.
    Quite possibly true - I've seen, played or read many a story with similar themes, perhaps ones which have been inspired by the movie even, and I found it to be disjointed and well acted but underwhelming.
    Sandpit said:

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    Err, nope. Why would she replace one backstabber with an even bigger one? I’d say say that the behaviour of a certain someone since he left No.11 proves not only that the PM was right to sack him, but that the vast majority of the PCP agrees with her on this.
    His behaviour has probably been influenced by the way she sacked him and may not have happened if she had taken a different tack, but certainly it seems unlikely either could come together after such.

    Still, Octavian and Mark Anthony were able to work together after the Battle of Mutina, so who knows.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    Lucky you. We had these guys.

    https://twitter.com/linzlewis38/status/513024596279574528
    George Square - the most impressive part of Glasgow.
    To be fair it has many impressive parts
    I did the Subway earlier this month - finally :)
    The subway is excellent , I was on it recently going up to Kelvingrove Museum and then onto the clipper at the transport museum , with my grandson.
  • Mr. HYUFD et al, but it seems Turkey and probably Iran are also against the formation of a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq, and the West hasn't exactly been lining up to stand behind the Kurds.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    tyson said:



    Thanks for that insight Nick. It is probably true that we have two of the more polite, well behaved political leaders in my memory. They (Theresa and Jeremy) personally do not seem to deal the snideness, name calling, bullying, nastiness, narcissism, lying, scheming and conniving that we have come to expect from our political leaders.

    Boris Johnson is a complete and utter unscrupulous shit who ticks all the above boxes.

    A problem in being civilised is that you really do miss opportunities to put the boot in. There was a PMQ a year or two back where a minister had done something daft which hit all the headlines the day before PMQs. Corbyn ignored it, and privately said that his job was to expose inadequacies in Government policy, not talk about individual Ministers; "everyone makes mistakes but a sustained bad policy is what people should worry about". The comment was universally that he'd missed an open goal, and it fed the then narrative that he was useless.

    To which, as with policy issues, his answer was that he wouldn't pretend to be something different from what he was, and people might come to like it or might decide to get rid of him: it was a matter for them, and he wouldn't grumble either way. Even moderately idealistic people like me find this single-minded approach hard to accept, but it has an undoubted appeal.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    Lucky you. We had these guys.

    https://twitter.com/linzlewis38/status/513024596279574528
    George Square - the most impressive part of Glasgow.
    To be fair it has many impressive parts
    I did the Subway earlier this month - finally :)
    Meatballs?
  • F1: I may deliberately delay the pre-race tosh to see if the #Oddsonthat market goes up on Betfair. That was the one that had the 67 bet that very nearly came off in Singapore (if only Palmer had had the reliability failure rather than Hulkenberg...).
  • Sandpit said:

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    Err, nope. Why would she replace one backstabber with an even bigger one? I’d say say that the behaviour of a certain someone since he left No.11 proves not only that the PM was right to sack him, but that the vast majority of the PCP agrees with her on this.
    Backstabber? After Theresa sacked and humiliated him, George left politics to become the editor of a regional newspaper that occasionally publishes articles critical of the government. Why is that a treasonable offence?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    On Topic.

    Honest assessment from David.

    Tories badly need a new direction and purpose.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    tyson said:

    jonny83 said:

    I think she has to sack him, even if probably doing so speeds up her own departure. The guy once again and it's all that he does is puts his own ambition before the party and the country. He's already played a huge part in getting rid of the best Conservative leader and Prime Minister they had for a long time, May is not in the same league as Cameron but it proves once again Boris is a destructive force.

    Sack him and see if a leadership challenge comes or not. With all that's going on with Brexit and May does have some supporters as well as a stop Boris element in the party you could see him perhaps him being unsuccessful once again with his ambitions.

    And maybe just maybe it finishes him off for good and kills off any notion of him realistically becoming leader. One can dream, I can't stand him and would never vote for him.


    May's not going to sack him for the following reasons;
    -her position is too weak and she'd likely lose a leadership contest
    -it is exactly what Boris wants to trigger a contest...he wants to force May's hand
    -she's not that decisive anyhow even if she was in a more powerful position



    If May knows she is pretty much finished or comes to that viewpoint then what does she have to lose?

    If I was her I would go down fighting.
    Tenacity is a great strength though. May is the longest serving Home Secretary...to do that shows mettle. The longer she holds on now the more likely something turns up to give her a boost.
    Why doesn't he just resign and challenge her rather than trying to provoke her to sack him?
    You know the answer to that Ben....

    If she sacks him he can claim loyalty and then courageously challenge her based on his principled approach to Brexit.

    Boris Johnson is a narcissistic, loathsome, guttersnipe who would happily boil his children alive if it furthers his career...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Mr. HYUFD et al, but it seems Turkey and probably Iran are also against the formation of a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq, and the West hasn't exactly been lining up to stand behind the Kurds.

    Will they fight the Kurds to stop its creation though? More questionable
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD et al, but it seems Turkey and probably Iran are also against the formation of a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq, and the West hasn't exactly been lining up to stand behind the Kurds.

    Will they fight the Kurds to stop its creation though? More questionable
    Well they haven't said they will unilaterally declare, even though they have popular and military support in the region in Iraq - I presume in part because of what Turkey might do in their own territory?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    The Conservatives stand for social stability, moderation, credible economics, patriotism, the Union, valuing our shared inheritance, believing in gradual reform rather than radical change, and that strong societies are built from the bottom-up not the top-down.

    Brexit shits on about two thirds of those.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Theresa needs to do something that will shock the world: sack Boris and bring back George Osborne to be Foreign Sec. Imagine the gaping mouths of the Tory Brexit Ultras. Everyone else would love her for it.

    Err, nope. Why would she replace one backstabber with an even bigger one? I’d say say that the behaviour of a certain someone since he left No.11 proves not only that the PM was right to sack him, but that the vast majority of the PCP agrees with her on this.
    Backstabber? After Theresa sacked and humiliated him, George left politics to become the editor of a regional newspaper that occasionally publishes articles critical of the government. Why is that a treasonable offence?
    Okay, maybe frontstabber is more appropriate.

    He also took the newspaper job while he was still supposed to be representing the residents of Tatton. Thankfully they now have a decent MP and future minister in Esther McVey.
  • F1: perusing the markets. Anyone know why the odds to not be classified are shorter than usual? Both Vettel and Hamilton are 6, normally they're 8.
  • malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:

    Your man on the spot. Apparently, there are dmos like this across Spain today.
    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/914077905428389888

    We had Dan Snow and Eddie Izzard, Bob Geldolf and Al Murray in Trafalgar Square before Scotland's indyref in 2014
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-trafalgar-square-london-uk-15th-september-2014-dan-snow-speaks-to-73466175.html
    Lucky you. We had these guys.

    https://twitter.com/linzlewis38/status/513024596279574528
    George Square - the most impressive part of Glasgow.
    To be fair it has many impressive parts
    I did the Subway earlier this month - finally :)
    Meatballs?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Subway
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    What is my vision for the Conservative Party? Well, who cares, but anyway....

    I want a party that wants us united as a country focussed on creating wealth but also focussed on sharing that wealth and caring for the less fortunate, including those abroad through the aid budget.
    I want a party that is focussed on aspiration and equality of opportunity, that recognises that our current social structure does not give anything like equality of opportunity and seeks to address that with specific policies.
    I want a party with a strong respect for the rule of law (yes, that includes you Home Secretary) but recognises that law is often not the answer and that the State should be careful about the unintended consequences of regulation.
    I want as many people as possible to be a part of a property owning democracy with the security of owning their own homes, security in employment, the opportunities to train and to better themselves. This needs policies encouraging home ownership, in work training, private pensions, the living wage, better job security and encouragement to save.
    I want a government that seeks to live within its means and not burden the next generation with excessive debt, that seeks value for the money it spends, that recognises the adverse economic effect of excessive taxation but also the importance of having all who gain from our society paying their share.

    With Cameron and Osborne a lot, if not all, of those boxes were ticked. The 2017 manifesto ticked fewer and I really don't know what the current state of play is. It is the job of this Conference to tell us, loud and clear. To be honest, I am not holding my breath.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    kle4 said:

    Did she not run that line by a spin doctor? It's laughable.
    She also said there was a lack of debate during the campaign.
  • F1: as an aside, Ladbrokes had a special on Vettel not finishing the first lap, pre-practice. That was 41 (46 with a boost). I wonder if they're regretting that now.
This discussion has been closed.