This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
I take it, Your Venerable Majesty, that that pun was not intentional?
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
Events have not helped but nor has the lack of any overall theme or sense of grip. Instead the coverage is about who is going to replace May not about what the May government is doing or going to do. Even their strap line is a feeble echo of Corbyn's for the many not the few. Our government is on hold at an important time. It will remain so until the leadership issue is resolved.
Just heard a commentator from the Spectator by way reading the tea-leaves say 'by far the biggest events in Manchester were those hosted by Ruth Davidson and Jacob Rees-Mogg'.
I'm starting to wonder whether in the interests of the country an orderly hand over to Jeremy might be to everyone's long term advantage.
Even if the alternative is Jacob Rees-Mogg, that is still preferable to a Corbyn government. Mogg at least has a brain, some experience of work, has never been accused of supporting terrorism and has never so far as I know had to face awkward questions about his silence over child sexual abuse.
The implication of what the Spectator commentator said was that the choice on offer was Jacob R-M Ruth D and Boris J.
Boris is a British version of Trump. Not only a buffoon and a narcissist but an Old Etonian who belonged to the Bullingdon Club who tried to have a business rival beaten up. Rees Mogg is an anachronism. At a time when our system of governance is in the balance what would a J R-M PM tell the world about Britain as a modern democracy? Ruth Davidson? An empty shell. Anyone who thinks by virtue of being female she's the UK's equivalent of Angela Merkel hasn't been following.....
So what's wrong with a pacifist who is prepared to speak to those on the opposing side? Surely in 2017 we should be a more sophisticated nation than to believe that the best solution to conflict is to fight and not to talk?
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
I watched Hammonds speech last night. Lacklustre and flatly received.
Mogg knows how to work his crowd, though I am not convinced that youngsters will be won round to Brexit by talk of Agincourt and Crecy.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
Events have not helped but nor has the lack of any overall theme or sense of grip. Instead the coverage is about who is going to replace May not about what the May government is doing or going to do. Even their strap line is a feeble echo of Corbyn's for the many not the few. Our government is on hold at an important time. It will remain so until the leadership issue is resolved.
The leadership is inextricably tied to Brexit. One will not be resolved without the other. Which puts everything else on hold. Possibly the best argument against a transition deal is that while we are still talking about this, we're not having serious conversations about our decayed infrastructure, unbalanced economy, worrying reliance on imported fuel and constitutional dog's breakfast. All these desperately need addressing and have done since the mid 1990s but will never be addressed while we are haggling with M. Barnier about what kind of cameras we should have on the Irish border.
I really don't expect a contest this side of March 2019, but after that I expect one to follow swiftly and I hope it is a big discussion about domestic problems. Let's face it, that's the only way we'll get such a discussion given Labour is now openly talking about deliberate economic destruction and closing the NHS and the state education system (even if it it's too dense to realise that's where its policies lead).
I really don't expect a contest this side of March 2019, but after that I expect one to follow swiftly and I hope it is a big discussion about domestic problems.
The Brexit related shitstorm will only just be starting March 2019.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
I watched Hammonds speech last night. Lacklustre and flatly received.
Mogg knows how to work his crowd, though I am not convinced that youngsters will be won round to Brexit by talk of Agincourt and Crecy.
He starts with, “We need to be reiterating the benefits of Brexit,” but doesn’t provide any.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
The Government feels like Labour in 2010 and the Tories in 1997 - simply exhausted. Their poll ratings are IMO opinion not yet plumbing the depths because uncommitted voters have switched off politics except for Brexit and have continuing if diminishing doubts about Corbyn. But once a Government is exhausted, it becomes very difficult to recover.
The Tory Party is finished as an election winning force. The faultlines over Europe finally finished it off. The lack of alternatives to May show how dire their position really is.
Doubtless a business friendly, pro Euro, centre right party will emerge at some point. But it is impossible to conceive how this could be compatible with the Tory party membership.
Boris is a British version of Trump. Not only a buffoon and a narcissist but an Old Etonian who belonged to the Bullingdon Club who tried to have a business rival beaten up. Rees Mogg is an anachronism. At a time when our system of governance is in the balance what would a J R-M PM tell the world about Britain as a modern democracy? Ruth Davidson? An empty shell. Anyone who thinks by virtue of being female she's the UK's equivalent of Angela Merkel hasn't been following.....
So what's wrong with a pacifist who is prepared to speak to those on the opposing side? Surely in 2017 we should be a more sophisticated nation than to believe that the best solution to conflict is to fight and not to talk?
There is a world of difference between somebody who is prepared to talk to the opposition, and somebody who supports their aims and will not talk to any other group who wants the same thing but has a legitimate methodology for getting it. Corbyn does the former. Major and Blair did the latter. They brought peace to Northern Ireland, he extended the war. Similarly, Miliband could condemn Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon without supporting a Holocaust denier. Corbyn blames everyone but himself for the rough ride he gets, but the reality is it's entirely due to his shocking willingness to work with genuinely evil people while turning his back upon their more honourable counterparts that gets him into this mess.
As for 'modern' democracy, yes, a 70 year old boarding school boy who owes his seat to his father's high position in the trade union movement and speaks with nostalgia of the 1970s is really going to convince everyone we've moved on.
And I notice you don't even talk about the last issue I raise. See here:
Yes, I know Mann is a critic of Corbyn. But equally, this does not show a man who stands up for the vulnerable or is consistent in his principles. On the contrary it shows cronyism at its worst.
I have to go. I hope you find that food for thought.
(Oh and PS - it's Corbyn that's the British Trump. Everything people want, but paid for by somebody else, then fudging it or claiming you didn't understand it, is straight out of the Trump playbook.)
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
The Government feels like Labour in 2010 and the Tories in 1997 - simply exhausted. Their poll ratings are IMO opinion not yet plumbing the depths because uncommitted voters have switched off politics except for Brexit and have continuing if diminishing doubts about Corbyn. But once a Government is exhausted, it becomes very difficult to recover.
It can be done. The Tories were exhausted in 1991 but Major came through in 1992. It needs new leadership and a sense of purpose.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
Events have not helped but nor has the lack of any overall theme or sense of grip. Instead the coverage is about who is going to replace May not about what the May government is doing or going to do. Even their strap line is a feeble echo of Corbyn's for the many not the few. Our government is on hold at an important time. It will remain so until the leadership issue is resolved.
The leadership is inextricably tied to Brexit. One will not be resolved without the other. Which puts everything else on hold. Possibly the best argument against a transition deal is that while we are still talking about this, we're not having serious conversations about our decayed infrastructure, unbalanced economy, worrying reliance on imported fuel and constitutional dog's breakfast. All these desperately need addressing and have done since the mid 1990s but will never be addressed while we are haggling with M. Barnier about what kind of cameras we should have on the Irish border.
I really don't expect a contest this side of March 2019, but after that I expect one to follow swiftly and I hope it is a big discussion about domestic problems. Let's face it, that's the only way we'll get such a discussion given Labour is now openly talking about deliberate economic destruction and closing the NHS and the state education system (even if it it's too dense to realise that's where its policies lead).
The Tories need a leader who will be listened to when they say that Corbyn and McDonnell's crazy economic experiment will risk your hospitals, your school and your pensions. Those are the stakes at the next election. I do not see Theresa May as being able to convey the gravity of the situation.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
Events have not helped but nor has the lack of any overall theme or sense of grip. Instead the coverage is about who is going to replace May not about what the May government is doing or going to do. Even their strap line is a feeble echo of Corbyn's for the many not the few. Our government is on hold at an important time. It will remain so until the leadership issue is resolved.
The leadership is inextricably tied to Brexit. One will not be resolved without the other. Which puts everything else on hold. Possibly the best argument against a transition deal is that while we are still talking about this, we're not having serious conversations about our decayed infrastructure, unbalanced economy, worrying reliance on imported fuel and constitutional dog's breakfast. All these desperately need addressing and have done since the mid 1990s but will never be addressed while we are haggling with M. Barnier about what kind of cameras we should have on the Irish border.
I really don't expect a contest this side of March 2019, but after that I expect one to follow swiftly and I hope it is a big discussion about domestic problems. Let's face it, that's the only way we'll get such a discussion given Labour is now openly talking about deliberate economic destruction and closing the NHS and the state education system (even if it it's too dense to realise that's where its policies lead).
I don't think we can wait. The issues you describe and many others are completely separate from Brexit and urgent. I have not been following it closely, I am too demoralised to do so, but the only speech I have been aware of that had something to say about these real issues was by Andy Street. Certainly Hammond had incredibly little to contribute. £300m on trains? A rounding error.
Muttering on about Corbyn's links to terrorism is not going to get traction. It only solidifies the opinions of those who are NCIAMOS. (Never Corbyn in a month of Sundays......or people aged over 50 who read the Telegraph). Nor is talking about Venezuela or Cuba or Chavez, or Marx, or Trotsky, or Momentum, or Militant, or CND. Nothing to gain there either politically.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
The Government feels like Labour in 2010 and the Tories in 1997 - simply exhausted. Their poll ratings are IMO opinion not yet plumbing the depths because uncommitted voters have switched off politics except for Brexit and have continuing if diminishing doubts about Corbyn. But once a Government is exhausted, it becomes very difficult to recover.
It can be done. The Tories were exhausted in 1991 but Major came through in 1992. It needs new leadership and a sense of purpose.
Yes, though my recollection of 1992 is that the Tories won on the basis of "stop Kinnock" plus "new leader, give him a chance", but without any sense of purpose that I can recall? I agree that a new Tory leader might be able to pull off the same thing, but that kind of approach has built-in nemesis when people find the new leader devoid of ideas. Then you get 1997.
Just heard a over to Jeremy might be to everyone's long term advantage.
Even if the alternative is Jacob Rees-Mogg, that is still preferable to a Corbyn government. Mogg at least has a brain, some experience of work, has never been accused of supporting terrorism and has never so far as I know had to face awkward questions about his silence over child sexual abuse.
The implication of what the Spectator commentator said was that the choice on offer was Jacob R-M Ruth D and Boris J.
Boris is a British version of Trump. Not only a buffoon and a narcissist but an Old Etonian who belonged to the Bullingdon Club who tried to have a business rival beaten up. Rees Mogg is an anachronism. At a time when our system of governance is in the balance what would a J R-M PM tell the world about Britain as a modern democracy? Ruth Davidson? An empty shell. Anyone who thinks by virtue of being female she's the UK's equivalent of Angela Merkel hasn't been following.....
So what's wrong with a pacifist who is prepared to speak to those on the opposing side? Surely in 2017 we should be a more sophisticated nation than to believe that the best solution to conflict is to fight and not to talk?
Corbyn is hardly sophisticated in his politics, that's part of his whole deal - simplistic, and principled solutions is part of his pitch. The disagreement comes over the details, since how youve characterised him there is not how many others would sum up his dominant views and potential effect. He is more than that, a lot more. Some like that and some to not, but it would be misleading to suggest that's all he is and why peopke either like or dislike him. People might like that aspect of him but think his other aspects are unacceptable.
As for Rees mogg, I dont think he's pm material and he holds personal views not shared by the majority that would be problematic. But why does him being old fashioned matter in terms i telling the world about us as a modern democracy? If he were picked and then won an election all it would tell the world is no matter his background and style we supported his policies, any nation judging us as a democracy would have no concerns there. Why would it? Most of us dislike trump, but any concerns we have about the American democracy existed irrespective of their system choosing him or us liking that outcome.
How arrogant we would be called for judging other nations for who they pick as leader or main party (though we've all done it) but it would be ok for other nations to be so arrogant? Should we run any leadership candidates by world leaders to ensure they are up to their standards?
The Tory Party is finished as an election winning force. The faultlines over Europe finally finished it off. The lack of alternatives to May show how dire their position really is.
Doubtless a business friendly, pro Euro, centre right party will emerge at some point. But it is impossible to conceive how this could be compatible with the Tory party membership.
Given how dire labours position looked to many but it was going nowhere, I think it unlikely thevtory party is going anywhere any time soon, or that it will be replaced by another centre right party.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
Events have not helped but nor has the lack of any overall theme or sense of grip. Instead the coverage is about who is going to replace May not about what the May government is doing or going to do. Even their strap line is a feeble echo of Corbyn's for the many not the few. Our government is on hold at an important time. It will remain so until the leadership issue is resolved.
The leadership is inextricably tied to Brexit. One will not be resolved without the other. Which puts everything else on hold. Possibly the best argument against a transition deal is that while we are still talking about this, we're not having serious conversations about our decayed infrastructure, unbalanced economy, worrying reliance on imported fuel and constitutional dog's breakfast. All these desperately need addressing and have done since the mid 1990s but will never be addressed while we are haggling with M. Barnier about what kind of cameras we should have on the Irish border.
I really don't expect a contest this side of March 2019, but after that I expect one to follow swiftly and I hope it is a big discussion about domestic problems. Let's face it, that's the only way we'll get such a discussion given Labour is now openly talking about deliberate economic destruction and closing the NHS and the state education system (even if it it's too dense to realise that's where its policies lead).
The Tories need a leader who will be listened to when they say that Corbyn and McDonnell's crazy economic experiment will risk your hospitals, your school and your pensions. Those are the stakes at the next election. I do not see Theresa May as being able to convey the gravity of the situation.
But 'Boris' and 'gravitas' are rarely found in the same sentence.
But EVERYONE will look shop soiled by 2022, and the next GE.
Corbyn is 68, and will be 73 in 2022. That's really quite old, and, I reckon, way too old for the Brits to elect him as PM.
In four more years will the Labour Conference still be singing Oooooh, Jeremy Corbyn! - call me an old cynic, but I REALLY doubt it. Corbyn is a phenomenon of political youth, he is the latest boyband in a vest, and boybands come and go.
Unlike Corbyn, Boris has been in front line politics for a decade, his initial appeal has very much worn off, but he is still a serious politician. He is also like Churchill in terms of being in and out of favour.
I reckon it will be Boris versus SOMEONE WE CAN'T PREDICT versus Ruth Davidson for Tory leader. Timing is all.
And the next Labour PM will be Emily Thornberry, producing a much more centrist version of Corbynism, with Softer Brexit.
Have you conceded you were mistaken about Khan and Uber yet? Latest London-only poll showing strong support for the decision, plus extremely high ratings for Khan, plus a continuing Labour surge.
Simply doesn't tally. Hundreds of thousands signing a petition. At least 15 of my London mates going crazy about it on fb. All of whom voted for him.
Corbyn and Terrorism. Cameron and Bullingdon. Enrages the already enraged.
Urrrm, no.
Cameron and Bullingdon enrages the stupid, because there is nothing of substance to get enraged about there.
Corbyn and terrorism should enrage everyone, because terrorism is of substance, and his views on it reflect negatively on him.
But as we've seen since the election, many leftist people who disliked Corbyn because of his stance on things like terrorism suddenly like him now they think he's a winner. It does make one wonder what other views they'd suddenly support if they through they were on to a winner ...
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
The Government feels like Labour in 2010 and the Tories in 1997 - simply exhausted. Their poll ratings are IMO opinion not yet plumbing the depths because uncommitted voters have switched off politics except for Brexit and have continuing if diminishing doubts about Corbyn. But once a Government is exhausted, it becomes very difficult to recover.
It can be done. The Tories were exhausted in 1991 but Major came through in 1992. It needs new leadership and a sense of purpose.
Mate....it's gone. The Tory party is the proverbial dead parrot. It is knackered, finished, kefucked....Hopelessly divided ideologically, inward looking, and dominated by personality disputes. Johnson and Davis are utterly toxic. May is a busted flush. You've got an ageing membership that is dying out and dwindling by the day. The Tory brand has managed to toxify itself. And no-one quite frankly is at all interested on what is has to say.
The Tories look directionless and lost, but those consoling themselves with the thought that a Corbyn government will rapidly be seen to be a disaster are fooling themselves.
Politicians never take responsibility - it's always someone else's fault.
From Wilson (the gnomes of Zurich), Heath (the unions), Callaghan (see Heath),Thatcher and Major (the bastards), Blair (Gordon and Iraq), Brown (them damn Yankees), Cameron (leavers), and May (Brexit).
When we emulate Venezuela under Corbyn, it will be blamed on Brexit and Farmer Jones.
Napoleon the pig managed to pull it off, why shouldn't McDonnell?
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
The Government feels like Labour in 2010 and the Tories in 1997 - simply exhausted. Their poll ratings are IMO opinion not yet plumbing the depths because uncommitted voters have switched off politics except for Brexit and have continuing if diminishing doubts about Corbyn. But once a Government is exhausted, it becomes very difficult to recover.
It can be done. The Tories were exhausted in 1991 but Major came through in 1992. It needs new leadership and a sense of purpose.
Mate....it's gone. The Tory party is the proverbial dead parrot. It is knackered, finished, kefucked....Hopelessly divided ideologically, inward looking, and dominated by personality disputes. Johnson and Davis are utterly toxic. May is a busted flush. You've got an ageing membership that is dying out and dwindling by the day. The Tory brand has managed to toxify itself. And no-one quite frankly is at all interested on what is has to say.
I’m hoping the Tories see sense and bring back Dave and George.
Those two will muller Corbyn on the economy and win a Tory landslide.
The Tories look directionless and lost, but those consoling themselves with the thought that a Corbyn government will rapidly be seen to be a disaster are fooling themselves.
Politicians never take responsibility - it's always someone else's fault.
From Wilson (the gnomes of Zurich), Heath (the unions), Callaghan (see Heath),Thatcher and Major (the bastards), Blair (Gordon and Iraq), Brown (them damn Yankees), Cameron (leavers), and May (Brexit).
When we emulate Venezuela under Corbyn, it will be blamed on Brexit and Farmer Jones.
Napoleon the pig managed to pull it off, why shouldn't McDonnell?
Just heard a commentator from the Spectator by way reading the tea-leaves say 'by far the biggest events in Manchester were those hosted by Ruth Davidson and Jacob Rees-Mogg'.
I'm starting to wonder whether in the interests of the country an orderly hand over to Jeremy might be to everyone's long term advantage.
Even if the alternative is Jacob Rees-Mogg, that is still preferable to a Corbyn government. Mogg at least has a brain, some experience of work, has never been accused of supporting terrorism and has never so far as I know had to face awkward questions about his silence over child sexual abuse.
The implication of what the Spectator commentator said was that the choice on offer was Jacob R-M Ruth D and Boris J.
Boris is a British version of Trump. Not only a buffoon and a narcissist but an Old Etonian who belonged to the Bullingdon Club who tried to have a business rival beaten up. Rees Mogg is an anachronism. At a time when our system of governance is in the balance what would a J R-M PM tell the world about Britain as a modern democracy? Ruth Davidson? An empty shell. Anyone who thinks by virtue of being female she's the UK's equivalent of Angela Merkel hasn't been following.....
So what's wrong with a pacifist who is prepared to speak to those on the opposing side? Surely in 2017 we should be a more sophisticated nation than to believe that the best solution to conflict is to fight and not to talk?
Because there are bad people out there. Like Hamas or ISIS.
A peaceful outcome is usually better. But not peace at any price.
The Tory Party is finished as an election winning force. The faultlines over Europe finally finished it off. The lack of alternatives to May show how dire their position really is.
Doubtless a business friendly, pro Euro, centre right party will emerge at some point. But it is impossible to conceive how this could be compatible with the Tory party membership.
Given how dire labours position looked to many but it was going nowhere, I think it unlikely thevtory party is going anywhere any time soon, or that it will be replaced by another centre right party.
I would have agreed with you...but looking at the state of the grassroots Tory party is the big difference. A dwindling rump of oldies who are members either as a social thing, or obsessed by the EU.
The Tories need a leader who will be listened to when they say that Corbyn and McDonnell's crazy economic experiment will risk your hospitals, your school and your pensions. Those are the stakes at the next election. I do not see Theresa May as being able to convey the gravity of the situation.
They need a leader who can move their tanks onto Corbyn's and Labour's ground. Instead, the battle is taking place on Brexit, which is not just on the Conservative's ground, but their heartland.
Sadly for the Conservatives, I see no way that the battle will move off that ground for many years, allowing Labour a largely free run. I'm also unsure how *any* leader will be able to shift the battleground.
One thing might be to get another toff as leader. Such people enrage many of the hard left, causing them to lose their collective heads. Look at all the stupid attacks they made on Cameron's background with very little effect.
The Tory Party is finished as an election winning force. The faultlines over Europe finally finished it off. The lack of alternatives to May show how dire their position really is.
Doubtless a business friendly, pro Euro, centre right party will emerge at some point. But it is impossible to conceive how this could be compatible with the Tory party membership.
Hi tyson. i think the days of your and my champagne socialism are going to to tested to breaking point by jeremy but in a good cause if he can get rid us of the scourge of a Tory Brexit. I've been in France for a while now and if Brexit seems ridiculous from the UK it looks completely insane from here.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
The Government feels like Labour in 2010 and the Tories in 1997 - simply exhausted. Their poll ratings are IMO opinion not yet plumbing the depths because uncommitted voters have switched off politics except for Brexit and have continuing if diminishing doubts about Corbyn. But once a Government is exhausted, it becomes very difficult to recover.
It can be done. The Tories were exhausted in 1991 but Major came through in 1992. It needs new leadership and a sense of purpose.
Mate....it's gone. The Tory party is the proverbial dead parrot. It is knackered, finished, kefucked....Hopelessly divided ideologically, inward looking, and dominated by personality disputes. Johnson and Davis are utterly toxic. May is a busted flush. You've got an ageing membership that is dying out and dwindling by the day. The Tory brand has managed to toxify itself. And no-one quite frankly is at all interested on what is has to say.
I’m hoping the Tories see sense and bring back Dave and George.
Those two will muller Corbyn on the economy and win a Tory landslide.
I was actually going to say that the only way I could feasibly see a path for the Tories back is through GO and DC on a very soft Brexit/ pro business platform. But that is not going to happen.
But EVERYONE will look shop soiled by 2022, and the next GE.
Corbyn is 68, and will be 73 in 2022. That's really quite old, and, I reckon, way too old for the Brits to elect him as PM.
In four more years will the Labour Conference still be singing Oooooh, Jeremy Corbyn! - call me an old cynic, but I REALLY doubt it. Corbyn is a phenomenon of political youth, he is the latest boyband in a vest, and boybands come and go.
Unlike Corbyn, Boris has been in front line politics for a decade, his initial appeal has very much worn off, but he is still a serious politician. He is also like Churchill in terms of being in and out of favour.
I reckon it will be Boris versus SOMEONE WE CAN'T PREDICT versus Ruth Davidson for Tory leader. Timing is all.
And the next Labour PM will be Emily Thornberry, producing a much more centrist version of Corbynism, with Softer Brexit.
Have you conceded you were mistaken about Khan and Uber yet? Latest London-only poll showing strong support for the decision, plus extremely high ratings for Khan, plus a continuing Labour surge.
Simply doesn't tally. Hundreds of thousands signing a petition. At least 15 of my London mates going crazy about it on fb. All of whom voted for him.
If uber actually ceases operations then I would expect a backlash. But if it ends up with then promising to do more and license renewed - will people even remember?
Corbyn and Terrorism. Cameron and Bullingdon. Enrages the already enraged.
Urrrm, no.
Cameron and Bullingdon enrages the stupid, because there is nothing of substance to get enraged about there.
Corbyn and terrorism should enrage everyone, because terrorism is of substance, and his views on it reflect negatively on him.
But as we've seen since the election, many leftist people who disliked Corbyn because of his stance on things like terrorism suddenly like him now they think he's a winner. It does make one wonder what other views they'd suddenly support if they through they were on to a winner ...
Makes for a good conversation if any Labour person comes polling
"I'm concerned that you support a party where the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition regards as friends an organisation that murdered one of her close relatives"
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
The Government feels like Labour in 2010 and the Tories in 1997 - simply exhausted. Their poll ratings are IMO opinion not yet plumbing the depths because uncommitted voters have switched off politics except for Brexit and have continuing if diminishing doubts about Corbyn. But once a Government is exhausted, it becomes very difficult to recover.
It can be done. The Tories were exhausted in 1991 but Major came through in 1992. It needs new leadership and a sense of purpose.
Mate....it's gone. The Tory party is the proverbial dead parrot. It is knackered, finished, kefucked....Hopelessly divided ideologically, inward looking, and dominated by personality disputes. Johnson and Davis are utterly toxic. May is a busted flush. You've got an ageing membership that is dying out and dwindling by the day. The Tory brand has managed to toxify itself. And no-one quite frankly is at all interested on what is has to say.
It's as bizarre as people getting giddy about gay pride marches whilst simultaneously lauding a man who described Hamas and Hezbollah as 'our friends'.
Just heard a commentator from the Spectator by way reading the tea-leaves say 'by far the biggest events in Manchester were those hosted by Ruth Davidson and Jacob Rees-Mogg'.
I'm starting to wonder whether in the interests of the country an orderly hand over to Jeremy might be to everyone's long term advantage.
Even if the alternative is Jacob Rees-Mogg, that is still preferable to a Corbyn government. Mogg at least has a brain, some experience of work, has never been accused of supporting terrorism and has never so far as I know had to face awkward questions about his silence over child sexual abuse.
The implication of what the Spectator commentator said was that the choice on offer was Jacob R-M Ruth D and Boris J.
Boris is a British version of Trump. Not only a buffoon and a narcissist but an Old Etonian who belonged to the Bullingdon Club who tried to have a business rival beaten up. Rees Mogg is an anachronism. At a time when our system of governance is in the balance what would a J R-M PM tell the world about Britain as a modern democracy? Ruth Davidson? An empty shell. Anyone who thinks by virtue of being female she's the UK's equivalent of Angela Merkel hasn't been following.....
So what's wrong with a pacifist who is prepared to speak to those on the opposing side? Surely in 2017 we should be a more sophisticated nation than to believe that the best solution to conflict is to fight and not to talk?
Dave and George took on the Brexiteers and received bloody noses. First rule of politics - never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Dave wasn't that good at politics after all.
The Tories look directionless and lost, but those consoling themselves with the thought that a Corbyn government will rapidly be seen to be a disaster are fooling themselves.
Politicians never take responsibility - it's always someone else's fault.
From Wilson (the gnomes of Zurich), Heath (the unions), Callaghan (see Heath),Thatcher and Major (the bastards), Blair (Gordon and Iraq), Brown (them damn Yankees), Cameron (leavers), and May (Brexit).
When we emulate Venezuela under Corbyn, it will be blamed on Brexit and Farmer Jones.
Napoleon the pig managed to pull it off, why shouldn't McDonnell?
The Tory Party is finished as an election winning force. The faultlines over Europe finally finished it off. The lack of alternatives to May show how dire their position really is.
Doubtless a business friendly, pro Euro, centre right party will emerge at some point. But it is impossible to conceive how this could be compatible with the Tory party membership.
Hi tyson. i think the days of your and my champagne socialism are going to to tested to breaking point by jeremy but in a good cause if he can get rid us of the scourge of a Tory Brexit. I've been in France for a while now and if Brexit seems ridiculous from the UK it looks completely insane from here.
Roger......I know I'm going have to walk the walk when JC comes in. I haven't been touched by austerity. On the contrary the post banking crisis has only inflated the wealth of those already with assets at the expense of everyone else. It is time we paid more, and probably quite alot more for a fairer society and to give young people some hope of a better future.
But EVERYONE will look shop soiled by 2022, and the next GE.
Corbyn is 68, and will be 73 in 2022. That's really quite old, and, I reckon, way too old for the Brits to elect him as PM.
In four more years will the Labour Conference still be singing Oooooh, Jeremy Corbyn! - call me an old cynic, but I REALLY doubt it. Corbyn is a phenomenon of political youth, he is the latest boyband in a vest, and boybands come and go.
Unlike Corbyn, Boris has been in front line politics for a decade, his initial appeal has very much worn off, but he is still a serious politician. He is also like Churchill in terms of being in and out of favour.
I reckon it will be Boris versus SOMEONE WE CAN'T PREDICT versus Ruth Davidson for Tory leader. Timing is all.
And the next Labour PM will be Emily Thornberry, producing a much more centrist version of Corbynism, with Softer Brexit.
Have you conceded you were mistaken about Khan and Uber yet? Latest London-only poll showing strong support for the decision, plus extremely high ratings for Khan, plus a continuing Labour surge.
I am not sure whether that is pertinent, Nick.
I have yet to see credible evidence to support the claims of Khan/TFL. All I can see so far is some waffle in a Press Release and some claims in a couple of newspaper articles. Is there any evidence backing this up that will stand up to Judicial Review criteria?
The last time TFL went for Uber, much of it collapsed when it was challenged at law.
This Conference shows the price paid for having a zombie as leader. We have a number of people trying to make a splash but their efforts are all being judged in the context of a potential leadership campaign. The Tories are not going to come out of this conference with any kind of momentum or vision of where the government is going. This lack of coherence, vision and grip is not likely to improve the perception of how the Brexit negotiations are going.
I fear the longer May remains as leader the longer this will go on. The question is whether the damage is permanent or not. I think it is going to be hard to recover.
It’s another example of Macmillan’s dictum isn’t it. Had Las Vegas and Monarch not occurred there would have been a lot more news time devoted to the Conference, and particularly to the major speeches. As it is the only attention is being given to events where there might be fireworks,
I watched Hammonds speech last night. Lacklustre and flatly received.
Mogg knows how to work his crowd, though I am not convinced that youngsters will be won round to Brexit by talk of Agincourt and Crecy.
Anyway it's taken nearly four months and the recent stuff from Boris but I think I'm finally at the point of understanding June's result. The stretch from the first unveiling of that f**king bus through to *that* May campaign was the mass money printing devaluing the currency. Corbyn getting 40% was the ensuing hyperinflation.
Games have rules. If one side in a match abandon them so completely as the game breaks down. We are playing cricket but the other lot are cock fighting what do you do ? There is no point being insufferably liberal and responsible about it all. We need to pick up the card table and smash them over the head with it. What have we got to lose ? Apart from everything of course. But maybe us all losing everything is what needed to remind us why the rules existed in the first place.
The important electoral consequence of the Leave win was that it destroyed Project Fear.
All the establishment scare stories of punishment budgets, immediate recessions, interest rate rises, car factories shutting down and the City moving to Frankfurt were shown to be lies.
So if none of these things happened after a Leave vote why should people believe they would after a vote for Corbyn.
What have we done to deserve the choice of Boris or Jez ?
The only one that looks remotely qualified to run the country from either of the big two right now is Phil Hammond.
He has an annoying habit of talking sense.
It is pretty easy to see why he is not popular - he has no principles.
Bk again.
Just as a matter of interest, how do people benefit from their politicians having principles?
The best people to run organisations are those without fixed beliefs, who go where the facts tell them, rather than with preconceived notions.
I don't know whether global warming is real. I don't know what the best system of criminal justice is for minimising offending rates. I don't know what the best education system is.
But I can devise tests and see what works.
People crave certainty, and those that will not change their minds. Those people are disastrous leaders of organisations. Why would we expect them to make good Prime Ministers?
The tests have been done for Climate Change and it is real.
Indeed. There is no doubt whatsoever that anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change is a real and significant effect. The doubt lies only in the extent to which it will impact on human life and the timescale over which this will happen.
Personally, I have been through 3 or 4 cycles of next ice age/global warming due, media excitement. Do I believe in climate change, yes I do, as it is obvious that it changes every second/ minute/ hour/ day/ month/ season/ year/ etc.. The other thing I am very sure of, is that the so called, and mostly self appointing, experts haven't a clue. Every single time that the weather produces results that do not agree with their speculations, they say "Oh!", go back to the computers, reprogram with the new figures and come back with new interpretations, which last until the wind changes direction, again, and again, and again, ad nauseum.
Just heard a commentator from the Spectator by way reading the tea-leaves say 'by far the biggest events in Manchester were those hosted by Ruth Davidson and Jacob Rees-Mogg'.
I'm starting to wonder whether in the interests of the country an orderly hand over to Jeremy might be to everyone's long term advantage.
Even if the alternative is Jacob Rees-Mogg, that is still preferable to a Corbyn government. Mogg at least has a brain, some experience of work, has never been accused of supporting terrorism and has never so far as I know had to face awkward questions about his silence over child sexual abuse.
The implication of what the Spectator commentator said was that the choice on offer was Jacob R-M Ruth D and Boris J.
Boris is a British version of Trump. Not only a buffoon and a narcissist but an Old Etonian who belonged to the Bullingdon Club who tried to have a business rival beaten up. Rees Mogg is an anachronism. At a time when our system of governance is in the balance what would a J R-M PM tell the world about Britain as a modern democracy? Ruth Davidson? An empty shell. Anyone who thinks by virtue of being female she's the UK's equivalent of Angela Merkel hasn't been following.....
So what's wrong with a pacifist who is prepared to speak to those on the opposing side? Surely in 2017 we should be a more sophisticated nation than to believe that the best solution to conflict is to fight and not to talk?
On the basic point you are of course right. Military confrontation is often not the best way to handle things and should certainly not be the first port of call. I was against military intervention in both Libya and Syria and do not think I was wrong even now.
But Cornyn is not sophisticated in his opposition and as such he appears to side with those who mean us harm as a matter of principle. If he had got his way in the 70s and 80s and we had handed Northern Ireland over to the Republic the war would not have stopped. Indeed it would have got worse. Nor would it have been morally right to abandon the people of the Falklands to Argentina. ISIS are not interested in negotiation and their beliefs as regards women, gays and other religions should have both you and Corbyn standing firmly on the no negotiation platform.
That is where Corbyn fails on the international front. Opposing military adventures is an admirable position. Opposing all military action on principle is not.
Comments
What was different in the time the approval outweighed disapproval? Or is it just that the bad election result made people reconsider?
Boris is a British version of Trump. Not only a buffoon and a narcissist but an Old Etonian who belonged to the Bullingdon Club who tried to have a business rival beaten up. Rees Mogg is an anachronism. At a time when our system of governance is in the balance what would a J R-M PM tell the world about Britain as a modern democracy? Ruth Davidson? An empty shell. Anyone who thinks by virtue of being female she's the UK's equivalent of Angela Merkel hasn't been following.....
So what's wrong with a pacifist who is prepared to speak to those on the opposing side? Surely in 2017 we should be a more sophisticated nation than to believe that the best solution to conflict is to fight and not to talk?
Mogg knows how to work his crowd, though I am not convinced that youngsters will be won round to Brexit by talk of Agincourt and Crecy.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/914941451615817728
I really don't expect a contest this side of March 2019, but after that I expect one to follow swiftly and I hope it is a big discussion about domestic problems. Let's face it, that's the only way we'll get such a discussion given Labour is now openly talking about deliberate economic destruction and closing the NHS and the state education system (even if it it's too dense to realise that's where its policies lead).
The Tory Party is finished as an election winning force. The faultlines over Europe finally finished it off. The lack of alternatives to May show how dire their position really is.
Doubtless a business friendly, pro Euro, centre right party will emerge at some point. But it is impossible to conceive how this could be compatible with the Tory party membership.
As for 'modern' democracy, yes, a 70 year old boarding school boy who owes his seat to his father's high position in the trade union movement and speaks with nostalgia of the 1970s is really going to convince everyone we've moved on.
And I notice you don't even talk about the last issue I raise. See here:
http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse
Yes, I know Mann is a critic of Corbyn. But equally, this does not show a man who stands up for the vulnerable or is consistent in his principles. On the contrary it shows cronyism at its worst.
I have to go. I hope you find that food for thought.
(Oh and PS - it's Corbyn that's the British Trump. Everything people want, but paid for by somebody else, then fudging it or claiming you didn't understand it, is straight out of the Trump playbook.)
Muttering on about Corbyn's links to terrorism is not going to get traction. It only solidifies the opinions of those who are NCIAMOS. (Never Corbyn in a month of Sundays......or people aged over 50 who read the Telegraph). Nor is talking about Venezuela or Cuba or Chavez, or Marx, or Trotsky, or Momentum, or Militant, or CND. Nothing to gain there either politically.
As for Rees mogg, I dont think he's pm material and he holds personal views not shared by the majority that would be problematic. But why does him being old fashioned matter in terms i telling the world about us as a modern democracy? If he were picked and then won an election all it would tell the world is no matter his background and style we supported his policies, any nation judging us as a democracy would have no concerns there. Why would it? Most of us dislike trump, but any concerns we have about the American democracy existed irrespective of their system choosing him or us liking that outcome.
How arrogant we would be called for judging other nations for who they pick as leader or main party (though we've all done it) but it would be ok for other nations to be so arrogant? Should we run any leadership candidates by world leaders to ensure they are up to their standards?
Cameron and Bullingdon enrages the stupid, because there is nothing of substance to get enraged about there.
Corbyn and terrorism should enrage everyone, because terrorism is of substance, and his views on it reflect negatively on him.
But as we've seen since the election, many leftist people who disliked Corbyn because of his stance on things like terrorism suddenly like him now they think he's a winner. It does make one wonder what other views they'd suddenly support if they through they were on to a winner ...
Politicians never take responsibility - it's always someone else's fault.
From Wilson (the gnomes of Zurich), Heath (the unions), Callaghan (see Heath),Thatcher and Major (the bastards), Blair (Gordon and Iraq), Brown (them damn Yankees), Cameron (leavers), and May (Brexit).
When we emulate Venezuela under Corbyn, it will be blamed on Brexit and Farmer Jones.
Napoleon the pig managed to pull it off, why shouldn't McDonnell?
Those two will muller Corbyn on the economy and win a Tory landslide.
Oh the irony.
A peaceful outcome is usually better. But not peace at any price.
Sadly for the Conservatives, I see no way that the battle will move off that ground for many years, allowing Labour a largely free run. I'm also unsure how *any* leader will be able to shift the battleground.
One thing might be to get another toff as leader. Such people enrage many of the hard left, causing them to lose their collective heads. Look at all the stupid attacks they made on Cameron's background with very little effect.
But if it ends up with then promising to do more and license renewed - will people even remember?
"I'm concerned that you support a party where the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition regards as friends an organisation that murdered one of her close relatives"
It's as bizarre as people getting giddy about gay pride marches whilst simultaneously lauding a man who described Hamas and Hezbollah as 'our friends'.
Dave and George took on the Brexiteers and received bloody noses. First rule of politics - never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Dave wasn't that good at politics after all.
NEW THREAD
I have yet to see credible evidence to support the claims of Khan/TFL. All I can see so far is some waffle in a Press Release and some claims in a couple of newspaper articles. Is there any evidence backing this up that will stand up to Judicial Review criteria?
The last time TFL went for Uber, much of it collapsed when it was challenged at law.
Does he not know that they were in a war England lost and luckily so for the future of England.
If he wants to talk about old battles, those of 1759 would be better for a Global Britain viewpoint.
All the establishment scare stories of punishment budgets, immediate recessions, interest rate rises, car factories shutting down and the City moving to Frankfurt were shown to be lies.
So if none of these things happened after a Leave vote why should people believe they would after a vote for Corbyn.
The author doesn't seem to have come up with the obvious short answer: "Because you read the Guardian too much".
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/oct/03/why-do-we-feel-so-guilty-all-the-time
But Cornyn is not sophisticated in his opposition and as such he appears to side with those who mean us harm as a matter of principle. If he had got his way in the 70s and 80s and we had handed Northern Ireland over to the Republic the war would not have stopped. Indeed it would have got worse. Nor would it have been morally right to abandon the people of the Falklands to Argentina. ISIS are not interested in negotiation and their beliefs as regards women, gays and other religions should have both you and Corbyn standing firmly on the no negotiation platform.
That is where Corbyn fails on the international front. Opposing military adventures is an admirable position. Opposing all military action on principle is not.