Arlene might feel the opportunity is there to raise the stakes, that's assuming the deal survives whatever challenges are coming..
I suppose it depends how much a successor changes their plans, or will just promise to the same things, but less crappily, but the deal was confidence and supply only, so in theory you'd think there's little grounds for asking for more, since they were only ever backing on key votes anyway. But that's not to say she might not try.
Any of Hammond, Fallon, Rudd or Hunt would be a decent choice, even if none of them would be an outstanding choice. I actually think Fallon is not that unlikely, given that Hammond is unpopular (presumably because he talks so much sense), Rudd is a little on the light side and has the problem of the minuscule majority, and Hunt has the NHS millstone round his neck.
Longest serving Secretary of State for Health for quite some time, since the 80s. Of course, as we've seen with May, that's not in itself a stellar recommendation in the end.
He has done extremely well, and defused a lot of the problems he inherited from the turmoil over the Lansley reforms. He's sharp, and he's quite feisty, but he's also good at smoothing things over when necessary.
However, Health Secretaries get hated by the usual suspects. It's part of the job spec, and there's no getting round it. Therefore choosing him as leader would mean losing votes we don't need to lose.
Given he's lasted this long, through some tricky times and knowing it is not a position that is hard to be hated in, I wouldn't be surprised if he is still there in 2022. Who else wants the job, and if he is not getting a top top job, and has survived this long, not much reason to shift him.
He is on record as saying Health is his last big job
Watching Pence's address to the national space council. He speaks well, and if Donny decides he doesn't want to go for a second term I think he must be the favorite against any realistic Democrat I can think of right now.
I’ve heard from reliable sources some of the ex cabinet ministers trying to oust Mrs May are Leavers.
They think she’s too weak and damaged to deliver a proper Brexit and will be bullied by the cabinet Remainers into giving a BINO.
and of the Cameroons...
The decision to support the removal of Mrs May has nothing to do with Brexit.
It is solely about stopping Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
It is awkward decision for many on the Cameroon wing of the party, but the conclusion is Boris is too damaged to replace her.
Ed Vaizey is merely the start.
So who are they supporting then?
The Cameroons?
Dave is backing Mrs May.
The others think it'll be one of Fallon, Hunt, Rudd, and Hammond.
Hunt
I think it would be Rudd, but her majority is an issue.
Boris's majority halved from 11000 to only 5000. Given demographic changes and given its London who can say Boris is safe either. Same with IDS Justine Greening and countless other London MPs.
Any of Hammond, Fallon, Rudd or Hunt would be a decent choice, even if none of them would be an outstanding choice. I actually think Fallon is not that unlikely, given that Hammond is unpopular (presumably because he talks so much sense), Rudd is a little on the light side and has the problem of the minuscule majority, and Hunt has the NHS millstone round his neck.
Longest serving Secretary of State for Health for quite some time, since the 80s. Of course, as we've seen with May, that's not in itself a stellar recommendation in the end.
He has done extremely well, and defused a lot of the problems he inherited from the turmoil over the Lansley reforms. He's sharp, and he's quite feisty, but he's also good at smoothing things over when necessary.
However, Health Secretaries get hated by the usual suspects. It's part of the job spec, and there's no getting round it. Therefore choosing him as leader would mean losing votes we don't need to lose.
Given he's lasted this long, through some tricky times and knowing it is not a position that is hard to be hated in, I wouldn't be surprised if he is still there in 2022. Who else wants the job, and if he is not getting a top top job, and has survived this long, not much reason to shift him.
He is on record as saying Health is his last big job
That's meaningless.
Possibly but he did say Health is his last big job. Doesn't he have outside business interests
I really do not want a cliff edge Brexit - remember I was a remainer and want to leave Junckers and his mindset behind
No one wants a cliff edge Brexit. Very few people want Junckers and closer integration either.
We need to find somewhere in between. Close trading relationship but no political integration. Close relationship on security. Free movement subject to credible job offer. ECJ interventions limited to trade and not every aspect of everyday life. We get to keep our own legal system.
I think that is what most people (leave and remain) would probably settle for.
Need to find a way of resetting the clock (in many ways)
I really do not want a cliff edge Brexit - remember I was a remainer and want to leave Junckers and his mindset behind
No one wants a cliff edge Brexit. Very few people want Junckers and closer integration either.
We need to find somewhere in between. Close trading relationship but no political integration. Close relationship on security. Free movement subject to credible job offer. ECJ interventions limited to trade and not every aspect of everyday life. We get to keep our own legal system.
I think that is what most people (leave and remain) would probably settle for.
Need to find a way of resetting the clock (in many ways)
Any of Hammond, Fallon, Rudd or Hunt would be a decent choice, even if none of them would be an outstanding choice. I actually think Fallon is not that unlikely, given that Hammond is unpopular (presumably because he talks so much sense), Rudd is a little on the light side and has the problem of the minuscule majority, and Hunt has the NHS millstone round his neck.
Longest serving Secretary of State for Health for quite some time, since the 80s. Of course, as we've seen with May, that's not in itself a stellar recommendation in the end.
He has done extremely well, and defused a lot of the problems he inherited from the turmoil over the Lansley reforms. He's sharp, and he's quite feisty, but he's also good at smoothing things over when necessary.
However, Health Secretaries get hated by the usual suspects. It's part of the job spec, and there's no getting round it. Therefore choosing him as leader would mean losing votes we don't need to lose.
Given he's lasted this long, through some tricky times and knowing it is not a position that is hard to be hated in, I wouldn't be surprised if he is still there in 2022. Who else wants the job, and if he is not getting a top top job, and has survived this long, not much reason to shift him.
He is on record as saying Health is his last big job
I've had £10 on Hunt at 100/1 (Hills) as next PM because he seems to be quietly manoeuvering. Fallon I can't see, nor Rudd who seems out of her depth. Hammond needs more time to be proved right about Brexit but he doesn't have it.
Sadly John there will never be enough time in the eyes of brexiteers for Hammond to be proved right as however much the economy continues its southward course they will never attribute it to brexit.
On Hunt for a fiver at 66/1 for next PM. Has gravitas, composure, and stickability at health, but moreover has been almost silent about Brexit. That's what got May the top job - being the PCP's Brexit unity candidate. Mind you, it hasn't helped her.
I've had £10 on Hunt at 100/1 (Hills) as next PM because he seems to be quietly manoeuvering. Fallon I can't see, nor Rudd who seems out of her depth. Hammond needs more time to be proved right about Brexit but he doesn't have it.
Sadly John there will never be enough time in the eyes of brexiteers for Hammond to be proved right as however much the economy continues its southward course they will never attribute it to brexit.
On Hunt for a fiver at 66/1 for next PM. Has gravitas, composure, and stickability at health, but moreover has been almost silent about Brexit. That's what got May the top job - being the PCP's Brexit unity candidate. Mind you, it hasn't helped her.
I don't believe that the members are not going to vote for Jeremy Hunt.
Its a shame. He put himself forward for leader last year with the plan of taking several years to sort Brexit out whilst keeping the economy running as usual.
It almost seems like he would be the strong and stable candidate.
Any of Hammond, Fallon, Rudd or Hunt would be a decent choice, even if none of them would be an outstanding choice. I actually think Fallon is not that unlikely, given that Hammond is unpopular (presumably because he talks so much sense), Rudd is a little on the light side and has the problem of the minuscule majority, and Hunt has the NHS millstone round his neck.
Longest serving Secretary of State for Health for quite some time, since the 80s. Of course, as we've seen with May, that's not in itself a stellar recommendation in the end.
He has done extremely well, and defused a lot of the problems he inherited from the turmoil over the Lansley reforms. He's sharp, and he's quite feisty, but he's also good at smoothing things over when necessary.
However, Health Secretaries get hated by the usual suspects. It's part of the job spec, and there's no getting round it. Therefore choosing him as leader would mean losing votes we don't need to lose.
Given he's lasted this long, through some tricky times and knowing it is not a position that is hard to be hated in, I wouldn't be surprised if he is still there in 2022. Who else wants the job, and if he is not getting a top top job, and has survived this long, not much reason to shift him.
He is on record as saying Health is his last big job
Really? he's only 50.
Sure that's not 5.0?
v droll; but as I highlighted the probability of error in the initial post I don't think it has quite the traction you hope for.
I've had £10 on Hunt at 100/1 (Hills) as next PM because he seems to be quietly manoeuvering. Fallon I can't see, nor Rudd who seems out of her depth. Hammond needs more time to be proved right about Brexit but he doesn't have it.
Sadly John there will never be enough time in the eyes of brexiteers for Hammond to be proved right as however much the economy continues its southward course they will never attribute it to brexit.
On Hunt for a fiver at 66/1 for next PM. Has gravitas, composure, and stickability at health, but moreover has been almost silent about Brexit. That's what got May the top job - being the PCP's Brexit unity candidate. Mind you, it hasn't helped her.
I don't believe that the members are not going to vote for Jeremy Hunt.
Its a shame. He put himself forward for leader last year with the plan of taking several years to sort Brexit out whilst keeping the economy running as usual.
It almost seems like he would be the strong and stable candidate.
That phrase has lost its appeal no doubt. Now everyone needs the firm and unwavering candidate.
It's a fascinating battle; the UK, Germany and Spain have all deregulated the labour markets in the last 30 years, and it's been hugely positive for their economies.
France has resisted every effort at reform, and it's brought successive administrations to a halt. Will Macron succeed where Sarkozy and even Hollande failed?
Well the factory in La Souterraine in the Creuse is being killed by the CGT
the only way this will end is with eventual closure, they have pissed off all the owners and nobody wants to invest
reecently they have tried to find a buyer by having a 2 weeks strike, then blocking all their customer factories, threatening all interested buyers and now by insulting the president
Any of Hammond, Fallon, Rudd or Hunt would be a decent choice, even if none of them would be an outstanding choice. I actually think Fallon is not that unlikely, given that Hammond is unpopular (presumably because he talks so much sense), Rudd is a little on the light side and has the problem of the minuscule majority, and Hunt has the NHS millstone round his neck.
Longest serving Secretary of State for Health for quite some time, since the 80s. Of course, as we've seen with May, that's not in itself a stellar recommendation in the end.
He has done extremely well, and defused a lot of the problems he inherited from the turmoil over the Lansley reforms. He's sharp, and he's quite feisty, but he's also good at smoothing things over when necessary.
However, Health Secretaries get hated by the usual suspects. It's part of the job spec, and there's no getting round it. Therefore choosing him as leader would mean losing votes we don't need to lose.
Given he's lasted this long, through some tricky times and knowing it is not a position that is hard to be hated in, I wouldn't be surprised if he is still there in 2022. Who else wants the job, and if he is not getting a top top job, and has survived this long, not much reason to shift him.
He is on record as saying Health is his last big job
That's meaningless.
Possibly but he did say Health is his last big job. Doesn't he have outside business interests
Any of Hammond, Fallon, Rudd or Hunt would be a decent choice, even if none of them would be an outstanding choice. I actually think Fallon is not that unlikely, given that Hammond is unpopular (presumably because he talks so much sense), Rudd is a little on the light side and has the problem of the minuscule majority, and Hunt has the NHS millstone round his neck.
Longest serving Secretary of State for Health for quite some time, since the 80s. Of course, as we've seen with May, that's not in itself a stellar recommendation in the end.
He has done extremely well, and defused a lot of the problems he inherited from the turmoil over the Lansley reforms. He's sharp, and he's quite feisty, but he's also good at smoothing things over when necessary.
However, Health Secretaries get hated by the usual suspects. It's part of the job spec, and there's no getting round it. Therefore choosing him as leader would mean losing votes we don't need to lose.
Given he's lasted this long, through some tricky times and knowing it is not a position that is hard to be hated in, I wouldn't be surprised if he is still there in 2022. Who else wants the job, and if he is not getting a top top job, and has survived this long, not much reason to shift him.
He is on record as saying Health is his last big job
That's meaningless.
Possibly but he did say Health is his last big job. Doesn't he have outside business interests
C'mon, don't be naive.
What did Gove used to say?
I am not called naive very often and these days who knows
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Happened in Wales a while ago but opt out is easy if you do not want to donate
I will deliberately opt-out on principle. But it makes me angry the state *presumes* right over our bodies upon death.
I find it abhorrent morally and ethically.
I share your concerns - you do not need to agree but to be fair it will increase the organs donated helping to save lives
I don't care. The Government could ban and stop all sorts of things to save lives. It isn't about that. And nor should the duty of Government be to minimise statistical numbers deaths at the expense of everything else.
The Conservatives don't do State coercion. We should focus on changing public opinion and social attitudes with publicity drives, and convincing people to make that decision themselves.
Any of Hammond, Fallon, Rudd or Hunt would be a decent choice, even if none of them would be an outstanding choice. I actually think Fallon is not that unlikely, given that Hammond is unpopular (presumably because he talks so much sense), Rudd is a little on the light side and has the problem of the minuscule majority, and Hunt has the NHS millstone round his neck.
Longest serving Secretary of State for Health for quite some time, since the 80s. Of course, as we've seen with May, that's not in itself a stellar recommendation in the end.
He has done extremely well, and defused a lot of the problems he inherited from the turmoil over the Lansley reforms. He's sharp, and he's quite feisty, but he's also good at smoothing things over when necessary.
However, Health Secretaries get hated by the usual suspects. It's part of the job spec, and there's no getting round it. Therefore choosing him as leader would mean losing votes we don't need to lose.
Given he's lasted this long, through some tricky times and knowing it is not a position that is hard to be hated in, I wouldn't be surprised if he is still there in 2022. Who else wants the job, and if he is not getting a top top job, and has survived this long, not much reason to shift him.
He is on record as saying Health is his last big job
That's meaningless.
Possibly but he did say Health is his last big job. Doesn't he have outside business interests
C'mon, don't be naive.
What did Gove used to say?
I am not called naive very often and these days who knows
There's a game you play if you're an ambitious politician wanting to be leader.
Hunt has played it in the past, and he's playing it right now.
It's a fascinating battle; the UK, Germany and Spain have all deregulated the labour markets in the last 30 years, and it's been hugely positive for their economies.
France has resisted every effort at reform, and it's brought successive administrations to a halt. Will Macron succeed where Sarkozy and even Hollande failed?
Well the factory in La Souterraine in the Creuse is being killed by the CGT
the only way this will end is with eventual closure, they have pissed off all the owners and nobody wants to invest
reecently they have tried to find a buyer by having a 2 weeks strike, then blocking all their customer factories, threatening all interested buyers and now by insulting the president
you have to laugh
You would see much the same with Momentum under Prime Minister Corbyn.
A lot of budgets need to increase, we still have no money to pay for them unless we slash other areas of big spending, and there weren't the numbers for that even when the Tories had a majority.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Happened in Wales a while ago but opt out is easy if you do not want to donate
I will deliberately opt-out on principle. But it makes me angry the state *presumes* right over our bodies upon death.
I find it abhorrent morally and ethically.
I'd be fairly comfortable with an argument that if you welcome limitless state interference by the state (in the guise of the NHS) with your body while alive, after your demise it's kinda payback time. If that isn't already a valid argument, you could validate it with a contract which everyone gets offered the first time in adult life they go to an NHS doctor.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Happened in Wales a while ago but opt out is easy if you do not want to donate
I will deliberately opt-out on principle. But it makes me angry the state *presumes* right over our bodies upon death.
I find it abhorrent morally and ethically.
I'd be fairly comfortable with an argument that if you welcome limitless state interference by the state (in the guise of the NHS) with your body while alive, after your demise it's kinda payback time. If that isn't already a valid argument, you could validate it with a contract which everyone gets offered the first time in adult life they go to an NHS doctor.
I'm not comfortable with that argument at all, and it's quite a menacing one: one that presumes your body is some sort of surety over which the State holds a mortgage.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Worse than that - like the death penalty - it makes the State superior to rather than subordinate to the citizens
But they're not taken by the state - they're given to your fellow citizens.
And you can still opt out.
Nah, I don't buy that. The policy is being advocated purely on the basis that the Government knows that it will automatically increase donations, because people won't be aware or making a conscious decision about it, so their organs will default back to the State. Also, that they can exploit people's psychology over the guilt of opting-out.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Happened in Wales a while ago but opt out is easy if you do not want to donate
I will deliberately opt-out on principle. But it makes me angry the state *presumes* right over our bodies upon death.
I find it abhorrent morally and ethically.
I'd be fairly comfortable with an argument that if you welcome limitless state interference by the state (in the guise of the NHS) with your body while alive, after your demise it's kinda payback time. If that isn't already a valid argument, you could validate it with a contract which everyone gets offered the first time in adult life they go to an NHS doctor.
Nah. Philosophically all the NHS is is s common enterprise between citizens (via the state).
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Worse than that - like the death penalty - it makes the State superior to rather than subordinate to the citizens
But they're not taken by the state - they're given to your fellow citizens.
And you can still opt out.
Nah, I don't buy that. The policy is being advocated purely on the basis that the Government knows that it will automatically increase donations, because people won't be aware or making a conscious decision about it, so their organs will default back to the State. Also, that they can exploit people's psychology over the guilt of opting-out.
I find that devious and reprehensible.
It seems to have been well received in Wales and is saving lives
The organs are not harvested by or for the state. But for other individuals who will need them More than you, after death.
I'm very pleased someone has done this. As with the gay marriage legalisation, it is about time.
I have explained why below: all the arguments hinge on why because *you* think it's a good idea, it's fine to *impose* it on others.
That's not how you win, nor how a society should be run.
You go out and you convince other people, personally, to make that same positive choice themselves. So the individual is always in full conscious control. That's the dynamic I'm fighting for.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Worse than that - like the death penalty - it makes the State superior to rather than subordinate to the citizens
But they're not taken by the state - they're given to your fellow citizens.
And you can still opt out.
Nah, I don't buy that. The policy is being advocated purely on the basis that the Government knows that it will automatically increase donations, because people won't be aware or making a conscious decision about it, so their organs will default back to the State. Also, that they can exploit people's psychology over the guilt of opting-out.
I find that devious and reprehensible.
It seems to have been well received in Wales and is saving lives
And I'd disagree with it anywhere in the UK, but I never expected a Conservative administration to introduce it.
Nice one! That'll really stick it to those dying people on the waiting list. Next time they'll certainly think twice about living in a country with a government that offends your principles.
A lot of budgets need to increase, we still have no money to pay for them unless we slash other areas of big spending, and there weren't the numbers for that even when the Tories had a majority.
Nice one! That'll really stick it to those dying people on the waiting list. Next time they'll certainly think twice about living in a country with a government that offends your principles.
I think you make my point for me.
Not only will I do that, I'll encourage everyone I know to opt-out.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
The organs are not harvested by or for the state. But for other individuals who will need them More than you, after death.
I'm very pleased someone has done this. As with the gay marriage legalisation, it is about time.
I have explained why below: all the arguments hinge on why because *you* think it's a good idea, it's fine to *impose* it on others.
That's not how you win, nor how a society should be run.
You go out and you convince other people, personally, to make that same positive choice themselves. So the individual is always in full conscious control. That's the dynamic I'm fighting for.
Yeah, that's my attitude for fighting crime too. Some lefty loonies actually want to impose their own subjective morality on people by locking them up, just because they break some rule they don't agree with. That's not how a society should be run. All that money we spend on the police could instead be spent on just convincing people to make the positive, conscious choice not to commit crimes.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Worse than that - like the death penalty - it makes the State superior to rather than subordinate to the citizens
But they're not taken by the state - they're given to your fellow citizens.
And you can still opt out.
Nah, I don't buy that. The policy is being advocated purely on the basis that the Government knows that it will automatically increase donations, because people won't be aware or making a conscious decision about it, so their organs will default back to the State. Also, that they can exploit people's psychology over the guilt of opting-out.
I find that devious and reprehensible.
I know people who are on dialysis, and it sucks big time. I do see your point, though. This is a case for nudging and offering carrots. National "awareness" days and such are the work of the devil, but I can see a case for an annual push to enrol donors, on the scale of Remembrance day, gay pride week (is it a week?) etc to make it cool to donate.
Nice one! That'll really stick it to those dying people on the waiting list. Next time they'll certainly think twice about living in a country with a government that offends your principles.
I think you make my point for me.
Not only will I do that, I'll encourage everyone I know to opt-out.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
There's a steady increase (about 4% pa) in the length of the waiting lists each year (this is for kidneys as spent a few hours working through the numbers yesterday)
The issue is about 50% of donated organs aren't used because they can't find a non-resistant match on time
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
In Larry Niven's imagined future the death penalty is reintroduced for increasingly minor offences, down to parking fines and so on, to meet the demand for harvestable organs. I have heard what I hope are urban legends about transplant surgeons in American hospitals loitering near the beds of the terminally injured with a view to physically grabbing the required organ as soon as the patient flatlines.
Nice one! That'll really stick it to those dying people on the waiting list. Next time they'll certainly think twice about living in a country with a government that offends your principles.
I think you make my point for me.
Not only will I do that, I'll encourage everyone I know to opt-out.
Hmm. "After you die, would you like others to continue to suffer needlessly?"
I think you're making too much of this (or just trolling us all like RCS's comment).
I’ve heard from reliable sources some of the ex cabinet ministers trying to oust Mrs May are Leavers.
They think she’s too weak and damaged to deliver a proper Brexit and will be bullied by the cabinet Remainers into giving a BINO.
and of the Cameroons...
The decision to support the removal of Mrs May has nothing to do with Brexit.
It is solely about stopping Corbyn becoming Prime Minister.
It is awkward decision for many on the Cameroon wing of the party, but the conclusion is Boris is too damaged to replace her.
Ed Vaizey is merely the start.
So who are they supporting then?
The Cameroons?
Dave is backing Mrs May.
The others think it'll be one of Fallon, Hunt, Rudd, and Hammond.
Hunt
I think it would be Rudd, but her majority is an issue.
Rudd's majority is 346 and is being targetted by Labour's army of members
Good for them - perhaps targeting Rudd will protect other Tories who would otherwise be at risk, but the prize is too tempting.
Rudd fails the Private Eye test, i.e. 'What stories on X can we run in the next issue ... and the issue after that?' With Rudd, plenty.
On present trends, Momentum could unseat IDS, Johnson and Rudd.
If they wish to make their next leader Momentum-proof, south-west Surrey is one answer I suppose.
Or Spelthorne
You mean Kwasi .
I do indeed.
It's been too long since an OE has run the country.
OE (on scholarship), Harvard, and University Challenge winner at Trinity. Economically Thatcherite, socially laissez-faire, LEAVE. The hero the country needs, but only a PPS right now.
A lot of budgets need to increase, we still have no money to pay for them unless we slash other areas of big spending, and there weren't the numbers for that even when the Tories had a majority.
I'd cut other areas of big spending.
Yes, but that's not going to happen - the biggest areas of spending are Health and Welfare, and bloody murder is cried not only when they are touched, but when they merely are not increased by enough. The low hanging fruit like DCLG is mostly picked, foreign aid would net us some but its not as much as people think, and so on and so forth. Add in a government that was struggling to meet deficit reduction anyway, and sure they will probably throw around billions like anyone's business, but defence is not as much a vote winner.
And how much of it would just be wasted on some useless hardware anyway?
I do think we may have cut defence too far, but I don't see this government able to icnrease spending there even if they want to.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
There's a steady increase (about 4% pa) in the length of the waiting lists each year (this is for kidneys as spent a few hours working through the numbers yesterday)
The issue is about 50% of donated organs aren't used because they can't find a non-resistant match on time
The real trick will be for people to be able to have their own hearts, kidneys, livers, etc. Grown in a laboratory from their stem cells (which will be harvested at birth and stored) and then implanted as and when they need them.
I think that will happen by the end of this century.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
There are still 17,000 accidental deaths a year in the UK. Yet there are only 3700organ donations after death a year. There is a huge gap to be closed there and I think the opt out idea is perfectly reasonable.
When you are dead you are dead. The idea that someone else - or even multiple people - might live on because of your organs should be a source of great pride. The fact they might miss out and your organs would rot because you didn't sign a piece of paper seems the ultimate in futility and waste.
Following a life well lived with a death well died seems a perfect closure.
A nice little thought exercise for everyone, on a sheet of paper, write the offices of state down the left side, and then the Conservative runners across the top, then try filling in the grid. When you you start taking into account those that will not be involved for one reason or another with a potential PM, then you can start seeing who will be the next PM. After all, this is what most MP's are now doing of all parties.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
There are still 17,000 accidental deaths a year in the UK. Yet there are only 3700organ donations after death a year. There is a huge gap to be closed there and I think the opt out idea is perfectly reasonable.
When you are dead you are dead. The idea that someone else - or even multiple people - might live on because of your organs should be a source of great pride. The fact they might miss out and your organs would rot because you didn't sign a piece of paper seems the ultimate in futility and waste.
Following a life well lived with a death well died seems a perfect closure.
Hear, hear. PB can always be relied upon; someone explains your own thoughts better than you could.
You see that episode of The Thick of It? Where they spend all night trying to come up with someone - *anyone* - less shit to be Prime Minister? Where they scrape through the bottom of the barrel and consider absolutely anyone as PM?
That's the Tories right now. No matter how shit, how deranged, how repulsive the MP May be, they are better than the PM or the anointed successor.
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
There's a steady increase (about 4% pa) in the length of the waiting lists each year (this is for kidneys as spent a few hours working through the numbers yesterday)
The issue is about 50% of donated organs aren't used because they can't find a non-resistant match on time
The real trick will be for people to be able to have their own hearts, kidneys, livers, etc. Grown in a laboratory from their stem cells (which will be harvested at birth and stored) and then implanted as and when they need them.
I think that will happen by the end of this century.
It'll happen far sooner than that - give it 15 years or so
I'm furious about this opt-out for organs. A Conservative Government nationalising our bodies after we die.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
There are still 17,000 accidental deaths a year in the UK. Yet there are only 3700organ donations after death a year. There is a huge gap to be closed there and I think the opt out idea is perfectly reasonable.
When you are dead you are dead. The idea that someone else - or even multiple people - might live on because of your organs should be a source of great pride. The fact they might miss out and your organs would rot because you didn't sign a piece of paper seems the ultimate in futility and waste.
Following a life well lived with a death well died seems a perfect closure.
For those interested here are the numbers for transplants in the UK. Annual deaths run at around 400,000. Whilst a large number of those will not be suitable for donation it does seem like a pitifully small number of donations are made at the moment.
It's a fascinating battle; the UK, Germany and Spain have all deregulated the labour markets in the last 30 years, and it's been hugely positive for their economies.
France has resisted every effort at reform, and it's brought successive administrations to a halt. Will Macron succeed where Sarkozy and even Hollande failed?
And yet France is still about the same as us, economy-wise, and we both lag behind Germany despite that country's workers' councils and state ownership of industry (often partial).
I'm opted in for full donation, if someone has a strong objection though they are free to opt out. The reason most people aren't registered though isn't due to objection generally I think, more apathy.Which is why this is a good idea.
It's a fascinating battle; the UK, Germany and Spain have all deregulated the labour markets in the last 30 years, and it's been hugely positive for their economies.
France has resisted every effort at reform, and it's brought successive administrations to a halt. Will Macron succeed where Sarkozy and even Hollande failed?
And yet France is still about the same as us, economy-wise, and we both lag behind Germany despite that country's workers' councils and state ownership of industry (often partial).
If France's labour markets were reformed, they'd do a lot better than us. Currently, lots of people are stopped from working, while those who do are highly productive.
But commentators said the apparently off-the-cuff aside - reminiscent of Norman Tebbit's famous 1981 call to the British unemployed to get "on (their) bike" and "look for work" - was in fact the latest in a string of carefully choreographed outbursts to show he is getting France moving.
Comments
We need to find somewhere in between. Close trading relationship but no political integration. Close relationship on security. Free movement subject to credible job offer. ECJ interventions limited to trade and not every aspect of everyday life. We get to keep our own legal system.
I think that is what most people (leave and remain) would probably settle for.
Need to find a way of resetting the clock (in many ways)
They will be fully focused on solving the NI conundrum.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/europe-could-see-another-brexit-like-rupture-beyond-spain?
Meanwhile, Guardian gonna Guardian... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/05/frozen-elsa-dress-menace-disney-stereotypes
It's been too long since an OE has run the country.
I only expect that sort of shit from the Left.
That alone should be reason to topple May.
Its a shame. He put himself forward for leader last year with the plan of taking several years to sort Brexit out whilst keeping the economy running as usual.
It almost seems like he would be the strong and stable candidate.
Oct-Dec 17: 2.78 / 3.7
Jan-Mar 18: 5.7 / 10
Apr-Jun 18: 4.7 / 5.9
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125589838
I actually agree with the opt-out. We need more organ donors and, after all, the deceased has no need for them any more.
They'll probably still ask relatives' permission though.
the only way this will end is with eventual closure, they have pissed off all the owners and nobody wants to invest
reecently they have tried to find a buyer by having a 2 weeks strike, then blocking all their customer factories, threatening all interested buyers and now by insulting the president
you have to laugh
I find it abhorrent morally and ethically.
What did Gove used to say?
The Conservatives don't do State coercion. We should focus on changing public opinion and social attitudes with publicity drives, and convincing people to make that decision themselves.
Hunt has played it in the past, and he's playing it right now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41511790
Conservatives are so poor at defending their principles these days.
Without the laughs....
But they're not taken by the state - they're given to your fellow citizens.
And you can still opt out.
Dark.
The organs are not harvested by or for the state. But for other individuals who will need them
More than you, after death.
I'm very pleased someone has done this. As with the gay marriage legalisation, it is about time.
I find that devious and reprehensible.
That's not how you win, nor how a society should be run.
You go out and you convince other people, personally, to make that same positive choice themselves. So the individual is always in full conscious control. That's the dynamic I'm fighting for.
Not only will I do that, I'll encourage everyone I know to opt-out.
I hear that people/relatives are reluctant to donate but I suspect the main problem (and it's not a problem at all, it's actually a good thing) is that there just aren't as many people dying in scenario's that make organ donations viable?
For example due to advances in car design, emergency care, trauma care, intensive care, etc. There are fewer people dying in car crashes these days.
So the gain on the guy who crashes his car at 60mph and lives is the loss of the guy who might have received his heart...
The issue is about 50% of donated organs aren't used because they can't find a non-resistant match on time
Hmm. "After you die, would you like others to continue to suffer needlessly?"
I think you're making too much of this (or just trolling us all like RCS's comment).
And how much of it would just be wasted on some useless hardware anyway?
I do think we may have cut defence too far, but I don't see this government able to icnrease spending there even if they want to.
I think that will happen by the end of this century.
No conversations on catalonia with my Spanish contacts.
I'd missed your free market dogma.
When you are dead you are dead. The idea that someone else - or even multiple people - might live on because of your organs should be a source of great pride. The fact they might miss out and your organs would rot because you didn't sign a piece of paper seems the ultimate in futility and waste.
Following a life well lived with a death well died seems a perfect closure.
You are dead, it's not going to bother you in the slightest.
That's the Tories right now. No matter how shit, how deranged, how repulsive the MP May be, they are better than the PM or the anointed successor.
https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets/1616/united-kingdom.pdf
And that's amongst serious competition.
Also we do not record voting records in our medical history taking.
But commentators said the apparently off-the-cuff aside - reminiscent of Norman Tebbit's famous 1981 call to the British unemployed to get "on (their) bike" and "look for work" - was in fact the latest in a string of carefully choreographed outbursts to show he is getting France moving.