Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes offering 50/1 that Cameron will be next Foreign Sec

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited November 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ladbrokes offering 50/1 that Cameron will be next Foreign Sec and 16/1 that he’ll return to the cabinet by end of 2019

I’m not quite sure how we should take the reports first in the Sun and then in other media outlets about the former PM’s desires. The Standard reports:

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 399
    First like Dave out of Downing Street after the referendum
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 69,764
    edited November 2
    Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,705
    Why does Cam want to be Foreign Sec?

    I suppose he thinks that he would be quite good at it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695
    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,844

    Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    Have You Understood Fear & Doubt ??!!
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,628

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,664
    I'm happy to go against the consensus on this one. 16/1 is a great price for David Cameron to be in the Cabinet by the end of next year. I've taken it (boosted to 18/1).

    In favour: he's of working age, very experienced, a smooth operator, adds gravitas and stability to any Cabinet, would not be a threat to any leader including Theresa May and would give any leader including Theresa May additional options that they don't currently have (eg moving Philip Hammond). Oh, and politics look as though they could be very choppy indeed, with Brexit hitting shortly and a hung Parliament allowing all kinds of shenanigans.

    People are talking about the Lord Home precedent. It's the wrong precedent. Look at the Peter Mandelson precedent. And relations between David Cameron and Theresa May (and indeed most of his party) seem much better than those that Lord Mandelson and Gordon Brown had enjoyed.

    Put it this way. Imagine at New Year the Prime Minister comes back from a walking holiday in Maidenhead to put Jeremy Hunt in the Treasury and David Cameron in the Foreign Office, sending Philip Hammond to spend more time with his spreadsheets. It would be hailed as a masterstroke and, I suspect, be pretty popular among the Tory faithful.

    If something looks like a pretty smart move, it's better than a 16/1 shot that it will happen.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    Hard to put the gang back together when Clegg has legged it to Facebook.

    But no doubt Osborne is up for it....
  • Hard to put the gang back together when Clegg has legged it to Facebook.

    But no doubt Osborne is up for it....

    Osborne is earning several million pounds a year, he's not coming back either.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325

    Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    This sounds like utter balderdash, as Boris would probably say.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695

    Hard to put the gang back together when Clegg has legged it to Facebook.

    But no doubt Osborne is up for it....

    Osborne is earning several million pounds a year, he's not coming back either.
    Unfortunately.
  • Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    This sounds like utter balderdash, as Boris would probably say.
    Boris has a history of pulling out of Tory leadership elections.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111

    Hard to put the gang back together when Clegg has legged it to Facebook.

    But no doubt Osborne is up for it....

    Osborne is earning several million pounds a year, he's not coming back either.
    You have a strangely dim view of your hero's personal advancement over public service.....
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,575

    Hard to put the gang back together when Clegg has legged it to Facebook.

    But no doubt Osborne is up for it....

    Osborne is earning several million pounds a year, he's not coming back either.
    It's all academic anyway, since we'll have Prime Minister David Miliband by the end of 2018
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,664

    Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    This sounds like utter balderdash, as Boris would probably say.
    Boris has a history of pulling out of Tory leadership elections.
    At least he has a history of pulling out of some things.
  • Hard to put the gang back together when Clegg has legged it to Facebook.

    But no doubt Osborne is up for it....

    Osborne is earning several million pounds a year, he's not coming back either.
    You have a strangely dim view of your hero's personal advancement over public service.....
    If George (or indeed Dave) came back they both know a significant wing of the party, mostly the ERG, would make governing impossible.

    I mean if you thought Andrew Bridgen was a c**t now just imagine what he'd be like with Cameron or Osborne as Foreign Secretary.

    So they've moved onto other pastures.
  • Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    This sounds like utter balderdash, as Boris would probably say.
    Boris has a history of pulling out of Tory leadership elections.
    At least he has a history of pulling out of some things.
    I got into trouble for this tweet.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,733
    Dave's return to politics would be a veritably mythic phenomenon, like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table returning from the dead to save England on its darkest day.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,255
    edited November 2
    I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.

    Give it 5 years.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,472

    I'm happy to go against the consensus on this one. 16/1 is a great price for David Cameron to be in the Cabinet by the end of next year. I've taken it (boosted to 18/1).

    In favour: he's of working age, very experienced, a smooth operator, adds gravitas and stability to any Cabinet, would not be a threat to any leader including Theresa May and would give any leader including Theresa May additional options that they don't currently have (eg moving Philip Hammond). Oh, and politics look as though they could be very choppy indeed, with Brexit hitting shortly and a hung Parliament allowing all kinds of shenanigans.

    People are talking about the Lord Home precedent. It's the wrong precedent. Look at the Peter Mandelson precedent. And relations between David Cameron and Theresa May (and indeed most of his party) seem much better than those that Lord Mandelson and Gordon Brown had enjoyed.

    Put it this way. Imagine at New Year the Prime Minister comes back from a walking holiday in Maidenhead to put Jeremy Hunt in the Treasury and David Cameron in the Foreign Office, sending Philip Hammond to spend more time with his spreadsheets. It would be hailed as a masterstroke and, I suspect, be pretty popular among the Tory faithful.

    If something looks like a pretty smart move, it's better than a 16/1 shot that it will happen.

    Mandelson is also the wrong precedent. Think of Blair returning under Brown, or even David Miliband under Ed. Heads uneasy wearing the crown do not anoint the king across the water.

    Where's the story come from? Is it a Number 10 wheeze to prevent a challenge to May by holding out the prospect of a better challenger coming along shortly? Sorry but I just can't see it. Of course, that might change when we see the New Year Honours list.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809
    Surely there is an opening for Cameron as Communications Director at Google. He could use his previous PR experience and form a working partnership with Clegg again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    May is likely staying for a few years yet anyway, the next leader is also likely to be more Eurosceptic than she is.

    For now Cameron can stick to his ocean research role with John Kerry
  • Surely there is an opening for Cameron as Communications Director at Google. He could use his previous PR experience and form a working partnership with Clegg again.

    Dave should go work for Twitter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    edited November 2

    Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    Except the chances are not against him given Boris leads this month's ConHome Tory members poll

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809

    Why would the security services have to ask permission to investigate?

    There was some investigation of Banks and a Russian connection which came to nothing.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,326

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    Ironic choice of comparator considering that Chamberlain did remain in the cabinet after he stepped down as PM.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284


    Why would the security services have to ask permission to investigate?

    There was some investigation of Banks and a Russian connection which came to nothing.
    To tap his phone etc?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695

    Why would the security services have to ask permission to investigate?

    Yes, it sounds odd. I think this is probably fake news.
  • HYUFD said:

    Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    Except the chances are not against him given Boris leads this month's ConHome Tory members poll

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
    Yet the members have no say on who the final two are, it is down to the MPs, which is why Boris won't stand again.

    He knows he'd get beaten like Zanzibar in the Anglo-Zanzibar war.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    Attorney General Geoffrey Cox leaps to the top of this month's ConHome Tory members Cabinet League table poll

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/cox-is-hoisted-shoulder-high-to-the-top-of-our-cabinet-league-table.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,844

    Hard to put the gang back together when Clegg has legged it to Facebook.

    But no doubt Osborne is up for it....

    Osborne is earning several million pounds a year, he's not coming back either.
    You have a strangely dim view of your hero's personal advancement over public service.....
    If George (or indeed Dave) came back they both know a significant wing of the party, mostly the ERG, would make governing impossible.

    I mean if you thought Andrew Bridgen was a c**t now just imagine what he'd be like with Cameron or Osborne as Foreign Secretary.

    So they've moved onto other pastures.
    I think it's an error to conflate George and Dave too closely, the former has been far more hostile to the current administration.
    I agree with Meeks' reasoning - but would want a much much bigger price for George than 16-1.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809

    Why does Cam want to be Foreign Sec?

    I suppose he thinks that he would be quite good at it.

    Cameron is known to be more on the side of foreigners than the Brits.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    kle4 said:

    I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.

    Give it 5 years.

    Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum. He is hardly likely to be quaking in his boots at having to deal with the ex-PM....
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565
    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,733
    Intriguing. But what could possibly have made Theresa, or anyone else, suppress an investigation? There was a lot of stuff at the time about poor little UKIP being unfairly maligned by the beastly British media. Perhaps someone became worried about how the plebs would react if the government appeared to be jumping on the UKIP-bashing bandwagon.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 39,277

    Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum.

    As opposed to BoZo the clown?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355


    Why would the security services have to ask permission to investigate?

    There was some investigation of Banks and a Russian connection which came to nothing.
    The seriousness or otherwise of this depends on:-

    1. Why they needed permission i.e. what did they need to do that they couldn't do using their powers.
    2. The legal/factual basis for the request.
    3. Why it was refused and who advised Mrs M on it. There will likely have been legal or other advice given.

    It is, for instance, possible that there was not a good enough basis then for whatever the security services were asking for but that more information has come to light leading to yesterday's announcement.

    Jumping to conclusions without the facts is enjoyable - especially for an opposition - but not necessarily illuminating. Or edifying.

    And we should be wary, shouldn't we, of having politicians automatically granting the security services whatever they want. On other occasions - and if they held consistently to their oft-proclaimed principles - Labour would be making exactly this point. After all, the spokesman for the Labour leader has said that one should not, after Iraq, believe what the security services tell us (vis a vis Russia and the Skripals). But now, apparently, they are to be believed unquestioningly when it comes to a UKIP donor. Hmm..... Ad hominem policy-making is not usually a good idea.

    And, finally, boring as this is: Mr Banks - odious man though he appears to be - has not yet been found guilty of anything and deserves the same presumption of innocence as everyone else.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,255
    Scott_P said:
    Meh. Politician does not like being doorstepped. Also, dog bites man.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,326
    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    He's still alive. That rules him out surely?

    Plus having the Supreme Governor of the Church of England on one side of the note and an avowed atheist on the other would seem a mite dissonant.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    I don't think other scientists hold him in quite the high regard that he holds himself (or that you do).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Meh. Politician does not like being doorstepped. Also, dog bites man.
    His driveway gates need fixing.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,767
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Meh. Politician does not like being doorstepped. Also, dog bites man.
    Doesn't shut the gate after him. A clear sign of terrible morale failings.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,255

    kle4 said:

    I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.

    Give it 5 years.

    Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum. He is hardly likely to be quaking in his boots at having to deal with the ex-PM....
    That's just another argument toward saying former leaders should never be able to contribute at the top of politics ever again, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. There are many political reasons Cameron would find it hard to make a come back, but even though the referendum destroyed his premiership I see no actual reason he could not be a decent Cabinet Minister under someone.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    rkrkrk said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Meh. Politician does not like being doorstepped. Also, dog bites man.
    Doesn't shut the gate after him. A clear sign of terrible morale failings.
    He does have what looks like a very nice camellia in the front. Though it could do with some pruning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,255

    Why does Cam want to be Foreign Sec?

    I suppose he thinks that he would be quite good at it.

    Cameron is known to be more on the side of foreigners than the Brits.
    It's the first I've heard of this apparently well known fact.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,844
    I think Corbyn's got a rule that he doesn't speak to journalists outside his front door.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,326
    Cyclefree said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    I don't think other scientists hold him in quite the high regard that he holds himself (or that you do).
    Actually I think the most deserving of the list Ladbrokes produced is Rosalind Franklin. She missed out on the Nobel on account of being dead so putting her on a banknote would be a fitting tribute.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,575
    Cyclefree said:


    Why would the security services have to ask permission to investigate?

    There was some investigation of Banks and a Russian connection which came to nothing.
    The seriousness or otherwise of this depends on:-

    1. Why they needed permission i.e. what did they need to do that they couldn't do using their powers.
    2. The legal/factual basis for the request.
    3. Why it was refused and who advised Mrs M on it. There will likely have been legal or other advice given.

    It is, for instance, possible that there was not a good enough basis then for whatever the security services were asking for but that more information has come to light leading to yesterday's announcement.

    Jumping to conclusions without the facts is enjoyable - especially for an opposition - but not necessarily illuminating. Or edifying.

    And we should be wary, shouldn't we, of having politicians automatically granting the security services whatever they want. On other occasions - and if they held consistently to their oft-proclaimed principles - Labour would be making exactly this point. After all, the spokesman for the Labour leader has said that one should not, after Iraq, believe what the security services tell us (vis a vis Russia and the Skripals). But now, apparently, they are to be believed unquestioningly when it comes to a UKIP donor. Hmm..... Ad hominem policy-making is not usually a good idea.

    And, finally, boring as this is: Mr Banks - odious man though he appears to be - has not yet been found guilty of anything and deserves the same presumption of innocence as everyone else.
    According the DM article, May declined because it " was simply too explosive in run up the 2016 EU Referendum". They don't give a source for that (in fact it's not even a quote, they just state it), so I'm not sure how trustworthy that is.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565
    Cyclefree said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    I don't think other scientists hold him in quite the high regard that he holds himself (or that you do).
    He is disliked by jealous peers because of his incisive thinking, large media profile and clarity of communication – all rare qualities in the world of academia.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.

    Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    He's still alive. That rules him out surely?

    Plus having the Supreme Governor of the Church of England on one side of the note and an avowed atheist on the other would seem a mite dissonant.
    Well it would provide balance. We should have disestablished the church eons ago – that the Queen is somehow defender of the organised national superstition is a complete embarrassment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    edited November 2

    HYUFD said:

    Not happening as much as I'd love for David Cameron (pbuh) to return.

    The most pertinent bit from The Sun story.

    In a separate development, the ex-Tory boss’s old nemesis Boris Johnson has also told his friends he has given up hope of becoming the next Tory leader.

    But Boris still hopes to be “in the mix” for a Cabinet job under Mrs May’s successor.

    Political friends say the former London Mayor is unlikely to even enter the next leadership race.

    One said: “If Boris think the chances are against him, he won’t go for it. He deosn’t want to be humiliated by coming fourth or fifth”.

    Except the chances are not against him given Boris leads this month's ConHome Tory members poll

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/conhomes-survey-davis-tears-a-chunk-off-johnson-who-now-leads-javid-by-less-than-a-point.html
    Yet the members have no say on who the final two are, it is down to the MPs, which is why Boris won't stand again.

    He knows he'd get beaten like Zanzibar in the Anglo-Zanzibar war.
    Tory MPs put Andrea Leadsom and David Davis and IDS in the final 2, no reason they could not do the same with Boris
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.

    Give it 5 years.

    Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum. He is hardly likely to be quaking in his boots at having to deal with the ex-PM....
    That's just another argument toward saying former leaders should never be able to contribute at the top of politics ever again, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. There are many political reasons Cameron would find it hard to make a come back, but even though the referendum destroyed his premiership I see no actual reason he could not be a decent Cabinet Minister under someone.
    Cameron's case is more extreme. He has no credibility with the Brexiteers, whom he belittled throughout the Referendum process. And Remainers believe that he has inflicted the greatest calamity on this country in 70/700 years (delete as appropriate), just in order to play politics within the Conservative Party.

    The number of people who mourn his having got the EU badly wrong - and so having to leave the stage - is significant. The number of people who would actually want him back at the heart of Government is insignificant.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,255
    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    You last paragraph is just so laughable. Reactionary views are not on the rise in many places in the world? In what world are reactionary views becoming a detail of history? Views you dislike clearly existed with or without a referendum, so if it did expose them you should be glad since it means they can be tackled where before they were hidden. The idea it 'legitimised' them, whatever that means, is one of those often asserted but nonsense ideas thrown about bitterly all the time without any sense to it, a comforting lie people use to make themselves feel better so they do not need to confront aspects of society which are problematic, since its all just because people are morally reprehensible. Thank goodness it is so simple!
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,628
    edited November 2
    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    And the breakup of the union, and a united Ireland, are now much more serious possibilities than they were in 2010.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,255

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.

    Give it 5 years.

    Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum. He is hardly likely to be quaking in his boots at having to deal with the ex-PM....
    That's just another argument toward saying former leaders should never be able to contribute at the top of politics ever again, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. There are many political reasons Cameron would find it hard to make a come back, but even though the referendum destroyed his premiership I see no actual reason he could not be a decent Cabinet Minister under someone.
    Cameron's case is more extreme. He has no credibility with the Brexiteers, whom he belittled throughout the Referendum process. And Remainers believe that he has inflicted the greatest calamity on this country in 70/700 years (delete as appropriate), just in order to play politics within the Conservative Party.

    The number of people who mourn his having got the EU badly wrong - and so having to leave the stage - is significant. The number of people who would actually want him back at the heart of Government is insignificant.
    I don't think Cameron could make a come back for quite some time for those reasons, 5 years was just thrown in at random - frankly it might take longer, if he is even interested. And I do think having jumped ship makes it so much more harder, since he would want to come back in at the Cabinet table, and why should people accept that when he wasn't even prepared to stick around in some tough times.

    I just don't have a problem in principle with a former PM, even ones who did poorly and would have that thrown in their face, from returning or sticking around. Some people might make very good Ministers even if they were bad PMs.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    You last paragraph is just so laughable. Reactionary views are not on the rise in many places in the world? In what world are reactionary views becoming a detail of history? Views you dislike clearly existed with or without a referendum, so if it did expose them you should be glad since it means they can be tackled where before they were hidden. The idea it 'legitimised' them, whatever that means, is one of those often asserted but nonsense ideas thrown about bitterly all the time without any sense to it, a comforting lie people use to make themselves feel better so they do not need to confront aspects of society which are problematic, since its all just because people are morally reprehensible. Thank goodness it is so simple!
    +1
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565
    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    You last paragraph is just so laughable. Reactionary views are not on the rise in many places in the world? In what world are reactionary views becoming a detail of history? Views you dislike clearly existed with or without a referendum, so if it did expose them you should be glad since it means they can be tackled where before they were hidden. The idea it 'legitimised' them, whatever that means, is one of those often asserted but nonsense ideas thrown about bitterly all the time without any sense to it, a comforting lie people use to make themselves feel better so they do not need to confront aspects of society which are problematic, since its all just because people are morally reprehensible. Thank goodness it is so simple!
    Wake up. Brexit has helped legitimise such views, rocket-fuelled by the most disgusting and xenophobic election campaign for several decades.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565
    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.

    Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first

    Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,367
    On Topic - Whilst it is always hard to go against Mr Meeks I suspect that this is one of those famous value losers. Whilst the Mandleson argument has merit - it should be noted that Mandy was (and had continued to be) an active Lord - Dave hasn't even been ennobled yet. I would want to see him taking an active (or at least semi-active) role in the Upper house first.

    As for the idea - presumably he's recently been binge-watching Designated Survivor and felt an affinity to Cornelius Moss... ;)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    Anazina said:

    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    You last paragraph is just so laughable. Reactionary views are not on the rise in many places in the world? In what world are reactionary views becoming a detail of history? Views you dislike clearly existed with or without a referendum, so if it did expose them you should be glad since it means they can be tackled where before they were hidden. The idea it 'legitimised' them, whatever that means, is one of those often asserted but nonsense ideas thrown about bitterly all the time without any sense to it, a comforting lie people use to make themselves feel better so they do not need to confront aspects of society which are problematic, since its all just because people are morally reprehensible. Thank goodness it is so simple!
    Wake up. Brexit has helped legitimise such views, rocket-fuelled by the most disgusting and xenophobic election campaign for several decades.
    History did not come to an end in 1997.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284
    edited November 2
    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Given he would have to appear on a note with the head of the established church, I think you are right.

    Sorry, @Carolus_Rex beat me to it... :D
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    I don't think other scientists hold him in quite the high regard that he holds himself (or that you do).
    He is disliked by jealous peers because of his incisive thinking, large media profile and clarity of communication – all rare qualities in the world of academia.
    I don't think Dawkins has made any significant scientific breakthroughs. He's a good writer.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,844
    edited November 2
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,163
    Do we have the Denby Dale result in detail (I gather from Slade Labour won), or the other two?
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,367
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    I don't think other scientists hold him in quite the high regard that he holds himself (or that you do).
    He is disliked by jealous peers because of his incisive thinking, large media profile and clarity of communication – all rare qualities in the world of academia.
    I don't think Dawkins has made any significant scientific breakthroughs. He's a good writer.
    He also suffers (for this purpose) from the impediment of being alive.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Do we have the Denby Dale result in detail (I gather from Slade Labour won), or the other two?

    Labour won by 46% to 43% in Denby Dale.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,099
    Anazina said:

    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    You last paragraph is just so laughable. Reactionary views are not on the rise in many places in the world? In what world are reactionary views becoming a detail of history? Views you dislike clearly existed with or without a referendum, so if it did expose them you should be glad since it means they can be tackled where before they were hidden. The idea it 'legitimised' them, whatever that means, is one of those often asserted but nonsense ideas thrown about bitterly all the time without any sense to it, a comforting lie people use to make themselves feel better so they do not need to confront aspects of society which are problematic, since its all just because people are morally reprehensible. Thank goodness it is so simple!
    Wake up. Brexit has helped legitimise such views, rocket-fuelled by the most disgusting and xenophobic election campaign for several decades.
    Yet polling shows we are one of the most tolerant societies in Europe.

    Could it be there might be a different driver other than Brexit in other EU countries and that might be in play to a lesser extent here too?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,628
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.

    Give it 5 years.

    Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum. He is hardly likely to be quaking in his boots at having to deal with the ex-PM....
    That's just another argument toward saying former leaders should never be able to contribute at the top of politics ever again, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. There are many political reasons Cameron would find it hard to make a come back, but even though the referendum destroyed his premiership I see no actual reason he could not be a decent Cabinet Minister under someone.
    Cameron's case is more extreme. He has no credibility with the Brexiteers, whom he belittled throughout the Referendum process. And Remainers believe that he has inflicted the greatest calamity on this country in 70/700 years (delete as appropriate), just in order to play politics within the Conservative Party.

    The number of people who mourn his having got the EU badly wrong - and so having to leave the stage - is significant. The number of people who would actually want him back at the heart of Government is insignificant.
    I don't think Cameron could make a come back for quite some time for those reasons, 5 years was just thrown in at random - frankly it might take longer, if he is even interested. And I do think having jumped ship makes it so much more harder, since he would want to come back in at the Cabinet table, and why should people accept that when he wasn't even prepared to stick around in some tough times.

    I just don't have a problem in principle with a former PM, even ones who did poorly and would have that thrown in their face, from returning or sticking around. Some people might make very good Ministers even if they were bad PMs.
    Cameron should follow the example of John Profumo who found redemption through charity work, and was even honoured for it, after he was forced out of politics. There is no way back into politics for him and it is an affront for a return to be suggested.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 926
    edited November 2
    On Boris there is no one step he is guaranteed to fall at or get through, and I think writing him off is premature.

    On standing, he could well decide now or never and brazen his way through whatever embarrassment will come his way.

    On MPs he needs a chunk of ERG following and a small coterie of non ERG fans in the early rounds, and could get through the final 3 way round with around 80 MPs, against other candidates with their own flaws. The MP round is classic reality show format and we've all seen weaker contenders scrape into later rounds doing just enough at each turn..

    On the membership, many see through him, but he also had backers and again may be against another flawed candidate, not an unspecified ABB ticket.

    By rights be should be out of the race with his record. But, in reality, he is not.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,099
    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    You last paragraph is just so laughable. Reactionary views are not on the rise in many places in the world? In what world are reactionary views becoming a detail of history? Views you dislike clearly existed with or without a referendum, so if it did expose them you should be glad since it means they can be tackled where before they were hidden. The idea it 'legitimised' them, whatever that means, is one of those often asserted but nonsense ideas thrown about bitterly all the time without any sense to it, a comforting lie people use to make themselves feel better so they do not need to confront aspects of society which are problematic, since its all just because people are morally reprehensible. Thank goodness it is so simple!
    Laughable? more like delusional
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325
    "So, while old-line campaign operatives remained quietly pessimistic, a new, Beto-favoring concept started making the rounds: Texas isn’t a red state, it is a nonvoting state. This made a lot of sense, as turnout has declined to the point where Texas ranks dead last in the country, with only 28 percent of Texans voting in the 2014 midterms."

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/02/how-to-win-texas-2018-senate-beto-orourke-ted-cruz-222147
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    Indeed. Given that Wilson demanded a super-majority to take us in the first place, it would have been every easy to require the same this time. And Ozzy counselled strongly against holding the referendum at all.

    As Alastair says, Cameron was a smooth operator, but he was sadly let down by one gigantic misjudgement which has set the UK back a generation and legitimised xenophobia and closed, nationalistic thinking, when it looked for all the world that such reactionary views were on their way to becoming a detail of history.
    You last paragraph is just so laughable. Reactionary views are not on the rise in many places in the world? In what world are reactionary views becoming a detail of history? Views you dislike clearly existed with or without a referendum, so if it did expose them you should be glad since it means they can be tackled where before they were hidden. The idea it 'legitimised' them, whatever that means, is one of those often asserted but nonsense ideas thrown about bitterly all the time without any sense to it, a comforting lie people use to make themselves feel better so they do not need to confront aspects of society which are problematic, since its all just because people are morally reprehensible. Thank goodness it is so simple!
    I'd also take issue with the view that somehow Cameron inflicted the EU referendum on a population that never wanted it. A majority of the public voted for pro-referendum parties in 2015, and 72% took part in the vote.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    edited November 2
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.

    Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first

    Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
    That may be but there are several other Scientists from the UK including Nobel Prize Winners like Sir Paul Nurse or inventers like Sir Tim Berners Lee who have more claim to be on the note
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Given he would have to appear on a note with the head of the established church, I think you are right.

    Sorry, @Carolus_Rex beat me to it... :D
    Would provide balance to the farcical situation whereby a 92 year old individual by an accident of birth is defender of a state-mandated superstition. It might be time to throw we humanists a bone!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Given he would have to appear on a note with the head of the established church, I think you are right.

    Sorry, @Carolus_Rex beat me to it... :D
    Would provide balance to the farcical situation whereby a 92 year old individual by an accident of birth is defender of a state-mandated superstition. It might be time to throw we humanists a bone!
    Na, best not giving them any traction.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    Cameron's friends speak with forked tongue....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284
    Thatcher was a chemist...... just saying :smiley:
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,988
    I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.

    For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.

    It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.
  • I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.

    For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.

    It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.

    True, but as there wouldn't have been a campaign at all if it wasn't for Dave, it's fair to hold him to a higher standard, and to never, ever, allow him out of his shed.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,575

    I don't particularly care whether Dave returns or not ... but the idea that he is solely responsible for the Leave vote having run a calamitous campaign is nonsense.

    For a start, Jeremy Corbyn refused to share a platform with Tory Remainers or even Labour Remainers like Tony Blair.

    It was Corbyn's sabotage of the campaign that truly delivered Leave.

    Do you think Labour's collapse in Scotland after the Sindyref campaign may have had something to do with that?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,747
    edited November 2
    HYUFD said:

    May is likely staying for a few years yet anyway, the next leader is also likely to be more Eurosceptic than she is.

    For now Cameron can stick to his ocean research role with John Kerry

    It’s Kirsty he’s enjoying working with not Kerry

    https://i2-prod.birminghampost.co.uk/incoming/article3904742.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/kirsty-bertarelli-860026653.jpg
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,238
    edited November 2

    Shadsy's Christmas Bonus specials.

    Indeed.

    Cameron made the most catastrophic political misjudgment since Chamberlain accepted Hitler's word at Munich.

    His career is over.
    The fact that he appears to even think this could happen, probably explains why he was stupid enough to offer a referendum without a threshold.
    You bang on about a threshold but the only reasonable threshold for decision making is 50%+1 and given that turnout was very high in the referendum it isn't even as if the decision was that of a small number on a low turnout.

    The public was asked a question, the public gave its answer. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean Cameron should have found a way to weasel out of it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Given he would have to appear on a note with the head of the established church, I think you are right.

    Sorry, @Carolus_Rex beat me to it... :D
    Would provide balance to the farcical situation whereby a 92 year old individual by an accident of birth is defender of a state-mandated superstition. It might be time to throw we humanists a bone!
    “State-mandated” ......

    I must have missed the law which mandated that everyone must be an Anglican. Perhaps you could point me to such a law. I’d hate to be a law-breaker.......
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,164
    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    He fell foul of the baying mob for saying something ideologically unsound about women. He is to be cast into the abyss (sorry if I triggered anyone with acrophobia).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,747
    Cyclefree said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    I don't think other scientists hold him in quite the high regard that he holds himself (or that you do).
    By many accounts he’s very unpleasant and self opinionated
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.

    Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first

    Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
    What scientific contribution has he made?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    May is likely staying for a few years yet anyway, the next leader is also likely to be more Eurosceptic than she is.

    For now Cameron can stick to his ocean research role with John Kerry

    It’s Kirsty he’s enjoying working with not Kerry

    https://i2-prod.birminghampost.co.uk/incoming/article3904742.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/kirsty-bertarelli-860026653.jpg
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/29/climate-change-pollution-overfishing-protect-oceans-kerry-cameron-column/1743640002/
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,164
    Cyclefree said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.

    Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first

    Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
    What scientific contribution has he made?
    His work on rationality, humanism, and the public understanding of science (and in particular evolution) should be celebrated. I agree his contribution in pure science was not stellar - but it was by no means poor.

    He has become a rather cantankerous old soul, but I'd say (a) he's earned it, and (b) that shouldn't detract from the past.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,326

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I find it hard to believe Cameron would even privately mention coming back before even this initial phase of Brexit is done, and even if the intention would be to come back after it, say in late 2019. It will always be hard because he will have sat out the most critical period for seemingly no other reason than to avoid the hassle, since if he wanted to be a backbencher he could have been. But that is even more notable if he is back soon.

    Give it 5 years.

    Even after 5 years, if he were to pop up as Foreign Secretary, his opposite number in say Russia would know he was dealing with the Guy Who Fucked Up The Referendum. He is hardly likely to be quaking in his boots at having to deal with the ex-PM....
    That's just another argument toward saying former leaders should never be able to contribute at the top of politics ever again, which I don't think is necessarily a good thing. There are many political reasons Cameron would find it hard to make a come back, but even though the referendum destroyed his premiership I see no actual reason he could not be a decent Cabinet Minister under someone.
    Cameron's case is more extreme. He has no credibility with the Brexiteers, whom he belittled throughout the Referendum process. And Remainers believe that he has inflicted the greatest calamity on this country in 70/700 years (delete as appropriate), just in order to play politics within the Conservative Party.

    The number of people who mourn his having got the EU badly wrong - and so having to leave the stage - is significant. The number of people who would actually want him back at the heart of Government is insignificant.
    I don't think Cameron could make a come back for quite some time for those reasons, 5 years was just thrown in at random - frankly it might take longer, if he is even interested. And I do think having jumped ship makes it so much more harder, since he would want to come back in at the Cabinet table, and why should people accept that when he wasn't even prepared to stick around in some tough times.

    I just don't have a problem in principle with a former PM, even ones who did poorly and would have that thrown in their face, from returning or sticking around. Some people might make very good Ministers even if they were bad PMs.
    Cameron should follow the example of John Profumo who found redemption through charity work, and was even honoured for it, after he was forced out of politics. There is no way back into politics for him and it is an affront for a return to be suggested.
    If Dave's fall was anything like Profumo's then someone really ought to tell Sam!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355

    Cyclefree said:


    Why would the security services have to ask permission to investigate?

    There was some investigation of Banks and a Russian connection which came to nothing.
    The seriousness or otherwise of this depends on:-

    1. Why they needed permission i.e. what did they need to do that they couldn't do using their powers.
    2. The legal/factual basis for the request.
    3. Why it was refused and who advised Mrs M on it. There will likely have been legal or other advice given.

    It is, for instance, possible that there was not a good enough basis then for whatever the security services were asking for but that more information has come to light leading to yesterday's announcement.

    Jumping to conclusions without the facts is enjoyable - especially for an opposition - but not necessarily illuminating. Or edifying.

    And we should be wary, shouldn't we, of having politicians automatically granting the security services whatever they want. On other occasions - and if they held consistently to their oft-proclaimed principles - Labour would be making exactly this point. After all, the spokesman for the Labour leader has said that one should not, after Iraq, believe what the security services tell us (vis a vis Russia and the Skripals). But now, apparently, they are to be believed unquestioningly when it comes to a UKIP donor. Hmm..... Ad hominem policy-making is not usually a good idea.

    And, finally, boring as this is: Mr Banks - odious man though he appears to be - has not yet been found guilty of anything and deserves the same presumption of innocence as everyone else.
    According the DM article, May declined because it " was simply too explosive in run up the 2016 EU Referendum". They don't give a source for that (in fact it's not even a quote, they just state it), so I'm not sure how trustworthy that is.
    If the security services had a legitimate basis for the request, then that reason would not be a good reason for refusing it.

    If the HS really made a decision like that for political reasons, they’d want to have their back covered - if they had any sense- and get the PM to sign off on it.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,086
    edited November 2
    Cyclefree said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.

    Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.

    Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first

    Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
    What scientific contribution has he made?
    Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"

    [Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
This discussion has been closed.