Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
And that will all be worthless if May cannot secure Brexit.
It will not be May not securing Brexit, she has a Deal to enable Brexit, it will be a majority of MPs voting for lengthy extension of Article 50 and EUref2 or BINO to avoid No Deal
Which may have something to do with May being utterly incapable of selling her deal.
The ERG were never going to allow any compromise with the EU whoever was PM, what May is sensibly now doing is forcing the ERG to either accept her Deal or risk no Brexit at all, rather like a mother telling her unruly children you may want steak and chips but it is chicken and boiled potatoes for you tonight otherwise no dinner at all
"How can you have your pudding if you won't eat your meat?!?"
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
May continues to peddle her absurd Project Fear at this late stage - perhaps she should threaten to resign if the WA is passed as that would cause a number of MPs a real dilemma.
She should threaten to stay on forever - the WA would pass immediately.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
You never know who might be reading.
When the unity of the ruling class starts to crack, the revolution is near.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
You never know who might be reading.
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
You never know who might be reading.
When the unity of the ruling class starts to crack, the revolution is near.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
You never know who might be reading.
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
You never know who might be reading.
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
You never know who might be reading.
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝
You have a Mail reader in the family ? The shame.
No wonder he preferred to hint that it was insider knowledge.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Mrs May in Grimsby summed up the whole miserable business perfectly.
Serious question Rog how far "north" have you ever ventured?
John O'Groats! Did you like the Clip of 'Grimsby' I posted? Why do you think Mrs May chose to make her keynote speech there..... Do you think she wanted Barnier to feel sorry for us?
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
Well, if your wife works in one of the Households and she tells you what’s going on you shouldn’t pass that on. If your wife doesn’t work in one of the Households but has been told things by someone who does, then she shouldn’t be passing it on!!
You never know who might be reading.
I would never betray a secret @TOPPING you should know that.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝
You have a Mail reader in the family ? The shame.
Of course. “The wives of the people who run the country” remember.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Is that backwards reasoning? Does health define beauty, instead of beauty betokening health? Black teeth is considered beautiful in geisha, iirc. Modern western standards of beauty now encompass overlarge breasts in women and unfeasibly large muscles in men, neither of which can be realistically achieved without drugs or surgery. Foot-binding is excruciatingly unhealthy. Face tattoos are difficult to defend as healthy but are on the rise. Lip implants can be grotesque. Heroin chic and anorexia have been held up as beautiful
(Sorry I'm not sure I'm making a coherent point here: it's just that a lot of beauty procedures are unhealthy or evocative of ill-health)
No, it's not backwards reasoning at all. We are attracted to beauty because it indicates health, and therefore good breeding material. Of course, in many cases these ideals are taken to the extreme, but they have their roots in the same basic principle.
Argentina football legend Diego Maradona is to acknowledge paternity of three Cuban children, his lawyer says.
This means the 58-year-old World Cup winner, who once denied any children other than with his former wife, is now the official father of eight children.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
And the differences were often personal not political.
My family became Tories because we disliked Sarah Churchill (we were close to Abigail Masham) and because we opposed the foundation of the Bank of England.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Meritocracy? Since 2010 the Conservatives have been the party of the old school tie and fuck business.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%
I actually did send full details last night regarding the latest Panelbase Voting Intentions poll for Holyrood and Westminster with my comments on the data. For the latter Labour is recorded at 22%..
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%
I actually did send full details last night regarding the latest Panelbase Voting Intentions poll for Holyrood and Westminster with my comments on the data. For the latter Labour is recorded at 22%..
Of course you did - frankly your constant attempts to re-write polls in favour of JC, whom you pretend not to like, are laughable. No-one is convinced by it and maybe you should leave the data to the professionals and focus on Labour's bigger problems of the anti-semitism with which your party is clearly infested.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Even now the Tories get their strongest support in rural areas and villages, many with farming families and families from the gentry going back centuries.
Indeed It is possible we could return to 18th and 19th and early 20th century politics if the Tories become the party of Brexit, rural areas and small business, TIG and the Liberals the party of Remain and big business and the towns and wealthier parts of big cities and socialist Corbynism retains its hold over Labour in the inner cities
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
I have sometimes wondered why those Liberals who split with Gladstone in 1886 over Ireland - to become Liberal Unionists - did not switch back to the Liberals in the 1920s when the issue had ceased to be divisive. Obviously many - such as Joseph Chamberlain - were dead by that time , but why did the likes of Austen and Nevile not seriously consider returning to their father's Radical roots?
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Jobs for life = Socialism = Monarchy
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established order
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
I have sometimes wondered why those Liberals who split with Gladstone in 1886 over Ireland - to become Liberal Unionists - did not switch back to the Liberals in the 1920s when the issue had ceased to be divisive. Obviously many - such as Joseph Chamberlain - were dead by that time , but why did the likes of Austen and Nevile not seriously consider returning to their father's Radical roots?
(1) As you say, most of them were dead. Most of the rest had changed their views. Oddly the only other Liberal Unionist still active in politics in the 1920s was the standard bearer of the right, Joynson-Hicks. (2) Austen Chamberlain does seem to have considered fashioning a new party with Lloyd George in 1921-22, but he couldn't carry the backbenchers or the wider party members with him (although neither he nor Neville ever used the label 'Conservative' even after it was officially readopted in 1925) (3) why should they do what their father did? My father and I have very different political views and I have no intention of changing that.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Jobs for life = Socialism = Monarchy
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established order
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.
God only knows. It's all very well if we accept that she really thinks her way is best for the UK, but she's not deaf or blind, and even if she was there are ways to communicate and she knows what she would like is not happening. That means a probably painful alternative is going to happen, so why not try to have some agency and choose another path, mitigate what she thinks is a less good outcome? Better than pretending like she has.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.
They do like to hang out at my favourite coffee shop
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.
ALDI = Alliance of LibDem Independents?
TESCO = Tory Economic Superiority Confirmed to be Ordinary?
ASDA = Association of Social Democrat Associations?
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.
Do you mean National Liberal?
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
red.
Lol - you forget to mention Labour sweeping up in Scotland with their latest poll of ....19%
I actually did send full details last night regarding the latest Panelbase Voting Intentions poll for Holyrood and Westminster with my comments on the data. For the latter Labour is recorded at 22%..
Of course you did - frankly your constant attempts to re-write polls in favour of JC, whom you pretend not to like, are laughable. No-one is convinced by it and maybe you should leave the data to the professionals and focus on Labour's bigger problems of the anti-semitism with which your party is clearly infested.
You can laugh as much as you like. As it happens , for over 10 years I did some professional work for BBC Local Radio as a psephologist and was never accused of bias.Indeed back in 1996 when I was still a Labour Party member ,I recall broadcasting on the Local Elections Results programme and commenting to the effect that the results - although poor - were better for the Tories than had been the case in 1995. I was accused by party members - who did not know me - of being a Tory. They were somewhat taken aback to be then informed by others that a few hours earlier I had been knocking up for a Labour candidate. I did not renew my membership in 1997 , and did not vote Labour at a Parliamentary Election again until 2015. For the next election , I am a firmly committed Spoilt Ballot Paper supporter - and I will not be emotionally blackmailed by people telling me that I live in a key marginal seat.
As the sane Brexiters are fond of saying... don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
They appear to be unaware that the original form of that aphorism as penned by noted Islamophobe Voltaire has the opposite meaning to that which they think.
Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
i.e. Some people will counsel compromise but do not heed them.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.
Do you mean National Liberal?
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
You are completely wrong. The last prominent Liberal Unionist was Neville Chamberlain. He became first a Unionist, then a National MP and died in 1940. The party was formally wound up in 1912 and its assets and members transferred to the new Unionist and Conservative party, from 1925 Conservative and Unionists.
There were still Liberal Nationals (renamed National Liberals in 1948) into the 1970s although the party was officially dissolved in 1968.
I think the source of your confusion may be if there were Unionists in Scotland - which was a separate party until 1965 - who described themselves as 'Liberal.'
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Just try getting your shopping at the Liberal Unionist though.
ALDI = Alliance of LibDem Independents?
TESCO = Tory Economic Superiority Confirmed to be Ordinary?
ASDA = Association of Social Democrat Associations?
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.
Do you mean National Liberal?
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
You are completely wrong. The last prominent Liberal Unionist was Neville Chamberlain. He became first a Unionist, then a National MP and died in 1940. The party was formally wound up in 1912 and its assets and members transferred to the new Unionist and Conservative party, from 1925 Conservative and Unionists.
There were still Liberal Nationals (renamed National Liberals in 1948) into the 1970s although the party was officially dissolved in 1968.
I think the source of your confusion may be if there were Unionists in Scotland - which was a separate party until 1965 - who described themselves as 'Liberal.'
Hailsham was my mentor when I was a teenager. Just repeating what he told me at the time 😊
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
I have sometimes wondered why those Liberals who split with Gladstone in 1886 over Ireland - to become Liberal Unionists - did not switch back to the Liberals in the 1920s when the issue had ceased to be divisive. Obviously many - such as Joseph Chamberlain - were dead by that time , but why did the likes of Austen and Nevile not seriously consider returning to their father's Radical roots?
(1) As you say, most of them were dead. Most of the rest had changed their views. Oddly the only other Liberal Unionist still active in politics in the 1920s was the standard bearer of the right, Joynson-Hicks. (2) Austen Chamberlain does seem to have considered fashioning a new party with Lloyd George in 1921-22, but he couldn't carry the backbenchers or the wider party members with him (although neither he nor Neville ever used the label 'Conservative' even after it was officially readopted in 1925) (3) why should they do what their father did? My father and I have very different political views and I have no intention of changing that.
If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classes
Jobs for life = Socialism = Monarchy
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established order
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stop
If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.
If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.
As the sane Brexiters are fond of saying... don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
They appear to be unaware that the original form of that aphorism as penned by noted Islamophobe Voltaire has the opposite meaning to that which they think.
Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
i.e. Some people will counsel compromise but do not heed them.
Many sayings change meaning, or acquire different emphasis, over time, so I don't know what point you think you are making but it certainly is not a devastating one.
If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.
You understood wrong. That was the absolute and final break after which he had nothing more whatsoever to do with them, but he described himself in 1922 as being 'without a seat, without a party and without an appendix.'
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classes
Jobs for life = Socialism = Monarchy
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established order
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stop
You do realise my "socialism = jobs for life = monarchy" is entirely tongue in cheek?
If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.
You understood wrong. That was the absolute and final break after which he had nothing more whatsoever to do with them, but he described himself in 1922 as being 'without a seat, without a party and without an appendix.'
If the Liberals had managed to recover sufficiently in the 1920s to see off Labour as the main alternative to the Tories, I wonder whether some might have returned to the Liberals.I imagine that Churchill would have remained in the Liberal ranks.
He would have disagreed with you. He left the Liberals in 1922 in frustration, although he was endorsed by the Liberals when he stood as a candidate in Leicester in 1923.
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.
I had understood that Churchill only parted company with the Liberals when Asquith decided to support Macdonald's first minority Labour Government in January 1924.
You understood wrong. That was the absolute and final break after which he had nothing more whatsoever to do with them, but he described himself in 1922 as being 'without a seat, without a party and without an appendix.'
Maybe not quite nothing more.
In the 1950s, Churchill sought to bring the Liberals - by then a much reduced party - entirely within a Conservative-dominated anti-socialist alliance. Who knows whether a romantic streak back to his time under Asquith and LG also played a part in his thinking.
The Conservatives stood aside in all five of the seats the Liberals won in England and Wales in 1951. Only in Orkney & Shetland did the Liberals win against Unionist opposition - though the Scottish Unionists were another wing of that alliance rather than a full part of the Conservative Party itself at the time.
However, of course, Clement Davies refused to go down the National Liberal route, which was probably the one significant thing of benefit he did for his party, and they survived and eventually revived as an independent force.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has andu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classes
Jobs for life = Socialism = Monarchy
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established order
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stop
You do realise my "socialism = jobs for life = monarchy" is entirely tongue in cheek?
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't..
Keep your hair on.
snip
The Liberal Unionists still exist in the background, but work through the Tories rather than independent.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Huh? They merged with the Conservatives in 1912.
The likes of Hurd, Ancram and Mayhew all regraded themselves as Liberal Unionists not Conservatives.
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
I think you are confusing Liberal Unionist and Liberal National.
Do you mean National Liberal?
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
You are completely wrong. The last prominent Liberal Unionist was Neville Chamberlain. He became first a Unionist, then a National MP and died in 1940. The party was formally wound up in 1912 and its assets and members transferred to the new Unionist and Conservative party, from 1925 Conservative and Unionists.
There were still Liberal Nationals (renamed National Liberals in 1948) into the 1970s although the party was officially dissolved in 1968.
I think the source of your confusion may be if there were Unionists in Scotland - which was a separate party until 1965 - who described themselves as 'Liberal.'
Hailsham was my mentor when I was a teenager. Just repeating what he told me at the time 😊
I see the National Liberals sat as independents in 1931.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has andu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they kno they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really bty of the merchant classes
Jobs for life = Socialism = Monarchy
There are very few Socialist monarchies, plenty of Tory monarchies as it is based on respect for tradition and the established order
You seem to miss the main thrust of my argument, namely Jobs for Life.
What about Tory farmers from farming families, Tories in the Lords, Tories living off an inheritance? Plenty of Tories have jobs and wealth for life, that is not necessarily an un Tory concept, indeed the Liberals are more opposed to that, while the Tories cut inheritance tax the Liberals want to shift tax from income to wealth, Corbyn Labour of course just wants to increase taxes on the rich full stop
You do realise my "socialism = jobs for life = monarchy" is entirely tongue in cheek?
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Given the only point of the royals is to add to the gaiety of the nation by playing out a very public soap opera, Ms Cambridge is to be applauded, a sort of Alexis Colby without the shoulder pads.
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Given the only point of the royals is to add to the gaiety of the nation by playing out a very public soap opera, Ms Cambridge is to be applauded, a sort of Alexis Colby without the shoulder pads.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.
People with real wealth know they are lucky as f*ck and try to give back
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.
Two different problems and I’m not sure both are simultaneously soluble. Who gets to lead the Conservative party? And can they command the confidence of the current House of Commons?
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.
Dunno though, maybe they take the Tsipras path: Win the election on a platform of never giving in, get into office kick up a big storm about how you're not going to give in, then give in.
You just need someone with the appropriate shrugging skills.
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
May would let the world burn down for one more day in number 10.
Short 9month extension , TM resigns. Brexiteer (probably boris) wins leadership. Calls GE to get brexit finished . Wins majority , gets mandate for hard brexit. Prepares us for wto “managed “ brexit .
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.
People with real wealth know they are lucky as f*ck and try to give back
But then through a series of wacky accidents and comical misunderstandings they end up funding pressure groups advocating for lowering their taxes instead.
Short 9month extension , TM resigns. Brexiteer (probably boris) wins leadership. Calls GE to get brexit finished . Wins majority , gets mandate for hard brexit. Prepares us for wto “managed “ brexit .
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
May would let the world burn down for one more day in number 10.
Socialism = jobs for life Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
No, the Tories did not really become the party of business until the 20th century when Labour arose on a socialist platform, they were the party of the monarchy and the landed gentry from the 17th century and the Whigs and their successors the Liberals the party of the merchant classes
Yes but this isn't the 17th Century Mr Mogg. If we still had 17th century parties I'd vote Whig but we don't.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
Meritocracy is just a way for people with wealth to tell themselves that they deserve it so that they can avoid feeling guilty.
People with real wealth know they are lucky as f*ck and try to give back
But then through a series of wacky accidents and comical misunderstandings they end up funding pressure groups advocating for lowering their taxes instead.
Nah that’s usually hedgies and tossers from the City
Real wealth got their tax breaks nailed a long time ago
Short 9month extension , TM resigns. Brexiteer (probably boris) wins leadership. Calls GE to get brexit finished . Wins majority , gets mandate for hard brexit. Prepares us for wto “managed “ brexit .
I suspect that’s a hopecast not a forecast
Yes probably, but possible , other alternative brexit gets blocked and we remain , leaving a very unhappy nation
I badly need to point out that any deal has to be countersigned by the European Parliament and they don't sit every day. Iain Dale's idea of a Meaningful Vote 3 two days before departure is too late.
I badly need to point out that any deal has to be countersigned by the European Parliament and they don't sit every day. Iain Dale's idea of a Meaningful Vote 3 two days before departure is too late.
The Meaningful Vote could be 3 days before departure; the conclusion of negotiations couldn't be.
There's no obligation on the EU to wait for the UK to ratify first.
This is what I’ve been thinking might happen . May extends and resigns , saying a new leader needs time to reset the negotiations . If you’re going to have a transition why not have voting rights . Although I think it’s likely to be a shorter extension say 9 months .
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
But that's precisely the problem. If the extension is long enough to incorporate a Tory leadership contest, then it will be won on a firm-to-hard Brexit mandate. It won't necessarily be an ERG candidate who wins but it will be someone who plays to that audience. At which point, you can't then go for a softer Brexit. Which means there's still no scope for a deal that the EU would agree to.
Two different problems and I’m not sure both are simultaneously soluble. Who gets to lead the Conservative party? And can they command the confidence of the current House of Commons?
Yes. As long as Corbyn leads Labour, the DUP will be firmly on the Tories' side, especially if the new leader has had to renounce the NI backstop.
The problem then (as now) is how do you get any WA through the Commons?
Thanks, did find the first one. Found some other links off the second one but there doesn't seem to be much clarity there, it is all rather vague. Although I suppose that could reflect the fact it is subjective when you can and can't use it to a degree.
That's clearly not her which is quite amusing. He probably used the same agency as Alan Partridge. "Tell them I want a 40 year old smasher. And do use that word: smasher."
Comments
You never know who might be reading.
She should threaten to stay on forever - the WA would pass immediately.
Palace gossip via the Daily Mail 😝
I’m not sure that “prick acts like a prick” moves the dial much
Serious question Rog how far "north" have you ever ventured?
The shame.
In real life the Tories consumed the Whigs and became the party of business and the merchant classes. Meritocracy is a proper 20th/21st century Tory concept more than jobs for life and other claptrap.
This means the 58-year-old World Cup winner, who once denied any children other than with his former wife, is now the official father of eight children.
My family became Tories because we disliked Sarah Churchill (we were close to Abigail Masham) and because we opposed the foundation of the Bank of England.
By the way, I think your claim the Tories 'consumed the Whigs' is a very dubious one. The last ones were, it is true, members of the Liberal Unionists but most of them broke with Chamberlain (a radical) and Balfour over tariffs. The only Whig I can think of who truly was absorbed by the Tories was Edward Smith-Stanley, and his son defected back to the Liberals.
A slightly grander version of the Co-op perhaps?
Indeed It is possible we could return to 18th and 19th and early 20th century politics if the Tories become the party of Brexit, rural areas and small business, TIG and the Liberals the party of Remain and big business and the towns and wealthier parts of big cities and socialist Corbynism retains its hold over Labour in the inner cities
There are also separate funds that can be made available to the Tories if needed.
TESCO = Tory Economic Superiority Confirmed to be Ordinary?
ASDA = Association of Social Democrat Associations?
LIDL = Loony Idiots Democratically Legalised
Nah - that was Heseltine and John Nott.
(Clashfern and Hailsham were both Liberal Unionists. They faded from prominence after Hague became leader though - the Tatchet generation wasn’t really their type)
I did not renew my membership in 1997 , and did not vote Labour at a Parliamentary Election again until 2015. For the next election , I am a firmly committed Spoilt Ballot Paper supporter - and I will not be emotionally blackmailed by people telling me that I live in a key marginal seat.
Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
i.e. Some people will counsel compromise but do not heed them.
There were still Liberal Nationals (renamed National Liberals in 1948) into the 1970s although the party was officially dissolved in 1968.
I think the source of your confusion may be if there were Unionists in Scotland - which was a separate party until 1965 - who described themselves as 'Liberal.'
As for your other point, of the three that were left, Austen was more comfortable as a bourgeois Tory, Neville Chamberlain was an ardent tariff reformer and Joynson-Hicks thought the Liberals limp-wristed traitors.
Don't you??
In the 1950s, Churchill sought to bring the Liberals - by then a much reduced party - entirely within a Conservative-dominated anti-socialist alliance. Who knows whether a romantic streak back to his time under Asquith and LG also played a part in his thinking.
The Conservatives stood aside in all five of the seats the Liberals won in England and Wales in 1951. Only in Orkney & Shetland did the Liberals win against Unionist opposition - though the Scottish Unionists were another wing of that alliance rather than a full part of the Conservative Party itself at the time.
However, of course, Clement Davies refused to go down the National Liberal route, which was probably the one significant thing of benefit he did for his party, and they survived and eventually revived as an independent force.
Sounds a bit familiar?
Oh and Sleep tight! Don't let the LibDems bite!
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1104154008392888320
How can May carry on being forced to change her red lines and go for a softer Brexit . The ERG might be willing to wear an extension to get a “ true believer “ in .
You just need someone with the appropriate shrugging skills.
My google game letting me down.
Real wealth got their tax breaks nailed a long time ago
😇
There's no obligation on the EU to wait for the UK to ratify first.
The problem then (as now) is how do you get any WA through the Commons?
https://leics.police.uk/advice-and-information/information-zone/taser/what-is-taser