Mr. Borough, I'm still on the Roger Mortimer biography. Edward II's reliance on favourites that split the kingdom is not entirely dissimilar to May being led astray by the terrible twosome.
Judging by press reports, she was incapable of deciding what biscuit to have with her coffee without these two telling her.
The problem would be convincing the country that the rest of the Tory party meant it. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Even more bizarrely, May was one of the very first to openly tell her party it needed to change. Way before Cameron.
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
But, she was already banging on about grammar schools months before the clusterf*** that was the campaign. She told Osborne to go out and discover his own party - the implication being that most members didn't believe in a word of what Cam/Os were on about and wanted a return to banging on about grammar schools, the birch, fox hunting, tax cuts at the expense of the disabled etc etc.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
This is what happens when we charge people to train as nurses rather than pay them to train as nurses.
I've forgotten who introduced this nonsense, no doubt you'll remind me.
The effect of introducing fees is not yet in these figures. These are people who have finished their 3 year course.
Ain't market forces wonderful?
Yep, market forces will never be beaten, you're right.
Its why an ever decreasing number of people are deciding not to pay to train as a nurse.
Its taken a while but you're beginning to understand how it works, and that the party you belong to introduced. Its a bizarre world where we look upon media studies students as important as young nurses.
Fees for Nursing courses were introduced last year by the Tories, prior to that nursing students had NHS bursaries.
Not my party.
Are you for real?
To become a nurse you need a degree, to get a degree you pay tuition fees. Ask my friend's daughter who went through this a few years back.
The lib dems treat media studies students the same as aspiring nurses then you come on here bleating about staff shortages in the NHS.
She was ripped off!
NHS nurses and other allied professions were entitled to bursaries until this year:
"Student nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, including occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, podiatrists and radiographers, currently do not pay tuition fees. They receive a mixture of a non-means-tested bursary, a means-tested bursary and a reduced-rate student loan to help with their living costs."
Let's also remember that it was Labour who introduced tuition fees, and it was the Conservatives who proposed raising them to £9000 per year. The worst the Lib Dems can be accused of in this regard is lending their support to the Conservatives in return for concessions in other areas as part of coalition horse-trading.
The problem would be convincing the country that the rest of the Tory party meant it. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Even more bizarrely, May was one of the very first to openly tell her party it needed to change. Way before Cameron.
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
But, she was already banging on about grammar schools months before the clusterf*** that was the campaign. She told Osborne to go out and discover his own party - the implication being that most members didn't believe in a word of what Cam/Os were on about and wanted a return to banging on about grammar schools, the birch, fox hunting, tax cuts at the expense of the disabled etc etc.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
Not necessarily so. Corporation tax has been cut and disability benefits are frozen, as well as the frankly disgusting attempts to reduce the amount of benefit for those in the work related group of ESA. I speak from experience. The government's treatment of the disabled is somewhere between negligently aloof and actively damaging.
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
The even bigger irony is that would have been written by Steve Hiton.
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
The recession of 2008-09 blew all that away. By 2010, the government was spending £4 for every £3 it raised. So, the government was in no position to push through big increases in public spending.
And it turned out in the end that the voters cared quite a lot about Europe.
The problem would be convincing the country that the rest of the Tory party meant it. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Even more bizarrely, May was one of the very first to openly tell her party it needed to change. Way before Cameron.
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
But, she was already banging on about grammar schools months before the clusterf*** that was the campaign. She told Osborne to go out and discover his own party - the implication being that most members didn't believe in a word of what Cam/Os were on about and wanted a return to banging on about grammar schools, the birch, fox hunting, tax cuts at the expense of the disabled etc etc.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
Not necessarily so. Corporation tax has been cut and disability benefits are frozen, as well as the frankly disgusting attempts to reduce the amount of benefit for those in the work related group of ESA. I speak from experience. The government's treatment of the disabled is somewhere between negligently aloof and actively damaging.
The personal allowance has also been raised on a number of occasions and fuel duty hasn't been increased. All these could have funded better ESA and PIP.
The problem would be convincing the country that the rest of the Tory party meant it. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Even more bizarrely, May was one of the very first to openly tell her party it needed to change. Way before Cameron.
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
But, she was already banging on about grammar schools months before the clusterf*** that was the campaign. She told Osborne to go out and discover his own party - the implication being that most members didn't believe in a word of what Cam/Os were on about and wanted a return to banging on about grammar schools, the birch, fox hunting, tax cuts at the expense of the disabled etc etc.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
Not necessarily so. Corporation tax has been cut and disability benefits are frozen, as well as the frankly disgusting attempts to reduce the amount of benefit for those in the work related group of ESA. I speak from experience. The government's treatment of the disabled is somewhere between negligently aloof and actively damaging.
The personal allowance has also been raised on a number of occasions and fuel duty hasn't been increased. All these could have funded better ESA and PIP.
Overall, though, taxation is higher than in 2010. And, raising the basic allowance is a good thing.
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
And therein lies the Conservatives' difficulty. They are far more interested in their pursuing their hobbyhorses of marginal relevance than dealing with the country's pressing problems. That isn't going to change any time soon.
@rottenborough Yes, indeed. And all this is before even touching on the heartless and intrusive assessments for work capability and PIP themselves. I defy anyone here to go through those and not feel like they have been pulled apart in far more disturbingly intimate ways than any medical assessment.
Mr. Woolie, yeah, I was considering having a look at the match bets but I really dislike the way Betfair changed the stats a few years ago. It used to have one page where you could easily shift from one head-to-head stat set to another, but now you have to check the market, then, within that, check the stats.
That might sound like a small thing, but it means checking the same number of matches probably takes about five times longer, and it's bloody tedious.
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
Except 17 million voted to Leave the EU, more than have ever voted Tory, a plurality polled backed new grammar schools in the biggest rise in the Tory poll rating in the last decade came from Osborne's announcement of an inheritance tax cut the year after this speech
MSP for which party? I believe Ms Ahmed-Sheikh was Labour at one point? Anyway the party is over for her chez SNP now Alex Salmond is out of the picture. The two clearly had a thing going, resulting in Salmond's ghost appearance in a Bollywood movie
Actually part of that is due to new language test results for nurses being processed and of course the government is now expanding training places even while ending bursaries (there have long been more applicants than places for nurses training) and it is likely the government will finally end the nurses paycap in the autumn once the pay review body reports
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
Except 17 million voted to Leave the EU, more than have ever voted Tory, a plurality polled backed new grammar schools in the biggest rise in the Tory poll rating in the last decade came from Osborne's announcement of an inheritance tax cut the year after this speech
The EU is a non party issue in terms of in or out. People might like the idea of grammar schools but it's not an issue that exercises many parents minds, they just want good schooling and Osbornes offer was firstly in a very different time economically and was just a catnip for the not Brown, not Labour vote in the way Corbyns offer was and is for the not May, not Tory vote now.
A chartered surveyor and fire expert on BBC Breakfast calling into question the testing procedure that's failed 100% of cladding samples tested since the Grenfell fire
It is a bit odd that all of them are failing....
Can't find where i saw it, but there was a comment that the tests being used aren't the ones specified in the building regs...
A chartered surveyor and fire expert on BBC Breakfast calling into question the testing procedure that's failed 100% of cladding samples tested since the Grenfell fire
It is a bit odd that all of them are failing....
Can't find where i saw it, but there was a comment that the tests being used aren't the ones specified in the building regs...
Mr. Borough, I'm still on the Roger Mortimer biography. Edward II's reliance on favourites that split the kingdom is not entirely dissimilar to May being led astray by the terrible twosome.
ha, they got off a bit more lightly than Piers Gaveston
The problem would be convincing the country that the rest of the Tory party meant it. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Even more bizarrely, May was one of the very first to openly tell her party it needed to change. Way before Cameron.
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
But, she was already banging on about grammar schools months before the clusterf*** that was the campaign. She told Osborne to go out and discover his own party - the implication being that most members didn't believe in a word of what Cam/Os were on about and wanted a return to banging on about grammar schools, the birch, fox hunting, tax cuts at the expense of the disabled etc etc.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
Not necessarily so. Corporation tax has been cut and disability benefits are frozen, as well as the frankly disgusting attempts to reduce the amount of benefit for those in the work related group of ESA. I speak from experience. The government's treatment of the disabled is somewhere between negligently aloof and actively damaging.
The personal allowance has also been raised on a number of occasions and fuel duty hasn't been increased. All these could have funded better ESA and PIP.
Overall, though, taxation is higher than in 2010. And, raising the basic allowance is a good thing.
^ Corrected quoting.
Please can we try and get the blockquoting correct, reading a thread where Sean Fear is in favour of potentially raising fuel duty first thing on a Monday simply will not do.
MSP for which party? I believe Ms Ahmed-Sheikh was Labour at one point? Anyway the party is over for her chez SNP now Alex Salmond is out of the picture. The two clearly had a thing going, resulting in Salmond's ghost appearance in a Bollywood movie
Mr. Borough, I'm still on the Roger Mortimer biography. Edward II's reliance on favourites that split the kingdom is not entirely dissimilar to May being led astray by the terrible twosome.
ha, they got off a bit more lightly than Piers Gaveston
Mr. Borough, I'm still on the Roger Mortimer biography. Edward II's reliance on favourites that split the kingdom is not entirely dissimilar to May being led astray by the terrible twosome.
ha, they got off a bit more lightly than Piers Gaveston
Piers Gaveston got off more lightly than the De Spensers.
Mr. Eagles, reckon Cameron misses the political cut and thrust?
Not really, he's loving spending so much time with his family, but it does pain him to see the party struggling and his detox project trashed.
Though May still won 42% to Cameron's 37%, Cameron was the right leader for the 2010 and 2015 elections but after he called the EU referendum and lost it he had to go and May was the only viable alternative of the contendors
I have decided on the perfect analogy for Brexit: an SAP R/3 implementation from about 1997. SAP R/3 is – somewhat ironically – by far Europe’s most successful software creation. It is the back-end accounting, inventory and process system used by the world’s largest companies.
Now, the reason R/3 sold so well is that it made great promises for how it could change and improve organisations. And, by and large, those promises were true. When a firm had moved to SAP, things did work better.
But installing (implementing) SAP could be a complex logistical nightmare that destroyed the careers of anyone who touched it. Budgets were blown out, with firms often spending more than 10x the cost of the software on “experts” (consultants) who helped with the implementation. Plans to get software installed in a six months often proved laughably optimistic, with go live often delayed years.
It turned out that changing the entire software system on which your organisation run was a greater challenge that the SAP salespeople let on when they were showing you fancy Powerpoint slides.
Brexit is like installing R/3. It’s a complex process with many dependencies.
Later, when post-mortems were done on R/3 implementations, it turned out that (while all of them were late and over budget), there were clear common factors between those that worked and those that didn’t.
Failed implementations usually had no greater plan than “install SAP”, and usually had a big bang mentality “on the first of January, we will go live on SAP worldwide!”. Successful ones had a tight plan with limited scope: “first we implement SAP Accounts Receivable on our Belgian subsidiary, and run it for three months to understand all the issues”.
Proponents of SAP implementation as a series of baby-steps were rarely popular. Their proposals usually involved spending a lot more money, and taking a lot more time. But their proposals actually worked. The big bang guys crashed and burned. And the fallout from their crashes often resulted in profit warnings, CEO resignations, and the end of more than one company.
Politicians: take note.
So pilot Brexit on the Isle of Wight first?
Cue joke about Sweden 1967 (change from driving on left to driving on right): we can't implement a change of this magnitude all at once so we will stagger it. In the first week HGVs and motorbikes with sidecars will switch to the right...
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
The recession of 2008-09 blew all that away. By 2010, the government was spending £4 for every £3 it raised. So, the government was in no position to push through big increases in public spending.
And it turned out in the end that the voters cared quite a lot about Europe.
If you are asked a question you have to answer it, particularly when you are only given a choice between two words. It doesn't necessarily mean they think it a question of burning importance. The bigger takeaway is that David Cameron didn't follow his own advice.
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
Except 17 million voted to Leave the EU, more than have ever voted Tory, a plurality polled backed new grammar schools in the biggest rise in the Tory poll rating in the last decade came from Osborne's announcement of an inheritance tax cut the year after this speech
The EU is a non party issue in terms of in or out. People might like the idea of grammar schools but it's not an issue that exercises many parents minds, they just want good schooling and Osbornes offer was firstly in a very different time economically and was just a catnip for the not Brown, not Labour vote in the way Corbyns offer was and is for the not May, not Tory vote now.
Yes but Corbyn knew how to motivate his supporters, as indeed did Osborne with that tax cut, it was May's advisers failure to offer anything to motivate their supporters which cost them so badly
Mr. Eagles, reckon Cameron misses the political cut and thrust?
Not really, he's loving spending so much time with his family, but it does pain him to see the party struggling and his detox project trashed.
Who spoke to the Times about the DUP call?
The odd thing about the 2010 government is that Cameron had said all these fine words, the party had had years of preparation for government, yet immediately we had various ministers embarking on revolution -- Gove, Lansley and IDS, for instance -- rather than address voters' concerns as identified by Cameron. Certainly in the NHS case, it was reported the Cabinet was taken by surprise at what Lansley was up to, which makes you wonder how comprehensive was the Cameroons' planning process.
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
The recession of 2008-09 blew all that away. By 2010, the government was spending £4 for every £3 it raised. So, the government was in no position to push through big increases in public spending.
And it turned out in the end that the voters cared quite a lot about Europe.
It's not Europe they care about, it's self-governance.
The problem would be convincing the country that the rest of the Tory party meant it. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Even more bizarrely, May was one of the very first to openly tell her party it needed to change. Way before Cameron.
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
The diagnosis that the Tories were seen as the party of the rich, and needed to connect more with low-income working families (the just-about-managing) in the provinces was correct, IMHO.
We are already at that stage in the Conservative Party's crisis when all of the obvious current leadership options have been discounted and so thoughts turn to an (unnamed, perhaps non-existent) bright young thing who will suddenly appear in March 2019 and save the party and the country.
He or she might begin by saying that some optimism is needed after the long, hard slog of Brexit. He or she might say that for too long the Tories have been having a different conversation to the one ordinary voters have been having.
"Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.
"While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.
"As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.
"As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.
"While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts."
What an electrifying intervention this would be, refreshing and new. Except not new.
It was first delivered by David Cameron on October 1, 2006 at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth. Almost every sentence now echoes down the years as a warning against exactly what Theresa May offered the country. What goes around comes around.
The recession of 2008-09 blew all that away. By 2010, the government was spending £4 for every £3 it raised. So, the government was in no position to push through big increases in public spending.
And it turned out in the end that the voters cared quite a lot about Europe.
If you are asked a question you have to answer it, particularly when you are only given a choice between two words. It doesn't necessarily mean they think it a question of burning importance. The bigger takeaway is that David Cameron didn't follow his own advice.
Sorry, but ridiculous point in the absence of compulsory voting. Turnout was higher than any GE since 1992. If you want to see a referendum on a point of non-burning importance, see under AV ref (41%).
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Thanks. There seem to be some (ahem) interesting leaps of logic in that.
"Part of the engineers' reasoning was that, in a fire test, you would get similar results if you were to use either combustible aluminium panels or non-combustible ceramic tiles. As a consequence, it argued, you could use successful fire tests involving ceramic tiles as a guide to the likely fire safety of a system using aluminium panels. The report said: "If this... would be tested... the external flame spread results would be comparable to those with ceramic tile.""
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Any Conservative putting BoJo forward as next leader actively wants the party to lose. And the same goes for Leadsom, with spades on. Neither would be able to win, even against Corbyn.
I'm undecided on Gove. I see both positives and negatives in him. Will the real Michael Gove please step forward?
Thanks. There seem to be some (ahem) interesting leaps of logic in that.
"Part of the engineers' reasoning was that, in a fire test, you would get similar results if you were to use either combustible aluminium panels or non-combustible ceramic tiles. As a consequence, it argued, you could use successful fire tests involving ceramic tiles as a guide to the likely fire safety of a system using aluminium panels. The report said: "If this... would be tested... the external flame spread results would be comparable to those with ceramic tile.""
Expect this one to be missed and James 'I make shandy seem strong' Brokenshire to set a new one. and to REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME.
The government has got enough on its plate without having to run Northern Ireland by direct rule too and given another Assembly election would see no change from the last one until the DUP and SF agree a new executive I expect the current suspension to continue indefinately
If there are a good 30 Tory MPs actively campaigning to replace Theresa May as Prime Minister, at least 25 of them need close personal friends to grab them by the lapels and tell them not to be so bloody stupid.
Having 30 of them wanting the job leaves May in a better position than if there were just a couple.
It's hard to see beyond Boris Johnson, David Davis, Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd as realistic possibilities. Presumably Andrea Leadsom also has a shout given that she appeals to the headbangers, though she'd be a disastrous choice. The rest need to get real.
But of them Boris is just too flaky, Davis is old and flaky, Hammond is stunningly dull and Rudd has a tiny majority and needs to work her seat too much.
Its not surprising that some others think the party just might turn to them in their hour of need. Jim Hacker is a great role model.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
But, this misses the point. Only a portion of the Conservative Party's problems are caused by its leadership, a much bigger issue, in my view, is its lack of intellectual self-confidence in arguing what it's for, convincing people it has the right motives, and why their way is the right way forward everyone in the country.
That requires breadth and depth, because those arguments must be made and taken across the nation, and can't be achieved by a leader who's a one-hit-wonder.
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
I have decided on the perfect analogy for Brexit: an SAP R/3 implementation from about 1997. SAP R/3 is – somewhat ironically – by far Europe’s most successful software creation. It is the back-end accounting, inventory and process system used by the world’s largest companies.
Now, the reason R/3 sold so well is that it made great promises for how it could change and improve organisations. And, by and large, those promises were true. When a firm had moved to SAP, things did work better.
But installing (implementing) SAP could be a complex logistical nightmare that destroyed the careers of anyone who touched it. Budgets were blown out, with firms often spending more than 10x the cost of the software on “experts” (consultants) who helped with the implementation. Plans to get software installed in a six months often proved laughably optimistic, with go live often delayed years.
It turned out that changing the entire software system on which your organisation run was a greater challenge that the SAP salespeople let on when they were showing you fancy Powerpoint slides.
Brexit is like installing R/3. It’s a complex process with many dependencies.
Later, when post-mortems were done on R/3 implementations, it turned out that (while all of them were late and over budget), there were clear common factors between those that worked and those that didn’t.
Failed implementations usually had no greater plan than “install SAP”, and usually had a big bang mentality “on the first of January, we will go live on SAP worldwide!”. Successful ones had a tight plan with limited scope: “first we implement SAP Accounts Receivable on our Belgian subsidiary, and run it for three months to understand all the issues”.
Proponents of SAP implementation as a series of baby-steps were rarely popular. Their proposals usually involved spending a lot more money, and taking a lot more time. But their proposals actually worked. The big bang guys crashed and burned. And the fallout from their crashes often resulted in profit warnings, CEO resignations, and the end of more than one company.
Politicians: take note.
So pilot Brexit on the Isle of Wight first?
Cue joke about Sweden 1967 (change from driving on left to driving on right): we can't implement a change of this magnitude all at once so we will stagger it. In the first week HGVs and motorbikes with sidecars will switch to the right...
One of the few days I remember from school was the German teacher's solution to the problem of congestion on the stairway: up on the right, down on the left, she cried.
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Any Conservative putting BoJo forward as next leader actively wants the party to lose. And the same goes for Leadsom, with spades on. Neither would be able to win, even against Corbyn.
I'm undecided on Gove. I see both positives and negatives in him. Will the real Michael Gove please step forward?
He is conflicted, like most people.
Michael Gove is extremely clever and able, and I have a huge amount of confidence in his abilities.
However, he seems to enjoy the drama and game of politics just a little too much, isn't particularly trusted, and can box himself into dogmatic cul-de-sacs a little too easily from which he brooks no argument.
Having said that, on the plus side, I do think he's learned to listen more over the last year or two.
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Any Conservative putting BoJo forward as next leader actively wants the party to lose. And the same goes for Leadsom, with spades on. Neither would be able to win, even against Corbyn.
I'm undecided on Gove. I see both positives and negatives in him. Will the real Michael Gove please step forward?
Gove has abysmal poll ratings, Corbyn would trounce him, Boris has high positive but also high negatives, it will likely be Hammond or Davis who leads the Tories at the next general election
MSP for which party? I believe Ms Ahmed-Sheikh was Labour at one point? Anyway the party is over for her chez SNP now Alex Salmond is out of the picture. The two clearly had a thing going, resulting in Salmond's ghost appearance in a Bollywood movie
Maybe she will devote more time to her charity work...
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
As it is they are losing in 2022 with all the "known" candidates anyway, so best to roll the dice with a new face in 2020 and see what happens.
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Once said, it can not be unsaid.
This is true, but Boris and Gove may have concluded that they both had a point about one another.
Politicians say ghastly things about each other all the time. If you were a political journalist, you'd be forgiven for thinking everyone in the cabinet/shadow cabinet hated everyone else.
But what if the Tories are unlucky, and there are 7 by elections in Tory seats which they all lose -all before June 2019? That means a general election with May as leader.
But what if the Tories are unlucky, and there are 7 by elections in Tory seats which they all lose -all before June 2019? That means a general election with May as leader.
Short of a terrorist attack that's not going to happen.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis or Boris are the only viable options
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Once said, it can not be unsaid.
You may be underestimating the role of the Daily Mail in that nasty little episode.
Of course it may also be that the DM also regrets how it behaved.....
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Any Conservative putting BoJo forward as next leader actively wants the party to lose. And the same goes for Leadsom, with spades on. Neither would be able to win, even against Corbyn.
I'm undecided on Gove. I see both positives and negatives in him. Will the real Michael Gove please step forward?
He is conflicted, like most people.
Michael Gove is extremely clever and able, and I have a huge amount of confidence in his abilities.
However, he seems to enjoy the drama and game of politics just a little too much, isn't particularly trusted, and can box himself into dogmatic cul-de-sacs a little too easily from which he brooks no argument.
Having said that, on the plus side, I do think he's learned to listen more over the last year or two.
Your confidence in his abilities doesn't even begin to match his own.
He is indeed clever, but frequently appears utterly lacking in judgment - and his time as education secretary was marked by a destructive and ill informed dogmatism. On the plus side, he could have made an excellent justice secretary had he been allowed more time in post.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
If the polls move sufficiently, the brute political fact is that the leave will be a leave, almost, in name only.
The problem would be convincing the country that the rest of the Tory party meant it. Once bitten twice shy and all that.
Even more bizarrely, May was one of the very first to openly tell her party it needed to change. Way before Cameron.
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
The diagnosis that the Tories were seen as the party of the rich, and needed to connect more with low-income working families (the just-about-managing) in the provinces was correct, IMHO.
Every Conservative Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher has understood this. And all of them forgot this once in office, failing abjectly by the end. Why? Because they were surrounded by people whose all-consuming obsession was to get out of the EU. So they had divert their energies into managing the nutters.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit the people want to see.
What if it gets to 99%? What if you are the only Leaver left standing?
And are we really going to stop pollsters from asking questions some do not like?
Overall, though, taxation is higher than in 2010. And, raising the basic allowance is a good thing.
"Thank you, Liberal Democrats." You forgot that bit, Mr Fear.
So, to be clear, the Libdems should get the credit for a Conservative Chancellor raising personal allowances, but take no credit for a LibDem Business Secretary raising tuition fees?
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit the people want to see.
What if it gets to 99%? What if you are the only Leaver left standing?
And are we really going to stop pollsters from asking questions some do not like?
Pollsters can ask whatever question they like... Just seems like a redundant waste of time when they could ask more relevant questions to me...
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Well no, some people may one day want us to go back in, especially if th EU prospers and we drop down to the economic level of Albania. (Venezuala if Corbyn is PM).
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Well no, some people may one day want us to go back in, especially if th EU prospers and we drop down to the economic level of Albania. (Venezuala if Corbyn is PM).
And join the Euro, the European army, have a European wide tax system?
It will be (at best) a fringe view within the Tory Party I'd have thought...
People forget that whilst there were risks in LEAVING, REMAINING wasn't risk free either. REJOINING will be even more risky.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....
Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament. That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
If May is Mrs glumbuckets, Hammond is Mr glumbuckets. Non-starter.
Davis was a 2005 reject. And he's not getting younger. But I suppose if he can secure a decent Brexit deal he might win some plaudits with the media. Might.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....
Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament. That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
+1 If we followed GIN's logic we shouldn't have had a referendum last year because we already had one in 1975!
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.
I think the big test for the polls will come in the Autumn as we move into the divorce bill phase of the initial negotiations - we could easily see Remain support hitting over 60% once folks realise there is a real cost to Brexit.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....
Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament. That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
There are more relevant ways you can get that across though.
You could ask, for example;
After the referendum we're leaving the European Union. Do you think this is the right decision? Etc.
I just think asking the old Remain/Leave question a year after we voted to leave is odd.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.
I think the big test for the polls will come in the Autumn as we move into the divorce bill phase of the initial negotiations - we could easily see Remain support hitting over 60% once folks realise there is a real cost to Brexit.
I hope you're right... but equally the "EU trying to take us to the cleaners" line will be played on full volume by the Mail, Sun etc. and will resonate with some, so there could be an anti-EU boost.
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Mr. Gin, I do wonder if Hammond's boring-ness is overstated.
I commented, critically, at the time on his jokes at the Budget. He is capable of being, if not actually charismatic, human. And the immediate comparison will be with May, not Cameron.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
If May is Mrs glumbuckets, Hammond is Mr glumbuckets. Non-starter.
Davis was a 2005 reject. And he's not getting younger. But I suppose if he can secure a decent Brexit deal he might win some plaudits with the media. Might.
The fact the Tories are still polling 41% shows there is still a big anti Corbyn vote in that sense the Tories don't need a charismatic leader but someone dull and sensible. Major in 1992 was as dull as could be but he won because of the anti Kinnock vote, as soon as Labour elected the moderate and charismatic Blair to lead then they swept to power in 1997
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....
Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament. That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
+1 If we followed GIN's logic we shouldn't have had a referendum last year because we already had one in 1975!
For a long time that was exactly the reason the establishment wouldn't allow an EU referendum.
But you can't really compare having a referendum over 30 years ago to trying to re-run a referendum from just one year ago...
Mr. Gin, I do wonder if Hammond's boring-ness is overstated.
I commented, critically, at the time on his jokes at the Budget. He is capable of being, if not actually charismatic, human. And the immediate comparison will be with May, not Cameron.
The comparison that will be on Tory MPs minds is surely with Corbyn?
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
A chartered surveyor and fire expert on BBC Breakfast calling into question the testing procedure that's failed 100% of cladding samples tested since the Grenfell fire
It is a bit odd that all of them are failing....
Can't find where i saw it, but there was a comment that the tests being used aren't the ones specified in the building regs...
downthread
No, it was a newspaper or magazine article someone linked me off facebook...
Comments
Ths fucking twats.
But, she was already banging on about grammar schools months before the clusterf*** that was the campaign. She told Osborne to go out and discover his own party - the implication being that most members didn't believe in a word of what Cam/Os were on about and wanted a return to banging on about grammar schools, the birch, fox hunting, tax cuts at the expense of the disabled etc etc.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
Not necessarily so. Corporation tax has been cut and disability benefits are frozen, as well as the frankly disgusting attempts to reduce the amount of benefit for those in the work related group of ESA. I speak from experience. The government's treatment of the disabled is somewhere between negligently aloof and actively damaging.
And it turned out in the end that the voters cared quite a lot about Europe.
Tax cuts at the expense of the disabled. That's just not true, its the sort of lie that tim used to perpetuate.
Not necessarily so. Corporation tax has been cut and disability benefits are frozen, as well as the frankly disgusting attempts to reduce the amount of benefit for those in the work related group of ESA. I speak from experience. The government's treatment of the disabled is somewhere between negligently aloof and actively damaging.
The personal allowance has also been raised on a number of occasions and fuel duty hasn't been increased. All these could have funded better ESA and PIP.
The personal allowance has also been raised on a number of occasions and fuel duty hasn't been increased. All these could have funded better ESA and PIP.
Overall, though, taxation is higher than in 2010. And, raising the basic allowance is a good thing.
Yes, indeed. And all this is before even touching on the heartless and intrusive assessments for work capability and PIP themselves. I defy anyone here to go through those and not feel like they have been pulled apart in far more disturbingly intimate ways than any medical assessment.
That might sound like a small thing, but it means checking the same number of matches probably takes about five times longer, and it's bloody tedious.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/07/our-survey-party-members-message-to-may-is-go-but-not-yet-stay-for-the-time-being.html
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/881759572003827712
Corrected quoting.
Please can we try and get the blockquoting correct, reading a thread where Sean Fear is in favour of potentially raising fuel duty first thing on a Monday simply will not do.
How flammable cladding gets approved
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40465399
The odd thing about the 2010 government is that Cameron had said all these fine words, the party had had years of preparation for government, yet immediately we had various ministers embarking on revolution -- Gove, Lansley and IDS, for instance -- rather than address voters' concerns as identified by Cameron. Certainly in the NHS case, it was reported the Cabinet was taken by surprise at what Lansley was up to, which makes you wonder how comprehensive was the Cameroons' planning process.
Another day, another Stormont 'deadline'.
Expect this one to be missed and James 'I make shandy seem strong' Brokenshire to set a new one. and to REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME.
New Con leader will be announced at the 2019 Con Party conference.
Interesting question then is whether we get an election with a new leader in 2020. I wouldn't be surprised...
What happened?
The pound shop Gordon Brown and her staff believed their own hype and concluded that the Tories made so many net gains in 2010 and 2015 in spite of Cameron not because of Cameron.
Ths fucking twats.
The diagnosis that the Tories were seen as the party of the rich, and needed to connect more with low-income working families (the just-about-managing) in the provinces was correct, IMHO.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
"Part of the engineers' reasoning was that, in a fire test, you would get similar results if you were to use either combustible aluminium panels or non-combustible ceramic tiles.
As a consequence, it argued, you could use successful fire tests involving ceramic tiles as a guide to the likely fire safety of a system using aluminium panels.
The report said: "If this... would be tested... the external flame spread results would be comparable to those with ceramic tile.""
I'm undecided on Gove. I see both positives and negatives in him. Will the real Michael Gove please step forward?
But, this misses the point. Only a portion of the Conservative Party's problems are caused by its leadership, a much bigger issue, in my view, is its lack of intellectual self-confidence in arguing what it's for, convincing people it has the right motives, and why their way is the right way forward everyone in the country.
That requires breadth and depth, because those arguments must be made and taken across the nation, and can't be achieved by a leader who's a one-hit-wonder.
Poor Theresa. A PM in their hands and knees begging is never a very good look...
Michael Gove is extremely clever and able, and I have a huge amount of confidence in his abilities.
However, he seems to enjoy the drama and game of politics just a little too much, isn't particularly trusted, and can box himself into dogmatic cul-de-sacs a little too easily from which he brooks no argument.
Having said that, on the plus side, I do think he's learned to listen more over the last year or two.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40479053
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
As it is they are losing in 2022 with all the "known" candidates anyway, so best to roll the dice with a new face in 2020 and see what happens.
Politicians say ghastly things about each other all the time. If you were a political journalist, you'd be forgiven for thinking everyone in the cabinet/shadow cabinet hated everyone else.
Of course it may also be that the DM also regrets how it behaved.....
https://mobile.twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/881796551311536128
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
He is indeed clever, but frequently appears utterly lacking in judgment - and his time as education secretary was marked by a destructive and ill informed dogmatism. On the plus side, he could have made an excellent justice secretary had he been allowed more time in post.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
I may evn watch them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40477136
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.
Ths fucking twats.
The diagnosis that the Tories were seen as the party of the rich, and needed to connect more with low-income working families (the just-about-managing) in the provinces was correct, IMHO.
Every Conservative Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher has understood this. And all of them forgot this once in office, failing abjectly by the end. Why? Because they were surrounded by people whose all-consuming obsession was to get out of the EU. So they had divert their energies into managing the nutters.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/880487382407053314
And are we really going to stop pollsters from asking questions some do not like?
https://twitter.com/scynic1/status/881777975242436609
It will be (at best) a fringe view within the Tory Party I'd have thought...
People forget that whilst there were risks in LEAVING, REMAINING wasn't risk free either. REJOINING will be even more risky.
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
Davis was a 2005 reject. And he's not getting younger. But I suppose if he can secure a decent Brexit deal he might win some plaudits with the media. Might.
You could ask, for example;
After the referendum we're leaving the European Union. Do you think this is the right decision? Etc.
I just think asking the old Remain/Leave question a year after we voted to leave is odd.
I commented, critically, at the time on his jokes at the Budget. He is capable of being, if not actually charismatic, human. And the immediate comparison will be with May, not Cameron.
But you can't really compare having a referendum over 30 years ago to trying to re-run a referendum from just one year ago...