Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s a good case for the man with NHS lapel badge

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 25 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s a good case for the man with NHS lapel badge

Clearly the overnight news about the possibility of a move against Theresa May has led to speculation about who would replace her. The Etonian pair of Rees-Mogg and Johnson remain top in the betting but I wonder whether they will be able to get the backing of enough MPs to make it to the postal vote stage.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Yup.
  • He’d make a very good PM and Party Leader.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 829
    He's about the only person I can think of who would definitely be an improvement.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 6,487
    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,246

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.
    It's a minority interest. The proverbial transwoman in the Clapham Uber cab doesn't give two hoots about cryptocurrencies. We need May's government to focus on the NHS and housing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    edited January 25
    The left despise Hunt and he would drive up Labour turnout while he fails to enthuse the pro Brexit right as much as Boris, Mogg or even Davis, Hinds and Williamson would so no Hunt is unlikely to be the next leader. Of the former Remainers I would even say Rudd is more likely to get to the final two than Hunt especially given Hunt's belated conversion to Leave and the fact the left are less hostile to her.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,334

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.
    It already is.

    Some banks are already refusing to accept the proceeds of sales of Bitcoins precisely because of the money laundering risk.

    And from today at Davos (according to Bloomberg):

    IMF Wary of Cryptocurrencies (12:09 p.m.)

    The International Monetary Fund is aware there will be innovations but believes crypto-anonimity and its use to conceal illicit trades such as terror financing and money laundering is “unacceptable,” Managing Director Christine Lagarde said during a discussion panel.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,975
    John_M said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.
    It's a minority interest. The proverbial transwoman in the Clapham Uber cab doesn't give two hoots about cryptocurrencies. We need May's government to focus on the NHS and housing.

  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 1,975
    Are Sky News trying to tell us something about May? I'm also not sure why CCHQ retweeted it


  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 6,487
    John_M said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.
    It's a minority interest. The proverbial transwoman in the Clapham Uber cab doesn't give two hoots about cryptocurrencies. We need May's government to focus on the NHS and housing.
    I'm not say the PM should personally chair a taskforce that meets every Tuesday!

    It should be on the PRA or FCA's radar with government support where necessary.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,521
    Scott_P said:
    Is she trolling us with the costume choices? Star Trek yesterday, Game of Thrones today.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 227
    JonathanD said:

    Are Sky News trying to tell us something about May? I'm also not sure why CCHQ retweeted it


    In the future there are hopes for more advanced features such as a debate mode and even talk of a revolutionary empathy module. The landslide model should be available for purchase within a couple of decades.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,107
    FPT:

    @welshowl - with the amount of saved capital the world is awash with, and the amount of government bond debt, I suspect interest rates are going to be on the floor for decades...
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234
    And presumably the first thing PM Hunt would do is increase the NHS budget? Neatly finessing Boris's concerns and his own negatives.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,252
    I'm not certain what diagnosed political problem the Conservatives have that would be improved by Jeremy Hunt. Yes he's stuck the Health brief for a while but one wonders whether that's simply because nobody else is willing to go anywhere near it. I'm not sure that he comes across as well as he ought, plus he has an unfortunate resting smug face.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,521

    JonathanD said:

    Are Sky News trying to tell us something about May? I'm also not sure why CCHQ retweeted it


    In the future there are hopes for more advanced features such as a debate mode and even talk of a revolutionary empathy module. The landslide model should be available for purchase within a couple of decades.
    :D
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999
    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,961
    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,636
    Can someone please explain to me what qualities Hunt has (with regards to potential public appeal) that May doesn't have?

    Does he "look the part" of a PM more? Is he more media-friendly than she is? * Is he more charismatic or inspiring? Does he have a substantially different view to May on all the various policy areas the Tories got slaughtered on in 2017? Who exactly are the voters he would win over that May failed to?

    (* I can imagine his blinky eyes being the equivalent of May's "gurning" tic)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,480
    JonathanD said:

    John_M said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.
    It's a minority interest. The proverbial transwoman in the Clapham Uber cab doesn't give two hoots about cryptocurrencies. We need May's government to focus on the NHS and housing.

    Better for them to be associated with reintroducing beavers than slaughtering foxes and badgers.

    I'm sure that TSE will be along in a moment in full Finbarr Saunders mode regarding beavers.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999
    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
    On the basis of what I've just said, its not very sensible is it? Where's the sense in making someone leader who isnt a good speaker, is boring, has no discernible sense of humour, no wit, sweats under pressure, is associated with NHS cuts, and has a name which Corbynistas will exploit to chant as a slogan song at the election?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,541
    Lots of us are rooting for Jeremy Hunt.

    Michael Gove wouldn't be a bad choice either.

    Further suitable names can be supplied.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,541
    JonathanD said:

    John_M said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.

    Scott_P said:
    It's a consumer protection disaster, it's going to have to come under scrutiny of one kind or another.
    It's a minority interest. The proverbial transwoman in the Clapham Uber cab doesn't give two hoots about cryptocurrencies. We need May's government to focus on the NHS and housing.

    She just had it stuffed?

    /Naked Gun
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490

    JonathanD said:

    Are Sky News trying to tell us something about May? I'm also not sure why CCHQ retweeted it


    In the future there are hopes for more advanced features such as a debate mode and even talk of a revolutionary empathy module. The landslide model should be available for purchase within a couple of decades.
    LOL
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,480
    Danny565 said:

    Can someone please explain to me what qualities Hunt has (with regards to potential public appeal) that May doesn't have?

    Does he "look the part" of a PM more? Is he more media-friendly than she is? * Is he more charismatic or inspiring? Does he have a substantially different view to May on all the various policy areas the Tories got slaughtered on in 2017? Who exactly are the voters he would win over that May failed to?

    (* I can imagine his blinky eyes being the equivalent of May's "gurning" tic)

    From his CV:

    "Jerry Hunt's is a magical world
    Full of strippers and long-legged girls
    Clark Kent's got nothing on me
    I'll spy like James Bond and die like King Kong

    No one pushes Jerry Hunt around
    Well, they do, but not for long
    When I get fit and grow bionic arms
    The whole world's gonna wish it weren't born

    I could be a superman
    Satisfy any whim that I wanted to
    I could be a human machine
    I could show Steve Austin a thing or two"

    Clearly prime-ministerial qualities, I think we can all agree.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,155
    edited January 25
    Hunt is surely every mother's ideal son-in-law - handsome, well groomed, polite, nicely spoken and successful, and thus ideally placed to counter Corbyn's favourite-uncle persona. And, unlike with the hard-Brexit mania of Boris and Rees-Mogg, he has also steered a moderate course through the Brexit issue. Hunt could seize the unifying centre ground that Theresa blithely abandoned. The Tories should anoint.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,541
    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    Indeed. Large crowds at rallies singing "Oh Jeremy *unt" might not be the vote-winner some seem to think.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    On topic, I agree with Mike. Certainly at 16/1.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    I think that's a very good observation.

    On the vision thing, it's always hard to assess in advance of someone becoming leader, but he's certainly sharp and very political, which might be enough anyway.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490
    I think Hunt would be a much better media performer than May (talk about damning with faint praise), would present a clearer vision of what the government was for (I accept any vision at all would achieve that) and sound more in touch with the country's issues (ditto).

    The question is whether he could hold together what would still be a minority administration which means all the factions need to be assuaged and on board. That is tricky. May survives because there in no clear answer to that in respect of any of the potential candidates. But paralysis is only a short term solution and time has been moving on for some time now.

    Where the hell is the housebuilding program; the northern infrastructure program; the spades in the ground at Heathrow; the sense of urgency in respect of the NHS winter crisis (even Boris got that one) and the overarching vision of how we are going to operate after Brexit? It's bordering on tragic.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,885
    This rings true and is somewhat relevant to the topic

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636
    DavidL said:

    ...

    Where the hell is the housebuilding program; the northern infrastructure program; the spades in the ground at Heathrow; the sense of urgency in respect of the NHS winter crisis (even Boris got that one) and the overarching vision of how we are going to operate after Brexit? It's bordering on tragic.

    Welcome to minority government.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,961
    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
    On the basis of what I've just said, its not very sensible is it? Where's the sense in making someone leader who isnt a good speaker, is boring, has no discernible sense of humour, no wit, sweats under pressure, is associated with NHS cuts, and has a name which Corbynistas will exploit to chant as a slogan song at the election?
    Cons SoS for Health is a poison chalice. Not the place for a buffoon and needing the straightest of straight bats. Regardless of his sweating, he has not presented to the public as anything other than an under the cosh, always running to catch up (all politically) politician.

    That would change if he were to be considered for the leadership or for PM.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    HYUFD said:

    The left despise Hunt and he would drive up Labour turnout while he fails to enthuse the pro Brexit right as much as Boris, Mogg or even Davis, Hinds and Williamson would so no Hunt is unlikely to be the next leader. Of the former Remainers I would even say Rudd is more likely to get to the final two than Hunt especially given Hunt's belated conversion to Leave and the fact the left are less hostile to her.

    The left that despises Hunt already turns out. In any case, rather like the milk-snatcher taunt, their jibes will have little practical effect, particularly once in office. It's a lot harder to hold someone's past against them politically while they're already creating a present.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 227
    I have no intention of voting Conservative anyway so possibly a bad person to ask but he seems better than quite a few of the others, or I dislike him less to put it more accurately, how you take that depends on how much you subscribe to the annoys the other side being good approach.

    Although I tend to take the view of Hunt that he is the Conservative in charge of Health rather than against the wishes of his party enacting his policy* on the NHS, I guess I share any condemnation for problems much more across the party, which might be a kinder view than many others on the left take.

    *Obviously there is an element of this.

    He presents himself quite well, I cannot see him turning voters off because of his personality, he has been moderate on Brexit. Unless the NHS stuff is a real vote killer he does look a decent pick of the current runners.

  • stevefstevef Posts: 999

    HYUFD said:

    The left despise Hunt and he would drive up Labour turnout while he fails to enthuse the pro Brexit right as much as Boris, Mogg or even Davis, Hinds and Williamson would so no Hunt is unlikely to be the next leader. Of the former Remainers I would even say Rudd is more likely to get to the final two than Hunt especially given Hunt's belated conversion to Leave and the fact the left are less hostile to her.

    The left that despises Hunt already turns out. In any case, rather like the milk-snatcher taunt, their jibes will have little practical effect, particularly once in office. It's a lot harder to hold someone's past against them politically while they're already creating a present.
    The NHS is not milk. And in any case the milk issue was way back in Thatcher's past, the NHS is current.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is she trolling us with the costume choices? Star Trek yesterday, Game of Thrones today.
    At least the turqoise spaceman suit that she used to wear seems to have found its way to the back of the wardrobe.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,155

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    Yes. Hunt should be the Tory the Left fears. He would be the closest the Tories get to their own Tony Blair (Dave tried it but could never quite shake off a slightly supercilious air of high breeding). With his dimply smile and pert chin, Hunt is the antidote to the stony, hard-faced politics of May, Trump, Farage etc.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999
    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
    On the basis of what I've just said, its not very sensible is it? Where's the sense in making someone leader who isnt a good speaker, is boring, has no discernible sense of humour, no wit, sweats under pressure, is associated with NHS cuts, and has a name which Corbynistas will exploit to chant as a slogan song at the election?
    Cons SoS for Health is a poison chalice. Not the place for a buffoon and needing the straightest of straight bats. Regardless of his sweating, he has not presented to the public as anything other than an under the cosh, always running to catch up (all politically) politician.

    That would change if he were to be considered for the leadership or for PM.
    Look at his shifty eyes. Look at the sweat on his brow. Listen to his weaselly way of talking, his lack of passion, the coldness of the man. The Tories would have to be insane.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,961
    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
    On the basis of what I've just said, its not very sensible is it? Where's the sense in making someone leader who isnt a good speaker, is boring, has no discernible sense of humour, no wit, sweats under pressure, is associated with NHS cuts, and has a name which Corbynistas will exploit to chant as a slogan song at the election?
    Cons SoS for Health is a poison chalice. Not the place for a buffoon and needing the straightest of straight bats. Regardless of his sweating, he has not presented to the public as anything other than an under the cosh, always running to catch up (all politically) politician.

    That would change if he were to be considered for the leadership or for PM.
    Look at his shifty eyes. Look at the sweat on his brow. Listen to his weaselly way of talking, his lack of passion, the coldness of the man. The Tories would have to be insane.
    Yep great attack lines. I'm sure the public at large will respond to this kind of thing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,490

    DavidL said:

    ...

    Where the hell is the housebuilding program; the northern infrastructure program; the spades in the ground at Heathrow; the sense of urgency in respect of the NHS winter crisis (even Boris got that one) and the overarching vision of how we are going to operate after Brexit? It's bordering on tragic.

    Welcome to minority government.
    Nope. Most of these programs don't even require legislation immediately. What they require is Cabinet Ministers to be allowed to lead their areas and get things done. How hard would it have been to have Sajid Javid sign deals to build 10k starter homes through Housing Associations? Get on with it. Now.

    You can't help feeling that May doesn't want any of her Cabinet shining in case it leads to obvious conclusions.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    Danny565 said:

    Can someone please explain to me what qualities Hunt has (with regards to potential public appeal) that May doesn't have?

    Does he "look the part" of a PM more? Is he more media-friendly than she is? * Is he more charismatic or inspiring? Does he have a substantially different view to May on all the various policy areas the Tories got slaughtered on in 2017? Who exactly are the voters he would win over that May failed to?

    (* I can imagine his blinky eyes being the equivalent of May's "gurning" tic)

    They're fair questions, to which a lot of the answers are: 'we don't know'.

    The reality is that there are only two proven campaigners of ability in the Tories at the moment, one of whom is a loose cannon, and the other of which is out of Westminster. Once you rule those out, you get quite a lot of blanks on the paper. The best you can then do is look for a lack of negatives (which historically has been quite a good way of predicting who the next Tory leader will be).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636
    edited January 25
    FF43 said:

    This rings true and is somewhat relevant to the topic

    It's nonsense, another example of the curious phenomenon that Brexit seems to have addled the brains of people on both sides of the argument. Theresa May has been perfectly clear what she wants, it's utterly baffling that anyone accuses her of not being clear. Her Article 50 letter, and the Florence speech were as clear as crystal. However, it's a negotiation, a concept which totally seems to elude the intellect of this FT journalist and many others, and it's also subject to what can be got through parliament. That means that Theresa May doesn't get to specify unilaterally what the final deal will be. So of course she can't provide 'clarity' as to the final outcome.

    Before the referendum it was the loonier type of Brexiteer who thought that the UK government could lay down what it wanted without asking our EU friends. Now the Continuity Remainers have joined them in making the identical mistake.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    Lots of us are rooting for Jeremy Hunt.

    Michael Gove wouldn't be a bad choice either.

    Further suitable names can be supplied.

    Would that have anything to do with your betting slips?

    Gove would be an excellent choice but for two things. He's not a team player and Dominic Cummings is even worse than Fiona Hill.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    Yes. Hunt should be the Tory the Left fears. He would be the closest the Tories get to their own Tony Blair (Dave tried it but could never quite shake off a slightly supercilious air of high breeding). With his dimply smile and pert chin, Hunt is the antidote to the stony, hard-faced politics of May, Trump, Farage etc.
    That lonhg honeymoon would only be useful if an election were imminent. But one is not due for a four and a half years. The honeymoon would have worn off by then. Of course Corbyn supporters would love him to be PM. They imagine that he will help their man.

    For as long as Corbyn is around the Tories are guaranteed power But AaHunt premiership would result in another hung parliament with the Tories again the largest party, as now, but without a majority.If the Tories want a majority, they need someone with a dynamic vision and style.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,095
    Jeremy Hunt, saviour of the Conservative Party? Colour me unconvinced. As Peggy Lee sang:

    Is that all there is?
    Is that all there is?
    If that's all there is, my friend,

    Then let's keep dancing.
    We'll open the booze and have a ball.

    If that's all
    There is.....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636

    ... Dominic Cummings is even worse than Fiona Hill.

    A hell of a lot more effective, though.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    The left despise Hunt and he would drive up Labour turnout while he fails to enthuse the pro Brexit right as much as Boris, Mogg or even Davis, Hinds and Williamson would so no Hunt is unlikely to be the next leader. Of the former Remainers I would even say Rudd is more likely to get to the final two than Hunt especially given Hunt's belated conversion to Leave and the fact the left are less hostile to her.

    The left that despises Hunt already turns out. In any case, rather like the milk-snatcher taunt, their jibes will have little practical effect, particularly once in office. It's a lot harder to hold someone's past against them politically while they're already creating a present.
    The NHS is not milk. And in any case the milk issue was way back in Thatcher's past, the NHS is current.
    That doesn't mean it has a political impact.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,636

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    I don't think Hunt is particularly "appalling", any more than most of the government (the problems with the NHS mostly flow from the government's central decisions on fiscal policy, and to an extent from Hunt's predecessor's terrible "reforms"; I don't think Hunt himself has done anything that's within his own remit that's particularly made the problems worse).

    But I do question his "fluency". I've always found his interviews to be very Maybot-like: just repeating the stock lines, in a flat monotone, not really showing any of the magic "empathy" (as opposed to, say, Amber Rudd, who even when on a difficult subject is quite good at putting up a vigorous defence, at sounding like she's engaging with the questions rather than just robotically repeating memorised lines, and at sounding sincere when giving spiel like "I understand people are having a tough time, but this is necessary" blahblahblah). I don't think people would hate Hunt as such, but I do think that, like May post-honeymoon, they would find him to be an utterly uncompelling personality.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,323
    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
    On the basis of what I've just said, its not very sensible is it? Where's the sense in making someone leader who isnt a good speaker, is boring, has no discernible sense of humour, no wit, sweats under pressure, is associated with NHS cuts, and has a name which Corbynistas will exploit to chant as a slogan song at the election?
    Cons SoS for Health is a poison chalice. Not the place for a buffoon and needing the straightest of straight bats. Regardless of his sweating, he has not presented to the public as anything other than an under the cosh, always running to catch up (all politically) politician.

    That would change if he were to be considered for the leadership or for PM.
    Look at his shifty eyes. Look at the sweat on his brow. Listen to his weaselly way of talking, his lack of passion, the coldness of the man. The Tories would have to be insane.
    Yep great attack lines. I'm sure the public at large will respond to this kind of thing.
    I don't think those are attack lines, so much as one person's view as how he comes over on TV.

    Personally, I think there's a hint of something a little bit 'off' about him, but he'd be something of an upgrade from May's bizarre persona.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    FPT
    148grss said:


    I can't actually understand a hard atheism stance, because if we take for example an explanation I heard for dinosaur fossils that God put them there to test our faith, because dinosaurs conflicted with his view of the age of the Earth.

    If we apply that logic of an all powerful God that is prepared to trick people into believing things that aren't true then we cannot trust absolutely anything all our science could be a trick by God which he maintains by making all the things we use it for work as well so anything you used to disprove God could simply be a trick by God. Far fetched doesn't matter only possible and with an all powerful God anything is possible.

    The same goes for an infinite number of "all powerful" beings. If the "all powerful" tooth fairy can make us believe they don't exist, they might exist.

    Things that we have no positive evidence for are equivalent to things that don't exist. Things that we can't know exist (the argument that god is unknowable to to mind of man) are practically equivalent to a thing that does not exist. If you cannot present evidence for a thing, why should I believe said thing? The argument of "we have no answer for x, therefore I propose a y that means x" just begs the question of "we have no answer for y". If you can have uncaused causes (which maybe we can), why can't the universe be such a thing? If you can't have uncaused causes, what caused god?
    The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,323

    JonathanD said:

    Are Sky News trying to tell us something about May? I'm also not sure why CCHQ retweeted it


    In the future there are hopes for more advanced features such as a debate mode and even talk of a revolutionary empathy module. The landslide model should be available for purchase within a couple of decades.
    No doubt, but I think they'd resleeve any such upgrade.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,508
    Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
    He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.

    He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    Oi! Where's my H/T for "Battle of the Jezzas" on the last thread?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,323
    edited January 25
    Danny565 said:

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    I don't think Hunt is particularly "appalling", any more than most of the government (the problems with the NHS mostly flow from the government's central decisions on fiscal policy, and to an extent from Hunt's predecessor's terrible "reforms"; I don't think Hunt himself has done anything that's within his own remit that's particularly made the problems worse).

    But I do question his "fluency". I've always found his interviews to be very Maybot-like: just repeating the stock lines, in a flat monotone, not really showing any of the magic "empathy" (as opposed to, say, Amber Rudd, who even when on a difficult subject is quite good at putting up a vigorous defence, at sounding like she's engaging with the questions rather than just robotically repeating memorised lines, and at sounding sincere when giving spiel like "I understand people are having a tough time, but this is necessary" blahblahblah). I don't think people would hate Hunt as such, but I do think that, like May post-honeymoon, they would find him to be an utterly uncompelling personality.
    Sounds fair.
    Standing in front of the cameras, appealing for the trust of the public, I'm not sure he'd get that many takers...

    ..without offering something concrete in return.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    Danny565 said:

    Can someone please explain to me what qualities Hunt has (with regards to potential public appeal) that May doesn't have?

    Does he "look the part" of a PM more? Is he more media-friendly than she is? * Is he more charismatic or inspiring? Does he have a substantially different view to May on all the various policy areas the Tories got slaughtered on in 2017? Who exactly are the voters he would win over that May failed to?

    (* I can imagine his blinky eyes being the equivalent of May's "gurning" tic)

    He's emollient and appeals to middle England.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    Good news for Biden, Sanders and Warren then
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,961
    stevef said:

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    Yes. Hunt should be the Tory the Left fears. He would be the closest the Tories get to their own Tony Blair (Dave tried it but could never quite shake off a slightly supercilious air of high breeding). With his dimply smile and pert chin, Hunt is the antidote to the stony, hard-faced politics of May, Trump, Farage etc.
    That lonhg honeymoon would only be useful if an election were imminent. But one is not due for a four and a half years. The honeymoon would have worn off by then. Of course Corbyn supporters would love him to be PM. They imagine that he will help their man.

    For as long as Corbyn is around the Tories are guaranteed power But AaHunt premiership would result in another hung parliament with the Tories again the largest party, as now, but without a majority.If the Tories want a majority, they need someone with a dynamic vision and style.
    Would Corbyn supporters love him to be PM in the same way as Cons supporters wanted Corbyn to be leader of the Labour Party?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    rkrkrk said:

    Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
    He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.

    He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.

    Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time too
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,548
    HYUFD said:

    The left despise Hunt and he would drive up Labour turnout while he fails to enthuse the pro Brexit right as much as Boris, Mogg or even Davis, Hinds and Williamson would so no Hunt is unlikely to be the next leader. Of the former Remainers I would even say Rudd is more likely to get to the final two than Hunt especially given Hunt's belated conversion to Leave and the fact the left are less hostile to her.

    No. The left despise Tories.

    No Tory would win the favour of the left.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,885

    FF43 said:

    This rings true and is somewhat relevant to the topic

    It's nonsense, another example of the curious phenomenon that Brexit seems to have addled the brains of people on both sides of the argument. Theresa May has been perfectly clear what she wants, it's utterly baffling that anyone accuses her of not being clear. Her Article 50 letter, and the Florence speech were as clear as crystal. However, it's a negotiation, a concept which totally seems to elude the intellect of this FT journalist and many others, and it's also subject to what can be got through parliament. That means that Theresa May doesn't get to specify unilaterally what the final deal will be. So of course she can't provide 'clarity' as to the final outcome.

    Before the referendum it was the loonier type of Brexiteer who thought that the UK government could lay down what it wanted without asking our EU friends. Now the Continuity Remainers have joined them in making the identical mistake.
    The interesting point is that Theresa May is very keen to shut down all debate about Brexit policy until we formally leave. And no, it's far from crystal clear and certainly not the Florence speech which rejected every one of our realistic options. You can be sure when people refer to "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" without mentioning what those solutions and strategies might be, they haven't a clue what they are talking about. There are real choices to be made, we are not making them and Mrs May is very keen we shouldn't discuss them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    stevef said:

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    Yes. Hunt should be the Tory the Left fears. He would be the closest the Tories get to their own Tony Blair (Dave tried it but could never quite shake off a slightly supercilious air of high breeding). With his dimply smile and pert chin, Hunt is the antidote to the stony, hard-faced politics of May, Trump, Farage etc.
    That lonhg honeymoon would only be useful if an election were imminent. But one is not due for a four and a half years. The honeymoon would have worn off by then. Of course Corbyn supporters would love him to be PM. They imagine that he will help their man.

    For as long as Corbyn is around the Tories are guaranteed power But AaHunt premiership would result in another hung parliament with the Tories again the largest party, as now, but without a majority.If the Tories want a majority, they need someone with a dynamic vision and style.
    Say what you like about Boris at least he has charisma and dynamism
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,548
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
    He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.

    He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.

    Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time too
    If Hunt pledges £350mn a week for the NHS he would win lots of votes.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636
    edited January 25
    One of the key considerations in choosing a leader (especially in the current circumstances) is the extent to which the candidate is liked and respected by Conservative MPs - could he or she unite the party and sooth over the inevitable problems of ruffled ambitions and personal rivalries? That's especially true because it's MPs who decide who gets into the final two.

    Jeremy Hunt is probably quite well placed on that score, at least in the sense that we doesn't seem to have lots of enemies who will be trying to ensure he's not in the final two. Some other of the names bandied about, such as Boris or Gavin Williamson ... well, make your own judgement.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
    He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.

    He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.

    Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time too
    If Hunt pledges £350mn a week for the NHS he would win lots of votes.
    He hasn't though, Boris has
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,107

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    A very fair summary.

    The fact that the left dismiss him is a huge plus. They did the same for Cameron.

    It meant that lots of left leaning voters stayed at home....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,642
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Sensible PB articles for a happier bank balance :)
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,636
    edited January 25

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
    He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.

    He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.

    Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time too
    If Hunt pledges £350mn a week for the NHS he would win lots of votes.
    Do you not think people would ask "why would we believe you now if you've not done it in the [x] years you've been in government"?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    edited January 25

    HYUFD said:

    The left despise Hunt and he would drive up Labour turnout while he fails to enthuse the pro Brexit right as much as Boris, Mogg or even Davis, Hinds and Williamson would so no Hunt is unlikely to be the next leader. Of the former Remainers I would even say Rudd is more likely to get to the final two than Hunt especially given Hunt's belated conversion to Leave and the fact the left are less hostile to her.

    No. The left despise Tories.

    No Tory would win the favour of the left.
    Some would drive up Labour turnout more though and Hunt is likely one of those, Boris would do too but he would also likely drive up Tory turnout, not sure you can say the same of Hunt
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
    On the basis of what I've just said, its not very sensible is it? Where's the sense in making someone leader who isnt a good speaker, is boring, has no discernible sense of humour, no wit, sweats under pressure, is associated with NHS cuts, and has a name which Corbynistas will exploit to chant as a slogan song at the election?
    Cons SoS for Health is a poison chalice. Not the place for a buffoon and needing the straightest of straight bats. Regardless of his sweating, he has not presented to the public as anything other than an under the cosh, always running to catch up (all politically) politician.

    That would change if he were to be considered for the leadership or for PM.
    Look at his shifty eyes. Look at the sweat on his brow. Listen to his weaselly way of talking, his lack of passion, the coldness of the man. The Tories would have to be insane.
    Yep great attack lines. I'm sure the public at large will respond to this kind of thing.
    I don't think those are attack lines, so much as one person's view as how he comes over on TV.

    Personally, I think there's a hint of something a little bit 'off' about him, but he'd be something of an upgrade from May's bizarre persona.
    Imagine a TV debate between Corbyn and Hunt. Corbyn would be seen as the one with passion, as champion of the NHS, Hunt would appear to be the shifty one, the cold one, the quiet passionless defensive one, the one who when he was health secretary allowed old ladies to suffer in corridors on hospital trollies, the one whose past writings can be interpreted as being against the NHS, The result would be another hung parliament with the Tories as biggest party but no majority.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,885
    The problem for Hunt is that the NHS music has stopped and he is holding a pretty moth-eaten record.
  • HYUFD said:

    Good news for Biden, Sanders and Warren then
    And Hillary...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636
    edited January 25
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    This rings true and is somewhat relevant to the topic

    It's nonsense, another example of the curious phenomenon that Brexit seems to have addled the brains of people on both sides of the argument. Theresa May has been perfectly clear what she wants, it's utterly baffling that anyone accuses her of not being clear. Her Article 50 letter, and the Florence speech were as clear as crystal. However, it's a negotiation, a concept which totally seems to elude the intellect of this FT journalist and many others, and it's also subject to what can be got through parliament. That means that Theresa May doesn't get to specify unilaterally what the final deal will be. So of course she can't provide 'clarity' as to the final outcome.

    Before the referendum it was the loonier type of Brexiteer who thought that the UK government could lay down what it wanted without asking our EU friends. Now the Continuity Remainers have joined them in making the identical mistake.
    The interesting point is that Theresa May is very keen to shut down all debate about Brexit policy until we formally leave. And no, it's far from crystal clear and certainly not the Florence speech which rejected every one of our realistic options. You can be sure when people refer to "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" without mentioning what those solutions and strategies might be, they haven't a clue what they are talking about. There are real choices to be made, we are not making them and Mrs May is very keen we shouldn't discuss them.
    What's not clear? Out of the single market, out of the customs union, no freedom of movement, and as much of a comprehensive trade deal as we can get, including financial services. I really can't see how she could possibly be clearer. Or, to put it another way, Canada Plus Plus. The only uncertainty is the amount of the 'plus plus' that we'll be able to get, and that is something which depends on the negotiations.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    stevef said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    It was in the Sun. Thats the clue.

    There wont be a move against Theresa May in the short term. Anymore than as the Express says today that eating curry protects you from dementia.

    In the medium to long term ....Jeremy Hunt? Really?

    He's not a good performer. He's a boring speaker. He looks like a startled in the headlamps rabbit. He sweats under pressure. And he is associated with old ladies dying on hospital trollies. Some have interpreted his previous writings as his being against the principle of the NHS.

    And his name rhymes with a word which young Corbynistas would love to write a rival Oh jeremy Corbyn song to.

    Is there really a serious argument for Jeremy Hunt?

    A lot of sensible Tories like him.
    On the basis of what I've just said, its not very sensible is it? Where's the sense in making someone leader who isnt a good speaker, is boring, has no discernible sense of humour, no wit, sweats under pressure, is associated with NHS cuts, and has a name which Corbynistas will exploit to chant as a slogan song at the election?
    Cons SoS for Health is a poison chalice. Not the place for a buffoon and needing the straightest of straight bats. Regardless of his sweating, he has not presented to the public as anything other than an under the cosh, always running to catch up (all politically) politician.

    That would change if he were to be considered for the leadership or for PM.
    Look at his shifty eyes. Look at the sweat on his brow. Listen to his weaselly way of talking, his lack of passion, the coldness of the man. The Tories would have to be insane.
    Yep great attack lines. I'm sure the public at large will respond to this kind of thing.
    I don't think those are attack lines, so much as one person's view as how he comes over on TV.

    Personally, I think there's a hint of something a little bit 'off' about him, but he'd be something of an upgrade from May's bizarre persona.
    Imagine a TV debate between Corbyn and Hunt. Corbyn would be seen as the one with passion, as champion of the NHS, Hunt would appear to be the shifty one, the cold one, the quiet passionless defensive one, the one who when he was health secretary allowed old ladies to suffer in corridors on hospital trollies, the one whose past writings can be interpreted as being against the NHS, The result would be another hung parliament with the Tories as biggest party but no majority.
    Not sure the Tories would even be the biggest party and despite their troubles the UKIP vote would probably be up on June 2017 if Hunt led the Tories
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234

    One of the key considerations in choosing a leader (especially in the current circumstances) is the extent to which the candidate is liked and respected by Conservative MPs - could he or she unite the party and sooth over the inevitable problems of ruffled ambitions and personal rivalries? That's especially true because it's MPs who decide who gets into the final two.

    Jeremy Hunt is probably quite well placed on that score, at least in the sense that we doesn't seem to have lots of enemies who will be trying to ensure he's not in the final two. Some other of the names bandied about, such as Boris or Gavin Williamson ... well, make your own judgement.

    Any analysis that starts with the members is therefore flawed. And it's usually doubly flawed because of preconceptions about what matters to the members (hint: it's usually not how they voted in the referendum) and/or overinterpreting hypothetical polling. Or pseudo-polling, in ConHome's case: their series is very valuable but shouldn't be taken as gospel.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,323
    HYUFD said:

    Good news for Biden, Sanders and Warren then
    Suits my book.
    :smile:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234

    HYUFD said:

    Good news for Biden, Sanders and Warren then
    And Hillary...
    Hillary's political career ended at the last presidential election
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    Mortimer said:

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    A very fair summary.

    The fact that the left dismiss him is a huge plus. They did the same for Cameron.

    It meant that lots of left leaning voters stayed at home....
    Cameron had charisma, Hunt does not
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,107
    edited January 25
    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    A very fair summary.

    The fact that the left dismiss him is a huge plus. They did the same for Cameron.

    It meant that lots of left leaning voters stayed at home....
    Cameron had charisma, Hunt does not
    Have you ever heard him speak in person?

    He most certainly does.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234

    One of the key considerations in choosing a leader (especially in the current circumstances) is the extent to which the candidate is liked and respected by Conservative MPs - could he or she unite the party and sooth over the inevitable problems of ruffled ambitions and personal rivalries? That's especially true because it's MPs who decide who gets into the final two.

    Jeremy Hunt is probably quite well placed on that score, at least in the sense that we doesn't seem to have lots of enemies who will be trying to ensure he's not in the final two. Some other of the names bandied about, such as Boris or Gavin Williamson ... well, make your own judgement.

    Any analysis that starts with the members is therefore flawed. And it's usually doubly flawed because of preconceptions about what matters to the members (hint: it's usually not how they voted in the referendum) and/or overinterpreting hypothetical polling. Or pseudo-polling, in ConHome's case: their series is very valuable but shouldn't be taken as gospel.
    The members current favourites are Mogg, Gove and Boris in that order
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    edited January 25
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    A very fair summary.

    The fact that the left dismiss him is a huge plus. They did the same for Cameron.

    It meant that lots of left leaning voters stayed at home....
    Cameron had charisma, Hunt does not
    Have you ever heard him speak in person.

    He most certainly does.
    I have and he even held the door open for me once, I have met Hunt and May and Boris and Gove and Davis and Cameron briefly and Cameron and Boris are a class apart in terms of charisma.

    I have no problem with Hunt in Cabinet but he is not an election winner
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,323

    HYUFD said:

    Good news for Biden, Sanders and Warren then
    And Hillary...
    Eh ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    Incidentally, Jeremy Hunt is very dangerous for many on the left because they start from the viewpoint that he's obviously appalling and don't feel the need to explain that to the unconvinced. You can see some of that on this thread already.

    He's fluent, doesn't shy away from fights or from the media, he's not abrasive and he presents things plausibly. The public would give him a fair crack of the whip and I expect that like Theresa May he might get rather a long honeymoon in which to establish himself.

    Whether he has any kind of vision, however, is completely unknown at present.

    A very fair summary.

    The fact that the left dismiss him is a huge plus. They did the same for Cameron.

    It meant that lots of left leaning voters stayed at home....
    Cameron had charisma, Hunt does not
    Have you ever heard him speak in person?

    He most certainly does.
    I would say nice and diffident. I can see the appeal (even if his persona is calculated)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,961
    edited January 25
    HYUFD said:

    One of the key considerations in choosing a leader (especially in the current circumstances) is the extent to which the candidate is liked and respected by Conservative MPs - could he or she unite the party and sooth over the inevitable problems of ruffled ambitions and personal rivalries? That's especially true because it's MPs who decide who gets into the final two.

    Jeremy Hunt is probably quite well placed on that score, at least in the sense that we doesn't seem to have lots of enemies who will be trying to ensure he's not in the final two. Some other of the names bandied about, such as Boris or Gavin Williamson ... well, make your own judgement.

    Any analysis that starts with the members is therefore flawed. And it's usually doubly flawed because of preconceptions about what matters to the members (hint: it's usually not how they voted in the referendum) and/or overinterpreting hypothetical polling. Or pseudo-polling, in ConHome's case: their series is very valuable but shouldn't be taken as gospel.
    The members current favourites are Mogg, Gove and Boris in that order
    Nope.

    They favour no one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,234
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    One of the key considerations in choosing a leader (especially in the current circumstances) is the extent to which the candidate is liked and respected by Conservative MPs - could he or she unite the party and sooth over the inevitable problems of ruffled ambitions and personal rivalries? That's especially true because it's MPs who decide who gets into the final two.

    Jeremy Hunt is probably quite well placed on that score, at least in the sense that we doesn't seem to have lots of enemies who will be trying to ensure he's not in the final two. Some other of the names bandied about, such as Boris or Gavin Williamson ... well, make your own judgement.

    Any analysis that starts with the members is therefore flawed. And it's usually doubly flawed because of preconceptions about what matters to the members (hint: it's usually not how they voted in the referendum) and/or overinterpreting hypothetical polling. Or pseudo-polling, in ConHome's case: their series is very valuable but shouldn't be taken as gospel.
    The members current favourites are Mogg, Gove and Boris in that order
    Nope.

    They favour no one.
    Well over 50% favour a candidate
  • stevefstevef Posts: 999
    HYUFD said:

    One of the key considerations in choosing a leader (especially in the current circumstances) is the extent to which the candidate is liked and respected by Conservative MPs - could he or she unite the party and sooth over the inevitable problems of ruffled ambitions and personal rivalries? That's especially true because it's MPs who decide who gets into the final two.

    Jeremy Hunt is probably quite well placed on that score, at least in the sense that we doesn't seem to have lots of enemies who will be trying to ensure he's not in the final two. Some other of the names bandied about, such as Boris or Gavin Williamson ... well, make your own judgement.

    Any analysis that starts with the members is therefore flawed. And it's usually doubly flawed because of preconceptions about what matters to the members (hint: it's usually not how they voted in the referendum) and/or overinterpreting hypothetical polling. Or pseudo-polling, in ConHome's case: their series is very valuable but shouldn't be taken as gospel.
    The members current favourites are Mogg, Gove and Boris in that order
    Gove would be a catastrophe for the Tories along the same lines as Alec Douglas Home in 1964, and William Hague in 2001.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,706

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Sensible PB articles for a happier bank balance :)

    Good afternoon Morris.To be honest , I am with HYFUD regarding Boris .In grand Prix terms Boris is a winner and popular , a bit like James Hunt back in 1976.I would never underestimate him.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,885

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    This rings true and is somewhat relevant to the topic

    It's nonsense, another example of the curious phenomenon that Brexit seems to have addled the brains of people on both sides of the argument. Theresa May has been perfectly clear what she wants, it's utterly baffling that anyone accuses her of not being clear. Her Article 50 letter, and the Florence speech were as clear as crystal. However, it's a negotiation, a concept which totally seems to elude the intellect of this FT journalist and many others, and it's also subject to what can be got through parliament. That means that Theresa May doesn't get to specify unilaterally what the final deal will be. So of course she can't provide 'clarity' as to the final outcome.

    Before the referendum it was the loonier type of Brexiteer who thought that the UK government could lay down what it wanted without asking our EU friends. Now the Continuity Remainers have joined them in making the identical mistake.
    The interesting point is that Theresa May is very keen to shut down all debate about Brexit policy until we formally leave. And no, it's far from crystal clear and certainly not the Florence speech which rejected every one of our realistic options. You can be sure when people refer to "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" without mentioning what those solutions and strategies might be, they haven't a clue what they are talking about. There are real choices to be made, we are not making them and Mrs May is very keen we shouldn't discuss them.
    What's not clear? Out of the single market, out of the customs union, no freedom of movement, and as much of a comprehensive trade deal as we can get, including financial services. I really can't see how she could possibly be clearer. Or, to put it another way, Canada Plus Plus. The only uncertainty is the amount of the 'plus plus' that we'll be able to get, and that is something which depends on the negotiations.
    There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,548
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
    He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.

    He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.

    Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time too
    If Hunt pledges £350mn a week for the NHS he would win lots of votes.
    Do you not think people would ask "why would we believe you now if you've not done it in the [x] years you've been in government"?
    Simple. Pledge to do it in his leadership campaign, don't call an early election and by 2022 ACTUALLY DO IT.

    When he seeks re-election in 2022 he'd have a record to be believed. He can say we have delivered £350mn more like I promised and next term we will [insert pledge here].
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322

    ... Dominic Cummings is even worse than Fiona Hill.

    A hell of a lot more effective, though.
    A hurricane is often effective at what it does.

    After Brexit, the country could do with a bit of peace and quiet, not a new revolution that upends the entire machinery of government.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,642
    Mr. City, Boris is conceited, brimming with self-regard.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,838
    Good, old Dan, it's never about immigration until it is.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    This rings true and is somewhat relevant to the topic

    It's nonsense, another example of the curious phenomenon that Brexit seems to have addled the brains of people on both sides of the argument. Theresa May has been perfectly clear what she wants, it's utterly baffling that anyone accuses her of not being clear. Her Article 50 letter, and the Florence speech were as clear as crystal. However, it's a negotiation, a concept which totally seems to elude the intellect of this FT journalist and many others, and it's also subject to what can be got through parliament. That means that Theresa May doesn't get to specify unilaterally what the final deal will be. So of course she can't provide 'clarity' as to the final outcome.

    Before the referendum it was the loonier type of Brexiteer who thought that the UK government could lay down what it wanted without asking our EU friends. Now the Continuity Remainers have joined them in making the identical mistake.
    The interesting point is that Theresa May is very keen to shut down all debate about Brexit policy until we formally leave. And no, it's far from crystal clear and certainly not the Florence speech which rejected every one of our realistic options. You can be sure when people refer to "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" without mentioning what those solutions and strategies might be, they haven't a clue what they are talking about. There are real choices to be made, we are not making them and Mrs May is very keen we shouldn't discuss them.
    What's not clear? Out of the single market, out of the customs union, no freedom of movement, and as much of a comprehensive trade deal as we can get, including financial services. I really can't see how she could possibly be clearer. Or, to put it another way, Canada Plus Plus. The only uncertainty is the amount of the 'plus plus' that we'll be able to get, and that is something which depends on the negotiations.
    There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.
    You mean apart from the PMs of France and Italy?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,322
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    One of the key considerations in choosing a leader (especially in the current circumstances) is the extent to which the candidate is liked and respected by Conservative MPs - could he or she unite the party and sooth over the inevitable problems of ruffled ambitions and personal rivalries? That's especially true because it's MPs who decide who gets into the final two.

    Jeremy Hunt is probably quite well placed on that score, at least in the sense that we doesn't seem to have lots of enemies who will be trying to ensure he's not in the final two. Some other of the names bandied about, such as Boris or Gavin Williamson ... well, make your own judgement.

    Any analysis that starts with the members is therefore flawed. And it's usually doubly flawed because of preconceptions about what matters to the members (hint: it's usually not how they voted in the referendum) and/or overinterpreting hypothetical polling. Or pseudo-polling, in ConHome's case: their series is very valuable but shouldn't be taken as gospel.
    The members current favourites are Mogg, Gove and Boris in that order
    Gove would be a catastrophe for the Tories along the same lines as Alec Douglas Home in 1964, and William Hague in 2001.
    ADH very nearly won. Had the election been a day later, he probably would have done.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 736
    Charles said:

    FPT

    148grss said:


    I can't actually understand a hard atheism stance, because if we take for example an explanation I heard for dinosaur fossils that God put them there to test our faith, because dinosaurs conflicted with his view of the age of the Earth.

    If we apply that logic of an all powerful God that is prepared to trick people into believing things that aren't true then we cannot trust absolutely anything all our science could be a trick by God which he maintains by making all the things we use it for work as well so anything you used to disprove God could simply be a trick by God. Far fetched doesn't matter only possible and with an all powerful God anything is possible.

    The same goes for an infinite number of "all powerful" beings. If the "all powerful" tooth fairy can make us believe they don't exist, they might exist.

    Things that we have no positive evidence for are equivalent to things that don't exist. Things that we can't know exist (the argument that god is unknowable to to mind of man) are practically equivalent to a thing that does not exist. If you cannot present evidence for a thing, why should I believe said thing? The argument of "we have no answer for x, therefore I propose a y that means x" just begs the question of "we have no answer for y". If you can have uncaused causes (which maybe we can), why can't the universe be such a thing? If you can't have uncaused causes, what caused god?
    The tooth fairy certainly exists. She came by our house last night to leave some money under my daughter's pillow
    She's bloody dangerous, is what she is.
    I once slept with my head under the pillow and woke up toothless. The thirty-two pound coins piled up beside me were scant consolation.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,636
    edited January 25
    FF43 said:

    There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.

    Ah yes, this is always the counter. When I point out that 'she hasn't been clear' is total bunkum, the reply is always to shift to a completely different point. So let's start by agreeing that she has been clear, shall we?

    Moving on to the second point, how close will the final deal be to the clear position she has laid out as her goal? Well, as I said before, it's a negotiation, and we simply don't know what the final deal will be. There is not a single person on this earth who knows, that's the nature of a complex negotiation, especially when we are negotiating through Barnier and the Commission with 27 other countries. At the moment, I would say that it is extremely likely that we will get a comprehensive deal on goods. So the 'Canada' bit is, if not in the bag, at least the default worst-case outcome.

    Will there be any 'Plus' or 'Plus Plus'? Hard to say, but I'm fairly optimistic. Our EU friends do seem to be waking up to the importance of the City to their economies. But neither I, nor Theresa May, nor anyone else, can provide perfect clarity. That's just the inevitable position when you enter a complex negotiation.

    What's more, the lack of clarity is entirely on the EU side. What we want is clear. What they want isn't.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,548
    FF43 said:

    There's no plus-plus, unless you disbelieve everyone on the EU side who has been very emphatic about this. Which gives us the Canada equivalent that Mrs May rejected in her Florence speech. As she is not prepared even to discuss those "creative solutions" and "bold new strategies" that she says are necessary, it's hard to see how the negotiations can proceed in a meaningful way. Returning to Philip Stephen's article, that's the whole point. Mrs May doesn't want a meaningful negotiation at this stage. She wants to get through to March 2019 without everything going tits up.

    Not everyone on the EU side has been clear. The only thing they've been clear on is "no cherry picking" so we need to formulate a deal that includes services and is reciprocal but doesn't cross other red lines.

    Lets not forget though that European businesses rely upon financing from London, cutting that off could result in catastrophe for Europe more than finance moving to Europe.

    The disruption in cutting off services to and from the UK could cause European firms greater disruption than even the Credit Crunch of 2007/08 did.

    Realism will ensure a deal is reached. How it is, is up for negotiations.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,546
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Speaking as someone from the left - Hunt looks the toughest Tory to beat.
    He’s a good communicator from what I’ve seen and was very successful in business previously.

    He hasn’t been a good health secretary but he can justifiably argue that he has been shortchanged by Tory chancellors. If he promised the £350m/week for the NHS - I think that would certainly win the public over.

    Would you consider voting for him though? The ideal Tory leader would hold all the 2017 Tory vote and won over some voters who voted Labour or LD last time too
    If Hunt pledges £350mn a week for the NHS he would win lots of votes.
    Do you not think people would ask "why would we believe you now if you've not done it in the [x] years you've been in government"?
    Theresa May and Philip Hammond stopped me from doing so.
This discussion has been closed.