Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now isn’t the time to push May, whatever the temptation

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 27 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now isn’t the time to push May, whatever the temptation

Only one of the three traditional British parties currently has a leader – and that one by happenstance. To lead is by definition a dynamic thing. It is to set oneself at the head of something and take it somewhere in such a way that others follow. It is not a quality granted simply by virtue of holding a given office.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,714
    No! Now is the perfect time. A bit later and you're in elections and the business end of Brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494
    As I said on the previous thread both sides are pressurising May because the transition/implementation deal seems surprisingly imminent and is going to upset a lot of people. Holding the party together through that is going to take more skill, subtlety and luck than May has shown to date.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,714
    There is definitely a window open now that after March will close for some time .
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)
  • FishingFishing Posts: 307

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 227
    Would the public question why you are getting rid of her now rather than straight after the election?

    I understand why but she has become more popular, from her peak unpopularity it could seem a bit of a mess (or more so) to the public.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
  • ‘You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.’
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,714
    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    Jonathan said:

    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?

    That would suit me. He says after checking his betfair account.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    It would probably be better to have the leadership election now than after we leave the EU, in terms of the Brexit timetable. The Withdrawal Agreement, including the so called "transition" arrangements, is take it or leave it at this stage, where leave it means guaranteed chaos. I would hope any serious Tory leader would go along with it, regardless of their rhetoric beforehand. The "transition" simply shifts the cliff edge back by twenty months. Whoever is leader at that point will need to make some hard choices, as Theresa May is NOT doing right now. No-one should want the first half of those negotiations to be thrown into doubt by a change of leader midway.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,272
    Jonathan said:

    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?

    I, for one, welcome our new Martian overlord.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,610
    Jonathan said:

    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?

    We can hope.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    edited January 27
    Jonathan said:

    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?

    If it is Michael Gove I will vote Labour, even if the Jezaster is still leading them.

    I am now in the run in to new exams at GCSE, designed by Gove. Three weeks ago, the entire assessment mechanism was changed. All the question weightings, all the markschemes, all the layouts.

    At the same time, OFQUAL have also made it harder to get a level 5 than to get a level 8 in history - for a 5 you have to analyse and evaluate, for an 8 you only have to evaluate. In theory at least therefore you can get a level 8 with a one sentence answer, but need three paragraphs for a 5.

    And while we are on the subject, the specification was drawn up in such a hurry that I keep finding errors in it. For example, I am meant to teach my students about the university system in England in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest - except there was no university system in England at the Norman conquest or for over a century thereafter (unhelpfully Wikipedia and Oxford University's website both wrongly state that the university was founded in 1096, confusing it with the Abbey Choir School - but the fact a few teenage computer programmers are ignorant f the facts is no excuse for a trained historian getting it wrong).

    This is down to Gove and his inability to do things - even things that might be good in practice - slowly and with due regard to logistics. If he were in charge we'd have a transition deal that was far less forensically prepared than one by Davis - and that should not be taken as an endorsement of Davis. He'd probably absent-mindedly declare that all banks need to be based in Loudon instead of London for regulatory purposes and sign off without noticing he's handed over our entire banking sector to the Americans.

    The only thing to say in Gove's favour is he is not Nicky Morgan - who is so stupid she thought the head of OFQUAL who oversaw this total shambles would are a good candidate as head of OFSTED, which is now also not unexpectedly collapsing in an undignified heap of chaos, inconsistency and understaffing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 18,494
    May sits at the sharp end of a tripod made up of Brexiteers, remainers and those who just want to win elections and run the country. Frank Herbert in Dune told us that tripods were the least stable form of government. This one has survived because she is a compromise that each of the factions would rather live with than the opposing legs but it has inevitably imposed a stasis on her government. Whenever she tries to move, as she did in the reshuffle, the whole structure wobbles.

    Stasis can survive as long as there are no decisive decisions to be made. But there are.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,014
    Good forensic analysis by David as usual.

    As I said yesterday, I think May's 38% rating as doing a good job when virually nobody in frontline politics would privately agree is actually quite impressive. David's reasons why she isn't are, as he says, mostly related to whether she's a good party leader, and the public cares little about that. They see someone of perhaps limited ability doing her best in a difficult situation without any obvious catastrophes. They don't especially see why she should be replaced.

    But that will apply even more after Brexit. I can well see the public feeling OK, she's done the best of a bad job, well done, and getting up to say 45% approval rating. A leadership challenge at that point will look grossly unfair and driven by personal ambition rather than the good of the country. So if there isn't a challenge now, we should see a real possibility that she'll be leader at the next GE.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,511
    edited January 27
    Now we hear that UK officials are trying to push for a three year "transition" (obviously in the hope that Jezza wins the 2022 election and keeps us in "transition" indefinitely) now is the time for Brexiteers to move against Theresa May and get rid.

    They have nothing to lose as the way it's going there isn't going to be a Brexit under Theresa May.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    The fear of what might follow her gives May some clout in negotiation, just by threatening to go and leave Brexit to her successor...(Boris, she would say quietly to them, under her breath....WTO Hard Brexit... no cheque for £40 billion.....)

    One area I do disagree on though is that "prime ministers are rarely short of self-confidence". Possibly in the general, but in the specific case of May, I think the election in June destroyed what self-confidence she had. It already looked to be in short supply before the election - her halting performances at PMQs were never those of somebody oozing self-confidence. But running an election that was all about Me! Me! Me! - and then to be rejected, well that is going to be a blow to anybody's ego.

    Add into the mix that her hand-picked Praetorian Guard of advisors were the ones who let her down so badly in their advice on the campaign. They have (correctly) had to leave the stage - but that void will further hurt her self confidence. Her choice of advisors went badly wrong. Is there anybody she can now trust? Especially when she must now doubt her own judgment.

    And whatever self-confidence remains isn't helped when EVERYBODY knows you are on the way out - the only question is when. No sane person will say she can front another election. So she has to go before that. But a minority government is not entirely able to pick the time of that next election. That election could come sooner than wanted. A Conservative Party that ends up going into an election fronted by somebody that nobody wants there would be a disaster. The Party would deserve to be given a kicking. But that isn't the worst of it. The same MPs who let that happen have a genuine deep-seated fear of what damage a Corbyn Government could do to the country they love. Preventing that is high on their list of priorities.

    Not easy at the moment, being a Tory MP with a lettet to Sir Graham Brady sat in your pocket.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    Dr Palmer

    Thank you for yesterday's story. It led to a very interesting discussion about being willing to risk losing something in the hope of getting something better. And it's always good to remind teenagers facing exams that there are worse things in life than revision!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892

    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
    Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.

    Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?

    If it is Michael Gove I will vote Labour, even if the Jezaster is still leading them.

    I am now in the run in to new exams at GCSE, designed by Gove. Three weeks ago, the entire assessment mechanism was changed. All the question weightings, all the markschemes, all the layouts.

    At the same time, OFQUAL have also made it harder to get a level 5 than to get a level 8 in history - for a 5 you have to analyse and evaluate, for an 8 you only have to evaluate. In theory at least therefore you can get a level 8 with a one sentence answer, but need three paragraphs for a 5.

    And while we are on the subject, the specification was drawn up in such a hurry that I keep finding errors in it. For example, I am meant to teach my students about the university system in England in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest - except there was no university system in England at the Norman conquest or for over a century thereafter (unhelpfully Wikipedia and Oxford University's website both wrongly state that the university was founded in 1096, confusing it with the Abbey Choir School - but the fact a few teenage computer programmers are ignorant f the facts is no excuse for a trained historian getting it wrong).

    This is down to Gove and his inability to do things - even things that might be good in practice - slowly and with due regard to logistics. If he were in charge we'd have a transition deal that was far less forensically prepared than one by Davis - and that should not be taken as an endorsement of Davis. He'd probably absent-mindedly declare that all banks need to be based in Loudon instead of London for regulatory purposes and sign off without noticing he's handed over our entire banking sector to the Americans.

    The only thing to say in Gove's favour is he is not Nicky Morgan - who is so stupid she thought the head of OFQUAL who oversaw this total shambles would are a good candidate as head of OFSTED, which is now also not unexpectedly collapsing in an undignified heap of chaos, inconsistency and understaffing.
    Oh dear.

    Why she was ever promoted to cabinet I'll never understand...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719
    GIN1138 said:

    Now we hear that UK officials are trying to push for a three year "transition" (obviously in the hope that Jezza wins the 2022 election and keeps us in "transition" indefinitely) now is the time for Brexiteers to move against Theresa May and get rid.

    They have nothing to lose as the way it's going there isn't going to be a Brexit under Theresa May.

    When Brexiteers get rid of May the intractable problems will remain intractable.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638

    Good forensic analysis by David as usual.

    As I said yesterday, I think May's 38% rating as doing a good job when virually nobody in frontline politics would privately agree is actually quite impressive. David's reasons why she isn't are, as he says, mostly related to whether she's a good party leader, and the public cares little about that. They see someone of perhaps limited ability doing her best in a difficult situation without any obvious catastrophes. They don't especially see why she should be replaced.

    But that will apply even more after Brexit. I can well see the public feeling OK, she's done the best of a bad job, well done, and getting up to say 45% approval rating. A leadership challenge at that point will look grossly unfair and driven by personal ambition rather than the good of the country. So if there isn't a challenge now, we should see a real possibility that she'll be leader at the next GE.

    Tut! Tut! Mr Palmer....bringing data to the party.

    So Corbyn bestrides the stage a colossus and May is nowhere to be seen?

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    edited January 27

    GIN1138 said:

    Now we hear that UK officials are trying to push for a three year "transition" (obviously in the hope that Jezza wins the 2022 election and keeps us in "transition" indefinitely) now is the time for Brexiteers to move against Theresa May and get rid.

    They have nothing to lose as the way it's going there isn't going to be a Brexit under Theresa May.

    When Brexiteers get rid of May the intractable problems will remain intractable.
    I used to work in change management.

    People don't like change. Businesses hate change.

    But when it is forced upon them by necessity, they get used to it.

    You keep finding problems and think that is going to lead to us being involved in a Federal Europe.

    Yet you don't seem to see the biggest problem with that - that the British people don't want that.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    Mortimer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Now we hear that UK officials are trying to push for a three year "transition" (obviously in the hope that Jezza wins the 2022 election and keeps us in "transition" indefinitely) now is the time for Brexiteers to move against Theresa May and get rid.

    They have nothing to lose as the way it's going there isn't going to be a Brexit under Theresa May.

    When Brexiteers get rid of May the intractable problems will remain intractable.
    I used to work in change management.

    People don't like change. Businesses hate change.

    But when it is forced upon them by necessity, they get used to it.

    You keep finding problems and think that is going to lead to us being involved in a Federal Europe.

    Yet you don't seem to see the biggest problem with that - that the British people don't want that.
    You seriously think Theresa May is *managing* change?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,511
    Mortimer said:


    Yet you don't seem to see the biggest problem with that - that the British people don't want that.

    Who cares what the British people think when the elite have got a a very profitable gravy-train to keep going? :D
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,641
    Theresa May is a manager. We need a leader.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    Good forensic analysis by David as usual.

    As I said yesterday, I think May's 38% rating as doing a good job when virually nobody in frontline politics would privately agree is actually quite impressive. David's reasons why she isn't are, as he says, mostly related to whether she's a good party leader, and the public cares little about that. They see someone of perhaps limited ability doing her best in a difficult situation without any obvious catastrophes. They don't especially see why she should be replaced.

    But that will apply even more after Brexit. I can well see the public feeling OK, she's done the best of a bad job, well done, and getting up to say 45% approval rating. A leadership challenge at that point will look grossly unfair and driven by personal ambition rather than the good of the country. So if there isn't a challenge now, we should see a real possibility that she'll be leader at the next GE.

    Tut! Tut! Mr Palmer....bringing data to the party.

    So Corbyn bestrides the stage a colossus and May is nowhere to be seen?

    May's ratings are pretty typical for a PM. She's a long way ahead of Brown or Major, when they were unpopular.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334
    I like experts who are prepared to say 'we don't know'.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
    I'm not at all sure about that.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892

    Good forensic analysis by David as usual.

    As I said yesterday, I think May's 38% rating as doing a good job when virually nobody in frontline politics would privately agree is actually quite impressive. David's reasons why she isn't are, as he says, mostly related to whether she's a good party leader, and the public cares little about that. They see someone of perhaps limited ability doing her best in a difficult situation without any obvious catastrophes. They don't especially see why she should be replaced.

    But that will apply even more after Brexit. I can well see the public feeling OK, she's done the best of a bad job, well done, and getting up to say 45% approval rating. A leadership challenge at that point will look grossly unfair and driven by personal ambition rather than the good of the country. So if there isn't a challenge now, we should see a real possibility that she'll be leader at the next GE.

    I agree with that logic. Mrs May's pitch is that she will get a deal and she won't do anything stupid. It's a decent pitch, and one that doesn't apply to several other potential replacements. As the negotiations may well go on past the next election and certainly will if we go for a Canada variant, there has to be the possibility of her leading the Tories into that election.

    On the other hand it just takes 48 pissed off MPs to write a letter and she's gone. Truly a sword of Damocles hangs by a thread
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,872
    Theresa May will probably go next year, over the Summer.

    The A50 deal will be done, the Heads of Terms for the new deal will have been laid out, and it'll be about sealing the deal with the EU, other trade deals with other countries, and what sort of vision the Conservative Party wants to pitch to the country in GE2022.

    Of course, that new leader will have 2 1/2 years to soil themselves in office, and might not be the freshest thing on the menu by the time the election comes round, but my view is that's better than further years of directionless drift under May.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,368
    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
    I'm not at all sure about that.
    neither am I. Just look at Boris's record as Foreign Sec.. Deplorable
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    edited January 27
    Across the continent the EU outside of a fairly narrow clique is tolerated rather than loved. Tolerated for the many good things it promotes, but not loved because of its posturing and complacency.

    The problem is that the EU sees rejection of its treaty changes, a reluctance to pay more money over and consistently low turnout in EU-wide elections as evidence that they need more integration to bolster its legitimacy. Verhofstadt's famous comment that Brexit shows just how popular the EU is a spectacular example of this peculiar thinking, but Lisbon is perhaps the better one. Or Greece, where the evidence that the single currency imposed by blatantly breaking the rules had ruined the country was blithely ignored and Greece forced to give up more of its sovereignty, the loss of which was partly to blame for the problems, in exchange for a rescue the EU's stupidity and overt politicisation itself had made necessary.

    And it is killing the EU. Which given the ramifications should it collapse, and the genuine benefits it does bring and could extend if run correctly, is not a cheering thought.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116

    I like experts who are prepared to say 'we don't know'.
    +1
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,872
    Neither Hammond nor Johnson would provide any answers, and are both fundamentally flawed characters for PM.

    The ones with capability, courage and vision, who've also shown leadership, are Hunt and Gove. Rudd is highly professional, but I don't see much of a PM in her.

    You can forget Leadsom.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    Sean_F said:

    Good forensic analysis by David as usual.

    As I said yesterday, I think May's 38% rating as doing a good job when virually nobody in frontline politics would privately agree is actually quite impressive. David's reasons why she isn't are, as he says, mostly related to whether she's a good party leader, and the public cares little about that. They see someone of perhaps limited ability doing her best in a difficult situation without any obvious catastrophes. They don't especially see why she should be replaced.

    But that will apply even more after Brexit. I can well see the public feeling OK, she's done the best of a bad job, well done, and getting up to say 45% approval rating. A leadership challenge at that point will look grossly unfair and driven by personal ambition rather than the good of the country. So if there isn't a challenge now, we should see a real possibility that she'll be leader at the next GE.

    Tut! Tut! Mr Palmer....bringing data to the party.

    So Corbyn bestrides the stage a colossus and May is nowhere to be seen?

    May's ratings are pretty typical for a PM. She's a long way ahead of Brown or Major, when they were unpopular.
    Lowest Satisfied score:
    Cameron: 28
    Brown: 21
    Blair: 25
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638

    I like experts who are prepared to say 'we don't know'.
    As opposed to headline writers who make unsubstantiated claims......
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
    I'm not at all sure about that.
    neither am I. Just look at Boris's record as Foreign Sec.. Deplorable
    And Hammond is May without the charisma.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    edited January 27
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
    I'm not at all sure about that.
    neither am I. Just look at Boris's record as Foreign Sec.. Deplorable
    And Hammond is May without the charisma.
    I don't see any of the current batch of front bench politicians* of either party as being fit for high office. That is not imply they are corrupt or evil. Just crap.

    *With the exception of Michael Gove
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334
    FF43 said:

    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
    Boris Johnson would be a wild card. There's no reason to think he would make a good prime minister, but there are reasons for hoping he MIGHT make one, if you are desperate enough. I can't see Gove turning out well and Hammond doesn't fit the profile.

    Who the Tories actually choose is another matter. David would have as good an insight as anyone, I think. Remember this is a party that enthusiastically embraced Iain Duncan Smith and is competing with a Labour party that chose Corbyn.
    All parties will embrace a newly elected leader, even when most are privately sceptical or even derisive. Some people may choose not to join an inner team - a front bench, say - for policy reasons but to actively oppose from Day 1 is to oppose the members as well as the leader.

    Who would the Party pick? It could be one of quite a lot. A huge amount would depend on the campaigns. I'm still sceptical about Rees-Mogg because I can see him getting into all sorts of problems over social policy and over naively answering questions he should deflect.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,200
    Sean_F said:

    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Both Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson would at least try to lead intelligently.
    I'm not at all sure about that.
    Hammond yes, perhaps. If Boris becomes PM the country will be ruined!
  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 179
    How does this letters 'thing' work in practice? Once a MP sends in a no confidence letter does that count until they send another one rescinding their vote or Is it valid for three/six/etc months. Would the PM privately be told what the count had got to on a daily basis?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,295
    Morning all,

    Impossible to call this one imho. There may be a vote of no confidence within days.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506

    Add into the mix that her hand-picked Praetorian Guard of advisors were the ones who let her down so badly in their advice on the campaign. They have (correctly) had to leave the stage -

    but allegedly still prompting loudly from the wings...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?

    If it is Michael Gove I will vote Labour, even if the Jezaster is still leading them.

    I am now in the run in to new exams at GCSE, designed by Gove. Three weeks ago, the entire assessment mechanism was changed. All the question weightings, all the markschemes, all the layouts.

    At the same time, OFQUAL have also made it harder to get a level 5 than to get a level 8 in history - for a 5 you have to analyse and evaluate, for an 8 you only have to evaluate. In theory at least therefore you can get a level 8 with a one sentence answer, but need three paragraphs for a 5.

    And while we are on the subject, the specification was drawn up in such a hurry that I keep finding errors in it. For example, I am meant to teach my students about the university system in England in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest - except there was no university system in England at the Norman conquest or for over a century thereafter (unhelpfully Wikipedia and Oxford University's website both wrongly state that the university was founded in 1096, confusing it with the Abbey Choir School - but the fact a few teenage computer programmers are ignorant f the facts is no excuse for a trained historian getting it wrong).

    This is down to Gove and his inability to do things - even things that might be good in practice - slowly and with due regard to logistics. If he were in charge we'd have a transition deal that was far less forensically prepared than one by Davis - and that should not be taken as an endorsement of Davis. He'd probably absent-mindedly declare that all banks need to be based in Loudon instead of London for regulatory purposes and sign off without noticing he's handed over our entire banking sector to the Americans.

    The only thing to say in Gove's favour is he is not Nicky Morgan - who is so stupid she thought the head of OFQUAL who oversaw this total shambles would are a good candidate as head of OFSTED, which is now also not unexpectedly collapsing in an undignified heap of chaos, inconsistency and understaffing.
    You are of course entirely wrong about Gove who is by far the best minister we have had in a very long time. Given how much he has rightly been lauded at Justice and DEFRA and the fact that the education system was frankly not fit for purpose for many years I am afraid I cannot take your comments seriously.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 1,344
    edited January 27
    Great article.

    Yes, the logic says May won’t go, shouldn’t go, and can’t go.

    But at some stage - perhaps in Spring when it is finally clear that transition does in fact mean “vassalage” (as surely we knew it would since the Florence speech!) - one can see an unholy alliance between Boris and the hard Brexit rump to oust her.

    May will need to negotiate a figleaf of autonomy during transition. Presumably, the ability to negotiate new trade deals will be dressed up as a concession from the EU.

    Hopefully, for May, the hard Brexiters will not realise any such negotiations could not possibly be concluded until the final nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU is clear...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    It's going to be Gove, isn't it?

    If it is Michael Gove I will vote Labour, even if the Jezaster is still leading them.

    I am now in the run in to new exams at GCSE, designed by Gove. Three weeks ago, the entire assessment mechanism was changed. All the question weightings, all the markschemes, all the layouts.

    At the same time, OFQUAL have also made it harder to get a level 5 than to get a level 8 in history - for a 5 you have to analyse and evaluate, for an 8 you only have to evaluate. In theory at least therefore you can get a level 8 with a one sentence answer, but need three paragraphs for a 5.

    And while we are on the subject, the specification was drawn up in such a hurry that I keep finding errors in it. For example, I am meant to teach my students about the university system in England in the aftermath of the Norman Conquest - except there was no university system in England at the Norman conquest or for over a century thereafter (unhelpfully Wikipedia and Oxford University's website both wrongly state that the university was founded in 1096, confusing it with the Abbey Choir School - but the fact a few teenage computer programmers are ignorant f the facts is no excuse for a trained historian getting it wrong).

    This is down to Gove and his inability to do things - even things that might be good in practice - slowly and with due regard to logistics. If he were in charge we'd have a transition deal that was far less forensically prepared than one by Davis - and that should not be taken as an endorsement of Davis. He'd probably absent-mindedly declare that all banks need to be based in Loudon instead of London for regulatory purposes and sign off without noticing he's handed over our entire banking sector to the Americans.

    The only thing to say in Gove's favour is he is not Nicky Morgan - who is so stupid she thought the head of OFQUAL who oversaw this total shambles would are a good candidate as head of OFSTED, which is now also not unexpectedly collapsing in an undignified heap of chaos, inconsistency and understaffing.
    You are of course entirely wrong about Gove who is by far the best minister we have had in a very long time. Given how much he has rightly been lauded at Justice and DEFRA and the fact that the education system was frankly not fit for purpose for many years I am afraid I cannot take your comments seriously.
    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    Ally_B said:

    How does this letters 'thing' work in practice? Once a MP sends in a no confidence letter does that count until they send another one rescinding their vote or Is it valid for three/six/etc months. Would the PM privately be told what the count had got to on a daily basis?

    Yes. Letters sit on the record until they are actively withdrawn or there is a vote of no confidence.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,295
    Just noticed this news:



    He was the future once...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    ydoethur said:

    Across the continent the EU outside of a fairly narrow clique is tolerated rather than loved. Tolerated for the many good things it promotes, but not loved because of its posturing and complacency.

    The problem is that the EU sees rejection of its treaty changes, a reluctance to pay more money over and consistently low turnout in EU-wide elections as evidence that they need more integration to bolster its legitimacy. Verhofstadt's famous comment that Brexit shows just how popular the EU is a spectacular example of this peculiar thinking, but Lisbon is perhaps the better one. Or Greece, where the evidence that the single currency imposed by blatantly breaking the rules had ruined the country was blithely ignored and Greece forced to give up more of its sovereignty, the loss of which was partly to blame for the problems, in exchange for a rescue the EU's stupidity and overt politicisation itself had made necessary.

    And it is killing the EU. Which given the ramifications should it collapse, and the genuine benefits it does bring and could extend if run correctly, is not a cheering thought.
    Agree with this diagnosis, although there isn't a cure for it. Everyone agrees the EU needs change but there's no consensus on what that change should be. While complaining about it, most people don't want the EU to be more democratically accountable because that gives legitimacy and power to the centre at the expense of the nation states. So the EU operates legalistically. It does things according to the rules and ends up being a bit Gormenghast.

    It's also why the EU won't and cannot do a special deal for the UK. We have never understood that the EU is a multilateral construct and the messy compromise was painfully arrived at. They can't start unpicking it. It's a tragedy for us because multilateralism suits the kind of country we are, especially a rules based, liberal, open economic zone like the EU.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 159
    Fishing said:

    I understand David Herdson's argument but I disagree. The country urgently needs a leader right now. Almost any of the conceivable candidates would be an improvement.

    (Jacob Cream Crackers and Andrea Leadsom being the obvious exceptions)

    Not sure Boris would be either. Hammond is too Europhile to be acceptable to the Party. The others are too unknown.

    I think May will stay because there's no realistic alternative. At least until March next year.
    Ironic about Hammond. I remember him as a Redwood supporter when he was first elected in 1997.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,546
    FF43 said:

    Mortimer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Now we hear that UK officials are trying to push for a three year "transition" (obviously in the hope that Jezza wins the 2022 election and keeps us in "transition" indefinitely) now is the time for Brexiteers to move against Theresa May and get rid.

    They have nothing to lose as the way it's going there isn't going to be a Brexit under Theresa May.

    When Brexiteers get rid of May the intractable problems will remain intractable.
    I used to work in change management.

    People don't like change. Businesses hate change.

    But when it is forced upon them by necessity, they get used to it.

    You keep finding problems and think that is going to lead to us being involved in a Federal Europe.

    Yet you don't seem to see the biggest problem with that - that the British people don't want that.
    You seriously think Theresa May is *managing* change?
    I used to work in change management under John Harvey-Jones.

    His method was:

    1. Make sure everyone is very unhappy with the status quo.
    2. Paint a vivid credible attractive picture of what could be.
    3. Show people the first step towards that vision and they will take it.

    May has succeeded with step one.

    The other method is to see which way the people are marching and walk in front of them waving a big flag. But if they are marching in opposing directions, you have to make a choice.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,304


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,652
    We either Brexit on terms set entirely by the EU or we crash out. This was always the choice, but it’s only now the Tory Brexit loons have realised it. Obviously, they would prefer to bring down May and destroy their party, and to inflict huge damage to the economy and on living standards, rather than do “Brussels’ bidding”. The question is, how large is the loon faction inside the Conservative party? For the sake of the country, let’s hope it’s not big enough.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,549
    edited January 27


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Compared to a pile of manure this pile of garbage doesn't smell as bad.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,653
    Mr. Borough, the post itself is controversial as many just want a single Yorkshire mayor but the government won't postpone or abolish the South Yorkshire mayoral election. I think Jarvis is on the record supporting the all-Yorkshire position. If he got elected that could be a springboard to then win the Yorkshire mayoralty.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    I think I agree but that is not really setting the bar very high.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,780


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Gove isn't PM material, but he would , I think make a bold and excellent CoE. Hammond has proved too timid and unimaginative in economy policy.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 264
    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Mortimer said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Now we hear that UK officials are trying to push for a three year "transition" (obviously in the hope that Jezza wins the 2022 election and keeps us in "transition" indefinitely) now is the time for Brexiteers to move against Theresa May and get rid.

    They have nothing to lose as the way it's going there isn't going to be a Brexit under Theresa May.

    When Brexiteers get rid of May the intractable problems will remain intractable.
    I used to work in change management.

    People don't like change. Businesses hate change.

    But when it is forced upon them by necessity, they get used to it.

    You keep finding problems and think that is going to lead to us being involved in a Federal Europe.

    Yet you don't seem to see the biggest problem with that - that the British people don't want that.
    You seriously think Theresa May is *managing* change?
    I used to work in change management under John Harvey-Jones.

    His method was:

    1. Make sure everyone is very unhappy with the status quo.
    2. Paint a vivid credible attractive picture of what could be.
    3. Show people the first step towards that vision and they will take it.

    May has succeeded with step one.

    The other method is to see which way the people are marching and walk in front of them waving a big flag. But if they are marching in opposing directions, you have to make a choice.
    The problem we face now is that there was no step 2 so the smart and the young are creating their own vision. As a result we are heading to chaotic change.


  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Gove isn't PM material, but he would , I think make a bold and excellent CoE. Hammond has proved too timid and unimaginative in economy policy.
    Sad though I would be to see him leave his curent role, Gove would be an excellent Chancellor. I believe that moving Hammond out of Number 11 is now essential for May to stay in Number 10.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,652
    edited January 27
    Gove or Boris or any other prominent Brexiteer pretty much guarantees Labour 40% of the vote - pre or post Brexit. The Tories would be much better advised to skip a generation and put new talent in front of the public. The problem is that it’s impossible to do because May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,561

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Alternatively every single 21st Century President has had an Official State visit to the UK.

    Trump wouldn't have wanted to be the first not to given the recent history that Dubya and Obama both got one.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,272


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Gove isn't PM material, but he would , I think make a bold and excellent CoE. Hammond has proved too timid and unimaginative in economy policy.
    Sad though I would be to see him leave his curent role, Gove would be an excellent Chancellor. I believe that moving Hammond out of Number 11 is now essential for May to stay in Number 10.
    The problem with Gove as chancellor is he'd probably want to implement a root and branch reform of taxation (and for all I know, rotate the entire United Kingdom 90 degrees to the left) and HMG just doesn't have the bandwidth to spare. Mind you, I don't think HMG has the bandwidth to walk and chew gum at the same time.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,652
    The Bloomberg Innovation Index 2018. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see where the UK stands:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/south-korea-tops-global-innovation-ranking-again-as-u-s-falls
    Look how many EU member states are above us. Look, too, at individual factors and observe it is only the strength of our tertiary sector that keeps us close to the top 20.
    Decisions taken at home - in business and government - determine our fate now, just as they have always done.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 506

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,652

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Alternatively every single 21st Century President has had an Official State visit to the UK.

    Trump wouldn't have wanted to be the first not to given the recent history that Dubya and Obama both got one.

    They both made working visits before they made state ones.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    edited January 27

    Barnesian said:

    FF43 said:

    Mortimer said:


    I used to work in change management.

    People don't like change. Businesses hate change.

    But when it is forced upon them by necessity, they get used to it.

    You keep finding problems and think that is going to lead to us being involved in a Federal Europe.

    Yet you don't seem to see the biggest problem with that - that the British people don't want that.

    You seriously think Theresa May is *managing* change?
    I used to work in change management under John Harvey-Jones.

    His method was:

    1. Make sure everyone is very unhappy with the status quo.
    2. Paint a vivid credible attractive picture of what could be.
    3. Show people the first step towards that vision and they will take it.

    May has succeeded with step one.

    The other method is to see which way the people are marching and walk in front of them waving a big flag. But if they are marching in opposing directions, you have to make a choice.
    The problem we face now is that there was no step 2 [Paint a vivid credible attractive picture of what could be] so the smart and the young are creating their own vision. As a result we are heading to chaotic change.


    Put your finger on it

    And FPT:
    FF43 said:

    The stalemate is because the realistic alternatives to EU membership are highly unpalatable: a decade long haggle leading to at best a mediocre result (Canada), doing what we're told (Norway) or outright chaos (WTO).

    Overturning a democratically arrived at decision to reject objectively the best option (membership of the EU) is also unpalatable.

    No wonder Theresa May doesn't want to talk about it.

  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,935

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Jeez - another thing we agree on. This is becoming a habit now!! :)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,561
    John_M said:


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Gove isn't PM material, but he would , I think make a bold and excellent CoE. Hammond has proved too timid and unimaginative in economy policy.
    Sad though I would be to see him leave his curent role, Gove would be an excellent Chancellor. I believe that moving Hammond out of Number 11 is now essential for May to stay in Number 10.
    The problem with Gove as chancellor is he'd probably want to implement a root and branch reform of taxation (and for all I know, rotate the entire United Kingdom 90 degrees to the left) and HMG just doesn't have the bandwidth to spare. Mind you, I don't think HMG has the bandwidth to walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Good! Someone has to eventually do it.

    Maybe we could finally get Income Tax and National Insurance simplified and merged.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,561
    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
    He's keen on Scotland.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993

    Gove or Boris or any other prominent Brexiteer pretty much guarantees Labour 40% of the vote - pre or post Brexit. The Tories would be much better advised to skip a generation and put new talent in front of the public. The problem is that it’s impossible to do because May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.

    I suspect you are indulging in some wishful thinking in your first sentence. Corbyn vs Johnson would be a contest of minnows and I think we would all be hard pushed to predict the result.

    I do however agree with your proposed cure for the Tory party.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,546


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    He always reminds me of Harry Enfield so I find it impossible to take him seriously. Not his fault he looks that way but I think it is an awful disadvantage.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    John_M said:


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Gove isn't PM material, but he would , I think make a bold and excellent CoE. Hammond has proved too timid and unimaginative in economy policy.
    Sad though I would be to see him leave his curent role, Gove would be an excellent Chancellor. I believe that moving Hammond out of Number 11 is now essential for May to stay in Number 10.
    The problem with Gove as chancellor is he'd probably want to implement a root and branch reform of taxation (and for all I know, rotate the entire United Kingdom 90 degrees to the left) and HMG just doesn't have the bandwidth to spare. Mind you, I don't think HMG has the bandwidth to walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Almost everything Gove tries to do is very laudable, and largely entirely necessary. There is a case for a root and branch taxation reform.

    But, as you say, not right at this moment.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,652

    Gove or Boris or any other prominent Brexiteer pretty much guarantees Labour 40% of the vote - pre or post Brexit. The Tories would be much better advised to skip a generation and put new talent in front of the public. The problem is that it’s impossible to do because May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.

    I suspect you are indulging in some wishful thinking in your first sentence. Corbyn vs Johnson would be a contest of minnows and I think we would all be hard pushed to predict the result.

    I do however agree with your proposed cure for the Tory party.

    Putting a prominent Brexiteer in charge of the Tories drives Remain voters to Labour, in my view. Tories and libertarians like Gove. Others are less keen.

  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 506

    The Bloomberg Innovation Index 2018. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see where the UK stands:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/south-korea-tops-global-innovation-ranking-again-as-u-s-falls
    Look how many EU member states are above us. Look, too, at individual factors and observe it is only the strength of our tertiary sector that keeps us close to the top 20.
    Decisions taken at home - in business and government - determine our fate now, just as they have always done.

    Seems quite a subjective analysis and what really drags our score down is manufacturing value added and poor productivity which are ongoing problems and speaks volumes.

    We still outrank China, Russia, Canada, New Zealand snd Australia and more than two thirds of EU members. Aren't those nations quite outward looking in different ways?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,845
    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
    You think?
    Don could always try his happy hunting ground north of the border, no one can ever be bothered to travel that far, and we're famously placid.

    'THE most graphic images of the events surrounding the G8 summit ten years ago show angry rioters clashing with baton-wielding police officers on the streets of the Capital. But just as dramatic are the pictures of a quarter of a million people filling the city centre as they march through Edinburgh in bright sunshine, calling on the world leaders to “Make Poverty History”.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybkt7gnd
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,652
    brendan16 said:

    The Bloomberg Innovation Index 2018. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see where the UK stands:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/south-korea-tops-global-innovation-ranking-again-as-u-s-falls
    Look how many EU member states are above us. Look, too, at individual factors and observe it is only the strength of our tertiary sector that keeps us close to the top 20.
    Decisions taken at home - in business and government - determine our fate now, just as they have always done.

    Seems quite a subjective analysis and what really drags our score down is manufacturing value added and poor productivity which are ongoing problems and speaks volumes.

    We still outrank China, Russia, Canada, New Zealand snd Australia and more than two thirds of EU members. Aren't those nations quite outward looking in different ways?

    We are the lowest ranked northern European country. That’s poor - in particular, when you bear in mind the strength of our universities. Something is going badly wrong.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,561
    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Gove isn't PM material, but he would , I think make a bold and excellent CoE. Hammond has proved too timid and unimaginative in economy policy.
    Sad though I would be to see him leave his curent role, Gove would be an excellent Chancellor. I believe that moving Hammond out of Number 11 is now essential for May to stay in Number 10.
    The problem with Gove as chancellor is he'd probably want to implement a root and branch reform of taxation (and for all I know, rotate the entire United Kingdom 90 degrees to the left) and HMG just doesn't have the bandwidth to spare. Mind you, I don't think HMG has the bandwidth to walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Almost everything Gove tries to do is very laudable, and largely entirely necessary. There is a case for a root and branch taxation reform.

    But, as you say, not right at this moment.
    There's never a "right at this moment" opportunity, there's always a reason not to do it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    I think May survives for now, with polls still almost neck and neck between the Tories and Labour there is no urgent political need for a change and it would be gross self indulgence as David Herdson says for the Tories to indulge in a leadership election which will cut down even more the limited timespan for the country to agree a Brexit deal with the EU
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,095

    Gove or Boris or any other prominent Brexiteer pretty much guarantees Labour 40% of the vote - pre or post Brexit. The Tories would be much better advised to skip a generation and put new talent in front of the public. The problem is that it’s impossible to do because May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.

    Agreed.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,888
    edited January 27

    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
    You think?
    Don could always try his happy hunting ground north of the border, no one can ever be bothered to travel that far, and we're famously placid.

    'THE most graphic images of the events surrounding the G8 summit ten years ago show angry rioters clashing with baton-wielding police officers on the streets of the Capital. But just as dramatic are the pictures of a quarter of a million people filling the city centre as they march through Edinburgh in bright sunshine, calling on the world leaders to “Make Poverty History”.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybkt7gnd
    Perhaps the visit could be confined to the ancestral homeland of Lewis. A triumphal homecoming processing down Stornaway's main street would be just the thing to massage his ego.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,335
    For the love of God, enough with this Tory self-indulgence! There’s a country to run.

    I was up early to go to New Covent Garden Market. Interesting to see the wholesale business behind the plants and flowers we see in our shops. So many of them come from Holland or via it from Africa and others. What will happen to this trade post-Brexit without a sensible resolution? Multiply this 000’s of times for any business you care to mention. This is what the government needs to concentrate on. Not all this granstanding, ego stroking and cat fighting.

    Thanks for the header @DavidHerdson. Your comment about Mrs May not having left psychologically the role of Home Secretary is very acute.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,845

    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Yet another May error was to let this actually become an issue.

    Only 2 presidents since WW2 have made Official State visits to the UK - GW Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011. In addition Reagan and Clinton addressed Parliament. But otherwise, although there have been plenty of informal visits and visits to attend specific conferences, it is certainly not expected that a US president will visit the UK. May should have kept her mouth shut about it.
    Wouldn't the answer for him to visit the UK but not come to London? I expect any demos would be much smaller anywhere else - and barely noticeable.
    You think?
    Don could always try his happy hunting ground north of the border, no one can ever be bothered to travel that far, and we're famously placid.

    'THE most graphic images of the events surrounding the G8 summit ten years ago show angry rioters clashing with baton-wielding police officers on the streets of the Capital. But just as dramatic are the pictures of a quarter of a million people filling the city centre as they march through Edinburgh in bright sunshine, calling on the world leaders to “Make Poverty History”.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybkt7gnd
    Perhaps the visit could be confined to the ancestral homeland of Lewis. A triumphal procession down Stornaway's main street would be just the thing to massage his ego.
    I don't think the cailleachs are very keen on pussy grabbers. Trump being pursued down Cromwell St by a bunch of old ladies in pink pussy hats alongside a sprinkling of Wee Free ministers would certainly be a fine sight though.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116

    May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.

    Which was why her reshuffle was so poorly received by MPs - given she is going, almost certainly within 18 months, it had to be used promote those who were the someone like Jonny Mercer brigade. Instead, she circled the wagons. Not what the Party needed.

    The case for letting Boris have a go now is that he would have the opportunity to make that wholesale change. And if he proves to be not up to the job, then one of those given a leg up can take over before 2022.

    The case against is that Boris might not be the man to be given Brexit as his first massive challenge in Government.....

  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 991
    On Topic: Matthew Parris is sticking the knife in, quite a good read:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/one-well-aimed-speech-could-topple-mrs-may-dbjqgd00m
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Yes, but a little like Osborne, it is the charisma of the pantomime villain, not the vote winning kind.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,561

    May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.

    Which was why her reshuffle was so poorly received by MPs - given she is going, almost certainly within 18 months, it had to be used promote those who were the someone like Jonny Mercer brigade. Instead, she circled the wagons. Not what the Party needed.

    The case for letting Boris have a go now is that he would have the opportunity to make that wholesale change. And if he proves to be not up to the job, then one of those given a leg up can take over before 2022.

    The case against is that Boris might not be the man to be given Brexit as his first massive challenge in Government.....

    Why not?

    Boris would be the perfect man to be given Brexit in a "Nixon goes to China" kind of way. He's the public's face of Brexit and whatever deal he agrees (and the Civil Service will ensure a deal gets agreed) will be more acceptable as a result.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,872

    brendan16 said:

    The Bloomberg Innovation Index 2018. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see where the UK stands:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/south-korea-tops-global-innovation-ranking-again-as-u-s-falls
    Look how many EU member states are above us. Look, too, at individual factors and observe it is only the strength of our tertiary sector that keeps us close to the top 20.
    Decisions taken at home - in business and government - determine our fate now, just as they have always done.

    Seems quite a subjective analysis and what really drags our score down is manufacturing value added and poor productivity which are ongoing problems and speaks volumes.

    We still outrank China, Russia, Canada, New Zealand snd Australia and more than two thirds of EU members. Aren't those nations quite outward looking in different ways?

    We are the lowest ranked northern European country. That’s poor - in particular, when you bear in mind the strength of our universities. Something is going badly wrong.

    And, yet, we secure more entrepreneur start-ups than almost the whole rest of the EU put together, and four times more than France & Germany.

    Our problem isn't in starting great new businesses. Its in developing and retaining them:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-tech-start-ups-lead-europe-as-funding-rises-to-3bn-in-record-year-8zfbgkwmw

    https://www.ft.com/content/cb56d86c-88d6-11e7-afd2-74b8ecd34d3b
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256

    John_M said:


    The issue with Gove is the opposite of that with May. He has so many ideas and innovations he would probably make a poor team manager - though that remains to be proven. I think the media would have a difficult time trying to pigeon-hole him too, which is silly but not irrelevant.

    I actually don't think he would be successful as a PM - not because of any fault of his own per se but because of the way he is perceived and caricatured by the media and public at large. He lacks charisma for many which sadly is deemed far more important to people these days than actually being competent or intelligent.
    On the charisma scale I would have thought that Gove's well ahead of Theresa May
    Gove isn't PM material, but he would , I think make a bold and excellent CoE. Hammond has proved too timid and unimaginative in economy policy.
    Sad though I would be to see him leave his curent role, Gove would be an excellent Chancellor. I believe that moving Hammond out of Number 11 is now essential for May to stay in Number 10.
    The problem with Gove as chancellor is he'd probably want to implement a root and branch reform of taxation (and for all I know, rotate the entire United Kingdom 90 degrees to the left) and HMG just doesn't have the bandwidth to spare. Mind you, I don't think HMG has the bandwidth to walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Good! Someone has to eventually do it.

    Maybe we could finally get Income Tax and National Insurance simplified and merged.
    Or maybe not, as I have consistently said we need a more hypothecated National Insurance focused on the state pension, contributory JSA and increases in healthcare funding not just lumping NI with tax which would give Corbyn free rein for tax rise after tax rise
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719
    HYUFD said:

    I think May survives for now, with polls still almost neck and neck between the Tories and Labour there is no urgent political need for a change and it would be gross self indulgence as David Herdson says for the Tories to indulge in a leadership election which will cut down even more the limited timespan for the country to agree a Brexit deal with the EU

    The Times is reporting that May has cancelled preparations for her planned Brexit speech because of cabinet splits. Where’s the leadership?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,872

    Gove or Boris or any other prominent Brexiteer pretty much guarantees Labour 40% of the vote - pre or post Brexit. The Tories would be much better advised to skip a generation and put new talent in front of the public. The problem is that it’s impossible to do because May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.

    There are no guarantees.

    I remember hearing similar things about May in 2015 and 2016, due to her perceived hard line on immigration and the police. She was a "new Thatcher". How we laugh, now.

    I think Gove is capable of learning, growth and public rehabilitation. Boris, not so much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    edited January 27

    Gove or Boris or any other prominent Brexiteer pretty much guarantees Labour 40% of the vote - pre or post Brexit. The Tories would be much better advised to skip a generation and put new talent in front of the public. The problem is that it’s impossible to do because May’s only criteria for senior government appointments is how they help her to stay in place. Give someone like Jonny Mercer two years in cabinet, put him up against Corbyn and the Tories would romp home.

    A new Tory leader might scrape a small majority against Corbyn a la Major in 1992 at best, it is highly unlikely any new Tory leader will win a landslide whether Mercer or any other
This discussion has been closed.