Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » None of the Above takes 44% lead in new CON leadership poll

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited February 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » None of the Above takes 44% lead in new CON leadership poll

With a new week opening and Mrs Msy still there at number 10 there is a new poll out in the Independent on who voters think should be her successor.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300
    First!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117
    Silver medal!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,908
    RobD said:

    First!

    Like Priti Patel!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    First!

    Like Priti Patel!
    Assume from the time you are back in SoCal?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    The Pritti quotes from the Sun article on Oxfam are great value

    “Why was a government department not calling for prosecutions and taking money away from Oxfam”

    “People need to go away and ask questions about why they didn’t do more at the time”


    May be we should ask the former SoS?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    Johnson is hardly short of name recognition - just of any great public enthusiasm, it seems.
    A splendid result for none of the above.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    Johnson is hardly short of name recognition - just of any great public enthusiasm, it seems.
    A splendid result for none of the above.
    I think you underestimate how little normal people give a flying f*ck about politicians
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117
    Charles said:

    The Pritti quotes from the Sun article on Oxfam are great value

    “Why was a government department not calling for prosecutions and taking money away from Oxfam”

    “People need to go away and ask questions about why they didn’t do more at the time”


    May be we should ask the former SoS?

    Lol, she’s only mentioning it now the Times got the scoop. If she’s been brave she’d have run with it when she was in charge of the relevant department.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    The Pritti quotes from the Sun article on Oxfam are great value

    “Why was a government department not calling for prosecutions and taking money away from Oxfam”

    “People need to go away and ask questions about why they didn’t do more at the time”


    May be we should ask the former SoS?

    Lol, she’s only mentioning it now the Times got the scoop. If she’s been brave she’d have run with it when she was in charge of the relevant department.
    She says that her officials told her that she didn’t have sufficient evidence. (It was known that blue hats were doing it but not amid organisations)

    So you don’t go public - but you ask the right questions of Oxfam
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    Johnson is hardly short of name recognition - just of any great public enthusiasm, it seems.
    A splendid result for none of the above.
    I think you underestimate how little normal people give a flying f*ck about politicians
    Perhaps.
    But May's levels of public approval are undeniably low, and even allowing for public apathy the biggest media whore of the lot, who has been on public manoeuvres for quite some time, provides no evidence of any significant desire for him as a replacement.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    Johnson is hardly short of name recognition - just of any great public enthusiasm, it seems.
    A splendid result for none of the above.
    I think you underestimate how little normal people give a flying f*ck about politicians
    Perhaps.
    But May's levels of public approval are undeniably low, and even allowing for public apathy the biggest media whore of the lot, who has been on public manoeuvres for quite some time, provides no evidence of any significant desire for him as a replacement.

    I’m not disagreeing - Johnson doesn’t have a chance
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    The Pritti quotes from the Sun article on Oxfam are great value

    “Why was a government department not calling for prosecutions and taking money away from Oxfam”

    “People need to go away and ask questions about why they didn’t do more at the time”


    May be we should ask the former SoS?

    Lol, she’s only mentioning it now the Times got the scoop. If she’s been brave she’d have run with it when she was in charge of the relevant department.
    And if she had felt as strongly about it as she now claims, she's had three months or so on the backbenches with the protection of parliamentary privilege to raise the issue.
    It gives every appearance of a former SoS trying to distance herself from blame.

    Pritti pathetic.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    Johnson is hardly short of name recognition - just of any great public enthusiasm, it seems.
    A splendid result for none of the above.
    I think you underestimate how little normal people give a flying f*ck about politicians
    Perhaps.
    But May's levels of public approval are undeniably low, and even allowing for public apathy the biggest media whore of the lot, who has been on public manoeuvres for quite some time, provides no evidence of any significant desire for him as a replacement.

    I’m not disagreeing - Johnson doesn’t have a chance
    But the fact that Hunt doesn't appear even to,register a flicker of the needle after five years as Helth Secretary ought to give pause to those who think him the likely replacement for May.

  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 991
    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    In previous times, agreed, name recognition was on the level of, "I've read his name in the newspaper (of my choice) and he seems to be a good chap". Nowadays, with social media platforms, the news and views cannot be controlled in the same way. Too many are now aware of the personalities behind the names and in the case of the Tories, they don't like what they see, where as with Labour, people are beginning to see a positive alternative to their own negative life experiences. True, it may not turn out the way they hope, but after10 years of decreasing wages and purchasing power, poorer standards, lower future life expectancies continuing on and on, people are beginning to think about change, any change, at any price.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    OchEye said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    In previous times, agreed, name recognition was on the level of, "I've read his name in the newspaper (of my choice) and he seems to be a good chap". Nowadays, with social media platforms, the news and views cannot be controlled in the same way. Too many are now aware of the personalities behind the names and in the case of the Tories, they don't like what they see, where as with Labour, people are beginning to see a positive alternative to their own negative life experiences. True, it may not turn out the way they hope, but after10 years of decreasing wages and purchasing power, poorer standards, lower future life expectancies continuing on and on, people are beginning to think about change, any change, at any price.
    That's yet to be reflected in the polls.
    Rather it seems to be that they are crap, and so are all the alternatives.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    The 57% want Anna Soubry to take charge and sling out the nutters, but sadly she wasn't listed in the poll..... ;)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117
    edited February 12
    IanB2 said:

    The 57% want Anna Soubry to take charge and sling out the nutters, but sadly she wasn't listed in the poll..... ;)

    Most of the members would say that Soubry et al are the nutters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117
    This is not going to be fun: London City Airport closed after unexploded WWII bomb found in the Thames nearby. Navy are on the scene and there’s an exclusion zone around the airport.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5379231/London-City-airport-closed-police-incident.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    The 57% want Anna Soubry to take charge and sling out the nutters, but sadly she wasn't listed in the poll..... ;)

    Most of the members would say that Soubry et al are the nutters.
    Who are the 'et al' ? Ken Clarke?

    This is exactly the poison that the Euroscpetics have injected into the party (perhaps via an immorally overpriced EPipen - see the latest Peter Rabbit movie).

    There now can only be one true thought (tm). The broad tent of the church has been collapsed and replaced with a one-man bivvy, smelling of hot breath (Johnson), incense (JRM) and ch*t (Davis). They have won, but in winning, they don't want opponents to have the same freedoms to speak out that they did when they destroyed the party.

    Let's make it clear: Soubry is not a nutter. The 'bastards', however, are still bastards.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,200
    Does suggest that the polls saying people will vote which way or that are wrong. Be interested to see a figure for Don't Knows, instead of them being 'allocated' on past preferences, or whatever is the current practice.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,095
    OchEye said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    In previous times, agreed, name recognition was on the level of, "I've read his name in the newspaper (of my choice) and he seems to be a good chap". Nowadays, with social media platforms, the news and views cannot be controlled in the same way. Too many are now aware of the personalities behind the names and in the case of the Tories, they don't like what they see, where as with Labour, people are beginning to see a positive alternative to their own negative life experiences. True, it may not turn out the way they hope, but after10 years of decreasing wages and purchasing power, poorer standards, lower future life expectancies continuing on and on, people are beginning to think about change, any change, at any price.
    An evidence free post.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,095

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    The 57% want Anna Soubry to take charge and sling out the nutters, but sadly she wasn't listed in the poll..... ;)

    Most of the members would say that Soubry et al are the nutters.
    Who are the 'et al' ? Ken Clarke?

    This is exactly the poison that the Euroscpetics have injected into the party (perhaps via an immorally overpriced EPipen - see the latest Peter Rabbit movie).

    There now can only be one true thought (tm). The broad tent of the church has been collapsed and replaced with a one-man bivvy, smelling of hot breath (Johnson), incense (JRM) and ch*t (Davis). They have won, but in winning, they don't want opponents to have the same freedoms to speak out that they did when they destroyed the party.

    Let's make it clear: Soubry is not a nutter. The 'bastards', however, are still bastards.
    She's not a nutter - much worse she has no respect for democracy.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,877
    edited February 12
    Professor Matthew Goodwin's twitter page pointed me to this interesting article:

    "What's driving populism? It isn't the economy, stupid"

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/what-is-driving-populism-it-isnt-the-economy-stupid/article37899813/
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,877
    edited February 12
    OchEye said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    In previous times, agreed, name recognition was on the level of, "I've read his name in the newspaper (of my choice) and he seems to be a good chap". Nowadays, with social media platforms, the news and views cannot be controlled in the same way. Too many are now aware of the personalities behind the names and in the case of the Tories, they don't like what they see, where as with Labour, people are beginning to see a positive alternative to their own negative life experiences. True, it may not turn out the way they hope, but after10 years of decreasing wages and purchasing power, poorer standards, lower future life expectancies continuing on and on, people are beginning to think about change, any change, at any price.
    I thought 13 years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010 were supposed to provide the sort of change you talk about. Did those 13 years never happen? I thought they did, they seemed more like 20 years to me.
  • Why didn’t they poll Jeremy Hunt?

    He’d have clearly got most of the 57%
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,095

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    Low 40's is pretty high historically. To me the poll suggests May is not loved but the best of the bunch. It also gives hope to those who want to skip a generation.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,553
    33% satisfied with the performance of a PM sounds pretty good. Apart from Blair have many others achieved these figures into their second year?

    A thought occured to me yesterday that a good way of judging the qualities of an ex leader is how many of their close colleagues dump on them after they have left office. On this scale Blair scores well and Cameron extremely badly.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    The 57% want Anna Soubry to take charge and sling out the nutters, but sadly she wasn't listed in the poll..... ;)

    Most of the members would say that Soubry et al are the nutters.
    It wasn't a poll of Tory members.

    The Tories have a big problem in having such a small and unrepresentative selectorate for their next leader. The MPs have some heavy lifting to do.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,553
    Charles said:

    The Pritti quotes from the Sun article on Oxfam are great value

    “Why was a government department not calling for prosecutions and taking money away from Oxfam”

    “People need to go away and ask questions about why they didn’t do more at the time”


    May be we should ask the former SoS?

    Pritti Patel is a real piece of work. Her vindictive publicity tour is costing ALL charities serious damage and that is in no one's interest
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    Roger said:

    33% satisfied with the performance of a PM sounds pretty good. Apart from Blair have many others achieved these figures into their second year?

    A thought occured to me yesterday that a good way of judging the qualities of an ex leader is how many of their close colleagues dump on them after they have left office. On this scale Blair scores well and Cameron extremely badly.

    Brown counts for about sixty!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
  • VinnyVinny Posts: 32
    I wouldn't take much notice of things I see in the Independent.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,095
    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    Did you read the rest of my post?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,095
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    +1
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    edited February 12
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
    Certainly the alternative scenarios - that a sitting and widely derided government increases its vote toward 45-50%, or that Labour under its most left-wing leadership for a generation does similarly - both seem extremely unlikely. Of the two, I'd suggest that the latter is marginally less unlikely, simply because an anti-government surge is more plausible than a pro-government one (but in a post-Brexit environment such a swing is more likely to go to the LDs).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
    Which is likely to be the SNP in Scotland, and the Lib Dems in England. Which is why it's important to see which way the Lib Dems are going to head under a new leader (for I cannot see even Lib Dem supporters sticking to Cable for long).

    Will they swing to the left (a more Kennedy or Ashdown-like position), or more to the right (a Clegg-like position)?

    I'm flabbergasted that the Great Invisible Man is making his bible-thumping predecessor look good ...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,369
    edited February 12
    IanB2 said:
    Her Majesty's ban on plastic straws is clearly due to the campaign in the Evening Standard -- George Osborne is the real power behind the throne. Ever noticed how you never see Osborne's greatest fans, the Queen and TSE, in the same room together?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,014
    The poll also breaks the recent trend by showing Labour and Tories level again, at 40% each. For Best PM, May now leads Corbyn by just 2 points - 32 to 30.

    The basic message of the poll on the leadership is presumably to encourage outsiders to raise their profile (cf. Patel). People are saying they don't think much of the people they've heard of, so logically the Tories should look for someone most people haven't heard of.
  • IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.

    With Corbyn as Labour leader the Tories have banked 40% of the vote. It’s not hard to imagine that a new Tory leader with no strong Brexit credentials could peel away significant numbers of June 2017 Labour voters who were casting anti Hard Brexit votes against the Tories, not positive Socialist votes for Labour. It is much harder, though, to imagine the Tories picking such a leader.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
    Which is likely to be the SNP in Scotland, and the Lib Dems in England. Which is why it's important to see which way the Lib Dems are going to head under a new leader (for I cannot see even Lib Dem supporters sticking to Cable for long).

    Will they swing to the left (a more Kennedy or Ashdown-like position), or more to the right (a Clegg-like position)?

    I'm flabbergasted that the Great Invisible Man is making his bible-thumping predecessor look good ...
    Certainly the LDs would be sensible to be the first to shift to the next generation. There's an argument that after the next GE is a potential moment, but if this runs to 2022 I'd hope to see it sooner. A lot depends on which of the small pool of potential candidates actually wants the challenge.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995
    Roger said:

    Charles said:

    The Pritti quotes from the Sun article on Oxfam are great value

    “Why was a government department not calling for prosecutions and taking money away from Oxfam”

    “People need to go away and ask questions about why they didn’t do more at the time”


    May be we should ask the former SoS?

    Pritti Patel is a real piece of work. Her vindictive publicity tour is costing ALL charities serious damage and that is in no one's interest
    Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.

    Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
    Certainly the alternative scenarios - that a sitting and widely derided government increases its vote toward 45-50%, or that Labour under its most left-wing leadership for a generation does similarly - both seem extremely unlikely. Of the two, I'd suggest that the latter is marginally less unlikely, simply because an anti-government surge is more plausible than a pro-government one.
    There is a plausible scenario for the former: politics is currently being dominated by Brexit. When that's over, all bets are off. *If* the government manage to come up with a good Brexit deal, and the worst of the fears about it do not occur, then the government might actually be enlivened as they can concentrate on more important issues to the public.

    A good Brexit deal would probably be seen by most leavers and remainers as a success, especially after all the doom and gloom there has been.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,014
    The same poll also asks people if they understand the Government's negotiating stance on the EU or the meaning of what has already been achieved.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-new-public-dont-know-theresa-may-government-ideas-goals-brussels-negotiations-a8203291.html

    Spoiler: the answer is "no".
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
    Certainly the alternative scenarios - that a sitting and widely derided government increases its vote toward 45-50%, or that Labour under its most left-wing leadership for a generation does similarly - both seem extremely unlikely. Of the two, I'd suggest that the latter is marginally less unlikely, simply because an anti-government surge is more plausible than a pro-government one.
    There is a plausible scenario for the former: politics is currently being dominated by Brexit. When that's over, all bets are off. *If* the government manage to come up with a good Brexit deal, and the worst of the fears about it do not occur, then the government might actually be enlivened as they can concentrate on more important issues to the public.

    A good Brexit deal would probably be seen by most leavers and remainers as a success, especially after all the doom and gloom there has been.
    Except that in politics there is rarely a reward for being right. If Brexit is uneventful the next election will be about all the domestic issues - health and schools funding, housing, etc. - on which the Tories show little sign of being up to the challenge.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    The field is opening up nicely for Johnny Mercer....
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,368

    The same poll also asks people if they understand the Government's negotiating stance on the EU or the meaning of what has already been achieved.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-new-public-dont-know-theresa-may-government-ideas-goals-brussels-negotiations-a8203291.html

    Spoiler: the answer is "no".

    That's because most people are not in the least bit interested in politics.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,014
    TGOHF said:



    Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.

    Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.

    Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995

    TGOHF said:



    Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.

    Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.

    Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
    Oxfam is more of a social engineering machine than a charity - opulent HQ, moral brow beating, reliant on taxpayer funds - and now this..




  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,369

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
    Which is likely to be the SNP in Scotland, and the Lib Dems in England. Which is why it's important to see which way the Lib Dems are going to head under a new leader (for I cannot see even Lib Dem supporters sticking to Cable for long).

    Will they swing to the left (a more Kennedy or Ashdown-like position), or more to the right (a Clegg-like position)?

    I'm flabbergasted that the Great Invisible Man is making his bible-thumping predecessor look good ...
    It does not matter what the LibDems do because no-one will see them doing it. They are invisible because they are no longer guaranteed a voice on the news as Britain's third party. They are a rounding error in the parliamentary lists. The SNP has three times as many MPs and the DUP has as many, and more influence.

    What the LibDems need is not a new policy direction but the next chat show Charlie who can get on the panel games until the news and current affairs producers start calling again.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 111
    Andrew Marr caught yesterday saying to Penny Mordaunt `That was really very good` about the interview he had just done with.The other year Eddie Marr standing in for Marr said to Boris`s face `you are a nasty person aren't you`.
    Could see the BBC starting a `hidden agenda` to promote Penny Mordaunt as an alternative Brexit candidate to be next Tory leader as opposed to Boris and JRM.
    Penny is still 100/1.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,714

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It doesn’t suggest the Conservatives can rise much further in the polls.

    I disagree. It suggests that the field is so wide open somebody relatively unknown could easily capture the popular imagination and have an incumbency surge.

    We have to careful with reading too much into such surges - May and Macron spring to mind - but there is clearly room for somebody who isn't boring and stale like May or mad as a box of frogs like Corbyn.
    More likely, having sucked in support from all of the smaller parties, both Tory and Labour support are already maxed out, or close to it. The next election will be decided by which of them loses most support to elsewhere.
    That'd be my assumption as well.
    Which is likely to be the SNP in Scotland, and the Lib Dems in England. Which is why it's important to see which way the Lib Dems are going to head under a new leader (for I cannot see even Lib Dem supporters sticking to Cable for long).

    Will they swing to the left (a more Kennedy or Ashdown-like position), or more to the right (a Clegg-like position)?

    I'm flabbergasted that the Great Invisible Man is making his bible-thumping predecessor look good ...
    It does not matter what the LibDems do because no-one will see them doing it. They are invisible because they are no longer guaranteed a voice on the news as Britain's third party. They are a rounding error in the parliamentary lists. The SNP has three times as many MPs and the DUP has as many, and more influence.

    What the LibDems need is not a new policy direction but the next chat show Charlie who can get on the panel games until the news and current affairs producers start calling again.
    Vince was on a lot yesterday . He was good.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467

    TGOHF said:



    Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.

    Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.

    Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
    That's what I keep blathering on about. This sort of thing will always happen, as it's impossible to weed out wrong 'uns who have not yet done anything wrong.

    Therefore it's not a case of ensuring it never happens in your organisation: it's a case of ensuring when it does happen, an investigation (fair to all parties) is put in place to look into what happened, correct it, and to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

    It's when it's covered up that it causes real problems.

    The Oxfam situation seems to be already mired in politics, and it's perfectly possible for Oxfam to have performed well and honourably in this situation - certainly the issues of references is a thorny one.

    Does anyone have a good summary of what happened with the story from the pro- and anti- Oxfam side?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,653
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Metatron, that sounds like it would be in the national interest (I may have a little on Mordaunt).

    On-topic: it's rather unfortunate for the blues to have a lacklustre leader and no shining knights waiting to ride in and rescue the party. And yet, they're still polling really well.

    Easy to forget that about a decade ago (not even that long, in fact) a poll had the Lib Dems ahead of the others, and many polls had those three closely clustered.

    Exciting week ahead. As well as Kingdom Come Deliverance, which I'm looking forward to [realistic, historical RPG set in Bohemia 1403], The Last City, a sci-fi anthology featuring a story by me, comes out on Thursday.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,487
    Apparently Silvio Berlusconi is to be put in charge of organising Oxfam's disaster relief operations.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    edited February 12
    How to win friends and influence people...

    @Digbylj: Attention all Remoaners! Stop doing Barnier’s work for him! This undermining of our Country’s negotiating with the EU HAS to stop. We’ll end up with a lousy deal & you will be to blame. Will that make you feel better? Surely you agree we should not give in to bullies.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116

    Apparently Silvio Berlusconi is to be put in charge of organising Oxfam's disaster relief operations.

    Bunga Bunga in Bongo Bongo?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    Scott_P said:
    Good to know that even with his track record on investing, George Soros can still sometimes piss his money up a wall. That will come as a comfort to many investors....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791

    TGOHF said:



    Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.

    Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.

    Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
    That's what I keep blathering on about. This sort of thing will always happen, as it's impossible to weed out wrong 'uns who have not yet done anything wrong.

    Therefore it's not a case of ensuring it never happens in your organisation: it's a case of ensuring when it does happen, an investigation (fair to all parties) is put in place to look into what happened, correct it, and to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

    It's when it's covered up that it causes real problems.

    The Oxfam situation seems to be already mired in politics, and it's perfectly possible for Oxfam to have performed well and honourably in this situation - certainly the issues of references is a thorny one.

    Does anyone have a good summary of what happened with the story from the pro- and anti- Oxfam side?
    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    This is a fairly risky sector for agents going off the rails, into the Heart of Darkness, but important to keep proportion and not halt the good work while investigating.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 991
    AndyJS said:

    OchEye said:

    Charles said:

    They really are a bunch of pygmies aren’t they?

    But I am sceptical about these polls - it’s all about name recognition at this stage rather than a proper analysis of the candidates’ weaknesses

    In previous times, agreed, name recognition was on the level of, "I've read his name in the newspaper (of my choice) and he seems to be a good chap". Nowadays, with social media platforms, the news and views cannot be controlled in the same way. Too many are now aware of the personalities behind the names and in the case of the Tories, they don't like what they see, where as with Labour, people are beginning to see a positive alternative to their own negative life experiences. True, it may not turn out the way they hope, but after10 years of decreasing wages and purchasing power, poorer standards, lower future life expectancies continuing on and on, people are beginning to think about change, any change, at any price.
    I thought 13 years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010 were supposed to provide the sort of change you talk about. Did those 13 years never happen? I thought they did, they seemed more like 20 years to me.
    That was the New Labour experiment which was taken over by Cameron and sucked into the Conservative party (Cameron and Osborne used to boast that they used the Blair autobiography as a sacred writing). Corbyn's True Labour is a totally different beast, which after many Blairitte years of decreasing membership has now become one of the largest party membership in Europe and is more than all the other UK parties membership put together. Momentum, which is an internal pressure group within the LP, just as legitimate as Progress, the Fabians and even the Co-Op political wing, is supposedly growing its membership by 1000 a month. Something different is happening, and none of the other parties (except possibly the SNP, which is having internal problems to deal with) has any answer to.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117

    Apparently Silvio Berlusconi is to be put in charge of organising Oxfam's disaster relief operations.

    Were Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey not available?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117
    Scott_P said:
    I thought there were rules against political donations by foreigners, or do they only apply to donations to registered parties?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    Although 'none of the above' tops this poll interesting that even with the public as a whole Boris and Mogg come first. Of more use though would be polls showing the Tory score under various potential leadership contenders v Corbyn Labour.

    With little enthususiasm for any alternative Tory leader though and Corbyn still having a bet dissatisfaction rating it does show how May is likely to continue in office for a while yet despite ratings that are not great either
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,568
    Foxy said:



    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    For the most senior workers, Oxfam discontinued disciplinary proceedings, so they were able to get jobs in related organisations. They passed the Abuser. That is clear evidence that internal disciplinary procedures failed.

    Your point about charities, power relationships and sexual predators is a serious one. Unfortunately, there is a reason why Saville-like characters are attracted to charity work. It provides ready access to power over the vulnerable.

    Of course, this is not to denigrate the vast majority of charity workers, but it does show how very important it is for organisations like Oxfam to have robust procedures in place.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,014

    The same poll also asks people if they understand the Government's negotiating stance on the EU or the meaning of what has already been achieved.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-new-public-dont-know-theresa-may-government-ideas-goals-brussels-negotiations-a8203291.html

    Spoiler: the answer is "no".

    That's because most people are not in the least bit interested in politics.
    Nah. We're all very interested here. Do any of us really understand the Government's negotiating stance? No, because they've not yet decided what it is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256

    Why didn’t they poll Jeremy Hunt?

    He’d have clearly got most of the 57%

    Hunt was 6th in the last Conservative Home poll of Tory members which was not that dissimilar to this poll of the public except Boris came first with the public and 3rd with members and Mogg first with members and 2nd with the public. Gove came second with members but was not listed in the BMG poll
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,517
    On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.

    I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,487
    On topic, clearly most of those who answered None of the Above are supporters of #Esther4Leader

    Or just think that the Tories are all a bunch of tosspots.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791

    Foxy said:



    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    For the most senior workers, Oxfam discontinued disciplinary proceedings, so they were able to get jobs in related organisations. They passed the Abuser. That is clear evidence that internal disciplinary procedures failed.

    Your point about charities, power relationships and sexual predators is a serious one. Unfortunately, there is a reason why Saville-like characters are attracted to charity work. It provides ready access to power over the vulnerable.

    Of course, this is not to denigrate the vast majority of charity workers, but it does show how very important it is for organisations like Oxfam to have robust procedures in place.
    I do not know why Oxfam discontinued the investigation as it did. Gathering evidence in such situations is more than a little problematic. Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.

    Sure, this should be looked at further, but there is a risk of chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467

    Foxy said:



    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    For the most senior workers, Oxfam discontinued disciplinary proceedings, so they were able to get jobs in related organisations. They passed the Abuser. That is clear evidence that internal disciplinary procedures failed.

    (Snip)
    If that's what happened, then much of the criticism against them is valid.

    I'm unsure what the answer to this is. Companies have rights to sack people based on evidence well below the standards required in civil courts. Telling another organisation *why* they sacked someone based on flimsy evidence opens up all sorts of potential abuses and injustices. ("nudge-nudge, wink-wink")
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:



    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    For the most senior workers, Oxfam discontinued disciplinary proceedings, so they were able to get jobs in related organisations. They passed the Abuser. That is clear evidence that internal disciplinary procedures failed.

    Your point about charities, power relationships and sexual predators is a serious one. Unfortunately, there is a reason why Saville-like characters are attracted to charity work. It provides ready access to power over the vulnerable.

    Of course, this is not to denigrate the vast majority of charity workers, but it does show how very important it is for organisations like Oxfam to have robust procedures in place.
    I do not know why Oxfam discontinued the investigation as it did. Gathering evidence in such situations is more than a little problematic. Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.

    Sure, this should be looked at further, but there is a risk of chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
    Wow. They threw babies as well? The scoundrels!

    (cue Major Misunderstanding).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    edited February 12

    On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.

    I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.

    I spoke to a friend yesterday who does not normally vote Tory and voted Remain but thinks May is doing a reasonable job in difficult circumstances especially given the alternatives. Let us not forget under her leadership the Tories are currently polling 40%+ in every poll, a rating even Cameron only got rarely in office and which Hague, IDS and Howard would have killed for
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334

    Foxy said:



    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    For the most senior workers, Oxfam discontinued disciplinary proceedings, so they were able to get jobs in related organisations. They passed the Abuser. That is clear evidence that internal disciplinary procedures failed.

    (Snip)
    If that's what happened, then much of the criticism against them is valid.

    I'm unsure what the answer to this is. Companies have rights to sack people based on evidence well below the standards required in civil courts. Telling another organisation *why* they sacked someone based on flimsy evidence opens up all sorts of potential abuses and injustices. ("nudge-nudge, wink-wink")
    "Flimsy evidence", yes but there were clear safeguarding issues here. If the evidence was thin or dodgy then a judgement call would have to be made but I've not heard any such doubts coming from Oxfam execs or Charity regulators trying to retrospectively cover their backsides this weekend.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:



    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    For the most senior workers, Oxfam discontinued disciplinary proceedings, so they were able to get jobs in related organisations. They passed the Abuser. That is clear evidence that internal disciplinary procedures failed.

    Your point about charities, power relationships and sexual predators is a serious one. Unfortunately, there is a reason why Saville-like characters are attracted to charity work. It provides ready access to power over the vulnerable.

    Of course, this is not to denigrate the vast majority of charity workers, but it does show how very important it is for organisations like Oxfam to have robust procedures in place.
    I do not know why Oxfam discontinued the investigation as it did. Gathering evidence in such situations is more than a little problematic. Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.

    Sure, this should be looked at further, but there is a risk of chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
    Wow. They threw babies as well? The scoundrels!

    (cue Major Misunderstanding).
    After the scandal he got demoted. He’s now Lieutenant Misunderstanding. ;)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    I imagine a large part of the 57% would never support the Conservatives anyway.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,295

    The same poll also asks people if they understand the Government's negotiating stance on the EU or the meaning of what has already been achieved.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-new-public-dont-know-theresa-may-government-ideas-goals-brussels-negotiations-a8203291.html

    Spoiler: the answer is "no".

    That's because most people are not in the least bit interested in politics.
    Nah. We're all very interested here. Do any of us really understand the Government's negotiating stance? No, because they've not yet decided what it is.
    The stance is 'stall, play for time, and hope something turns up'.

    Is that a recognized strategy?

    Plus, there is any time to play for.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,568
    edited February 12
    Sandpit said:



    (cue Major Misunderstanding).

    After the scandal he got demoted. He’s now Lieutenant Misunderstanding. ;)

    The problem is, after the scandal, he simply popped up in a related organisation doing a very similar job.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,369

    On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.

    I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.

    There is a clear path from a "long knives" reshuffle to a leadership challenge, and from there to Theresa May leaving Downing Street. Boris can't challenge now because he cannot be sure he'd win -- if she sacked him, he'd have no choice. Rinse and repeat for the other big beasts.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    FF43 said:

    I imagine a large part of the 57% would never support the Conservatives anyway.

    Not incompatible with having a preference as to who is PM
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,172
    Foxy said:

    Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.

    There must be hundreds of similar scandals out there involving the armed forces for anyone who cared to investigate. The Oxfam antics were fuckin gnothing compared to what goes on in the name of Queen and country on foreign shores.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,695
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.

    There must be hundreds of similar scandals out there involving the armed forces for anyone who cared to investigate. The Oxfam antics were fuckin gnothing compared to what goes on in the name of Queen and country on foreign shores.

    Well that's alright then. I don't remember lefties using this argument in defence of the President's Club.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,517

    On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.

    I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.

    There is a clear path from a "long knives" reshuffle to a leadership challenge, and from there to Theresa May leaving Downing Street. Boris can't challenge now because he cannot be sure he'd win -- if she sacked him, he'd have no choice. Rinse and repeat for the other big beasts.
    I don't think they'd stay big beasts for long once they'd been sacked.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467

    Foxy said:



    My experience of aid workers is mixed. I have not seen this sort of abuse, and the vast majority are very honourable and dedicated. Some behave badly, mostly drink, drugs and idleness in my experience. I imagine that some find the power relationships and ineffective law enforcementein developing countries to their taste, particularly sexual predators.

    Bigger NGOs seems to recognise this and from what I have seen Oxfam as an organisation have been reasonably open about this Haiti incident. Indeed it has long been DFID policy to work via NGOs because of better internal governance arrangements.

    For the most senior workers, Oxfam discontinued disciplinary proceedings, so they were able to get jobs in related organisations. They passed the Abuser. That is clear evidence that internal disciplinary procedures failed.

    (Snip)
    If that's what happened, then much of the criticism against them is valid.

    I'm unsure what the answer to this is. Companies have rights to sack people based on evidence well below the standards required in civil courts. Telling another organisation *why* they sacked someone based on flimsy evidence opens up all sorts of potential abuses and injustices. ("nudge-nudge, wink-wink")
    "Flimsy evidence", yes but there were clear safeguarding issues here. If the evidence was thin or dodgy then a judgement call would have to be made but I've not heard any such doubts coming from Oxfam execs or Charity regulators trying to retrospectively cover their backsides this weekend.
    So the answer is perhaps to look at another profession where such issues can occur: teaching. Perhaps have certain on-the-job charity workers having to pass the CRB check.

    Or perhaps the ?Barring and Disclosure? Service could be extended, whereby any such concerns could be flagged to an external organisation - I assume that's not how it works atm.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,172
    tlg86 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.

    There must be hundreds of similar scandals out there involving the armed forces for anyone who cared to investigate. The Oxfam antics were fuckin gnothing compared to what goes on in the name of Queen and country on foreign shores.

    Well that's alright then. I don't remember lefties using this argument in defence of the President's Club.
    I'm not using it to defend Oxfam; I'm just pointing out there is a rich vein of untapped scandal out there.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,201
    edited February 12
    Mr Jessop,

    "Therefore it's not a case of ensuring it never happens in your organisation: it's a case of ensuring when it does happen, an investigation (fair to all parties) is put in place to look into what happened, correct it, and to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

    It's when it's covered up that it causes real problems."

    True, and that applies to every organisation, including the RC Church. Yes the great majority are good people, but concentrating on preventing damage to the organisation always ends up doing the opposite. It's a natural response to close ranks, but totally wrong.

    People who dislike you will use it as an excuse to criticise, but if you try to cover up, you will deserve it. You can include all political parties, the BBC, and in fact, every large organisation in that. People never learn.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467
    CD13 said:

    Mr Jessop,

    "Therefore it's not a case of ensuring it never happens in your organisation: it's a case of ensuring when it does happen, an investigation (fair to all parties) is put in place to look into what happened, correct it, and to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

    It's when it's covered up that it causes real problems."

    True, and that applies to every organisation, including the RC Church. Yes the great majority are good people, but concentrating on preventing damage to the organisation always ends up doing the opposite. It's a natural response to close ranks, but totally wrong.

    People who dislike you will use it as an excuse to criticise, but if you try to cover up, you will deserve it. You can include all political parties, the BBC, and in fact, every large organisation in that. People never learn.

    +1

    The sad thing is that there are probably organisations who do mostly get it right, but we never get to hear about it because it isn't newsworthy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117
    edited February 12
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.

    There must be hundreds of similar scandals out there involving the armed forces for anyone who cared to investigate. The Oxfam antics were fuckin gnothing compared to what goes on in the name of Queen and country on foreign shores.
    The ladies of the night in any port city know their best days are when a navy ship docks for a while, doesn’t matter which country's navy.

    That’s different to charity workers spending donations on hookers in disaster zones, a fair number of whom probably only went into that line of work following the disaster.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,563
    Morning all :)

    Politics is a funny old business and as much about perceptions than reality. Why have the Conservatives regained a small poll lead when it seems we have been confronted daily with reports of internal divisions, feuds, gaffes and the resignations of barely-recognised Cabinet Ministers ?

    Is it because no one is interested in politics apart from us ? Possibly.

    Is it because people have figured out Jeremy Corbyn is a hapless old Marxist who will ruin the country if allowed anywhere near power and legions of pensioners are already queuing at polling stations to save us from the nightmare ? Maybe.

    I'd contend it's because nothing has happened and little appears to be happening. Stodge's Fourth Law of Politics states "the most successful Governments are those which appear to be doing nothing at all". For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that a vote to leave the EU would plunge us into eternal darkness, that hasn't happened yet.

    Indeed, nothing seems to have happened at all since 23/6/16. We can May's tenure as Prime Minister from the Hubristic Era (July 2016 to June 2017) to the Realistic Era (since the GE). Yet she governs as though she won the 150 seat majority so many on here clearly wanted her to obtain. Why? One reason is the lack of internal and external Opposition. Internally, May has no serious rival - she has a number of small comedic opponents - comparable to Heseltine's threat to Thatcher.

    Externally, the Labour Party is ineffective because it doesn't have the numbers in Parliament and because on the leading issue of the day (apparently), it has no clear policy.

    Well, that makes two of you, then. The reason Labour has no policy is the Conservatives don't have one either. It's hard to oppose when you don't know what you are opposing. We are told by those who live to the NE of London that it's obvious - FTA with the EU . Er, yes, but the Devil is in the detail of that one and perhaps while we want an FTA that may not be what the EU wants.

    The absence of policy creates a vacuum of passivity and calm. Life goes on. No one needs to think very hard - indeed, the whole message of the May period has been "Don't worry, Trust Theresa." The Conservatives are now the "don't worry, everything will be all right" Party.

    Nothing lasts forever. As time and circumstances and the negotiating process force choices to be made and options to be closed down, so it will become harder to keep everyone on board and the realisation of what life outside the EU "back in control" (workers' rights ?) may be like will start to make the political waters choppier.
  • TGOHF said:



    Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.

    Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.

    Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
    It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.

    The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,685
    edited February 12
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,467

    TGOHF said:



    Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.

    Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.

    Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
    It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.

    The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
    There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.

    If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,549
    It would be great to see Oxfam collapse into the heap of shit it has become.
This discussion has been closed.