Next Tory leader

[northwichcat]

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch and is simply the person who can command the confidence of the Commons. Of course, this is almost always the leader of the largest party, but it could be a Lord, or even someone not in either Houses of Parliament at all!

The current PM makes an appointment to see the Queen and recommends to the Queen who the new PM should be and these days the Queen pretty much always does what politicians request that she does. That wasn't the case with Queen Victoria who withdrew a request to make Robert Peel PM after he asked her to put more wives of Tories on her staff and who also rejected all the original options put forward when she was asked to select a new capital city for Canada.

 

[Casey Jones125]

Maybe there’s no need for a new party. I’d quote like to see a growth in the Liberal Party (not Lib Dem’s). Macron in France proved that a minor party can gain a great deal of seats in just a short amount of time, and given that I agree with a great deal of what the Liberal Party stands for (unless I’ve been lied to), I think it’d be great if they broke the chain of Labour and Tory rule. Plus as a Liverpudlian, a Liverpool-based party would be a great empowerment to us if they won .

The liberals, liberally giving away our country to every Tom Dick and Harry. The liberals are definitely not to be trusted with office.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe there’s no need for a new party. I’d quote like to see a growth in the Liberal Party (not Lib Dem’s). Macron in France proved that a minor party can gain a great deal of seats in just a short amount of time, and given that I agree with a great deal of what the Liberal Party stands for (unless I’ve been lied to), I think it’d be great if they broke the chain of Labour and Tory rule. Plus as a Liverpudlian, a Liverpool-based party would be a great empowerment to us if they won .

Worth remembering Marine La Penn was the rival for Macron for president and a lot of the French people with left wing views voted for Macron to keep La Penn out, not because they wanted Macron.

 

[northwichcat]

The liberals, liberally giving away our country to every Tom Dick and Harry. The liberals are definitely not to be trusted with office.

Is that a reference to the Liberal Party which was referred to or just your view on liberalism? Don't forget we have a Conservative Party who seem happy to not conserve things most British people want and want to conserve things most British people want rid of.

 

[furnessvale]

And the beneficiary of that trust is Lady Juliet Tadgell, heir to the Fitzwilliam fortune (which originally owned the house) with a net worth of £45m, and who is none other than Jacob Rees-Mogg's mother in law.

It's a small world.

I'd say the meme was pretty much on the spot.

In what way is she a "beneficiary" of that trust?

 

[northwichcat]

He has a record for being pro-rail when he was in Government - but that's not why I'd vote for him. I just think he comes across as a reasonable thinking man, and always did.

It's much easier to be pro-anything when you aren't PM. There were numerous MPs from both side of the house calling for Pacers used in the North to be replaced but when once David Cameron backed them they had to deliver.

Reportedly, Portillo said he didn't like the idea of an EU referendum despite not being pro-EU. However, he said in Cameron's position he would have used the referendum result to try and get more EU reforms, which sounds like a sensible approach. Making the EU better so that a couple of percent of the population change their mind about leaving would be much less of a gamble to the country than Brexit.

 

[Bromley boy]

That’s not actually correct.

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch and is simply the person who can command the confidence of the Commons. Of course, this is almost always the leader of the largest party, but it could be a Lord, or even someone not in either Houses of Parliament at all!

Indeed. This is also the case for government ministers. There’s no formal requirement for them to be members of either house, although by convention they will be (and almost always from the commons, these days).

Even the role of PM itself has been established by convention and only exists “informally”.

This illustrates the point recently discussed on this forum, of how the U.K. constitution is largely unwritten, relying very heavily on convention.

 

[AlterEgo]

The liberals, liberally giving away our country to every Tom Dick and Harry. The liberals are definitely not to be trusted with office.

I’m not sure “liberal” has much currency as a political term in the UK. I almost never hear it used.

 

[Casey Jones125]

Is that a reference to the Liberal Party which was referred to or just your view on liberalism? Don't forget we have a Conservative Party who seem happy to not conserve things most British people want and want to conserve things most British people want rid of.

Both really JC.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The liberals, liberally giving away our country to every Tom Dick and Harry. The liberals are definitely not to be trusted with office.

I don't support the LibDems at all, but that just reads like a mindless, childish, insult that adds nothing to the discussion

 

[northwichcat]

I’m not sure “liberal” has much currency as a political term in the UK. I almost never hear it used.

Indeed. The only time I've really heard it was when Tim Farron took over as leader of the Lib Dems and was trying to distance the party from the coalition with the Conservatives. It's a term widely used in North America - another term used there which we rarely hear in British politics is 'progressive conservative.'

 

[Tetchytyke]

In what way is she a "beneficiary" of that trust?

I suggest you do some more digging.

 

[furnessvale]

I suggest you do some more digging.

No thanks, I didn't make the original claim.

 

[GusB]

Both really JC.

Oh Bless DS!

Who are JC and DS?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It'd be nice if both the Tories and the Labour Party would tear themselves apart and leave the extremists to run the show (and not be elected), and the sensible moderates in both to gather and form a new European style centrist social democratic party (probably slightly, but only very slightly, to the right of Blairite Labour) which could do quite well.

To the RIGHT of Blairite Labour? Really?

Neo-liberalism is a busted flush, you only have to look at the Carrillion situation, and the growth of income inequality over the last couple of decades (including under Blair) to see that. If there was to be a new Centrist party there's no way it could be to the right of Blair and call itself centrist while keeping a straight face, I'm afraid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To the RIGHT of Blairite Labour? Really?

Yes, because it would be something encompassing moderate Tories and Labour people - that would have to run somewhere down the middle of the two.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is it really that bad for Theresa May?

To be honest, I hope not... as long as the Tories are fighting amongst themselves with May at the helm, it minimises the damage they can do to the country and particularly the NHS and welfare state.

Meanwhile, I'd like to suggest that certain posters on here (and their sock-puppets ) could perhaps get their political information from somewhere other than Richard Littlejohn columns: there weren't any "Reds under the Bed" in 1972, let alone today.

 

[Bromley boy]

Fixed that for you, you're welcome.

By the way, have political postings on here lurched alarmingly to the right in the last 6 months? It certainly feels that way...

Because not wanting Corbyn to get into no 10 automatically marks someone out as being hard-right...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes, because it would be something encompassing moderate Tories and Labour people - that would have to run somewhere down the middle of the two.

I'd argue that even going down the middle (of society, rather than of elected MPs or the two main parties) would see the "new party" be to the LEFT of Blairism. As far as Labour is concerned, Blair was at least economically about as far-right as any party leader has been.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd argue that even going down the middle (of society, rather than of elected MPs or the two main parties) would see the "new party" be to the LEFT of Blairism. As far as Labour is concerned, Blair was at least economically about as far-right as any party leader has been.

Yes, but this would also include Tories.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes, but this would also include Tories.

I agree. Whilst "Call Me Dave" Cameron was very much a Tory, on some issues he was to the left of his "mentor" Blair.

Both however still believed in (or at least publicly promoted) the myth of trickle-down economics, which surely nobody in the real world falls for now, right?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The liberals, liberally giving away our country to every Tom Dick and Harry. The liberals are definitely not to be trusted with office.

Neither are the Conservatives and Labour, in fact, especially not those two parties. But that didn't stop them getting voted in time after time these past 100 years. Maybe it's time for a classic British liberal alternative since there are people like who don't really like either of the parties and mostly vote on a non-partisan basis, but usually out of who we dislike the least rather than who we actually like and want in power.

Worth remembering Marine La Penn was the rival for Macron for president and a lot of the French people with left wing views voted for Macron to keep La Penn out, not because they wanted Macron.

Hmm. I would've originally said that since neither of the two main parties are appreciated at the minute, some might go for a more moderate voice. But then again, because of our First-Past-The-Post system, the more likely outcome with be the spoiler effect with the Tories winning by default, very similarly to what happened in 1983.

 

[northwichcat]

Neither are the Conservatives and Labour, in fact, especially not those two parties.

Indeed. People seem to be quick to forget what Conservatives or Labour promise and do or think a new leader means all previous promises and mistakes are void. The Conservatives spent 12 years criticising Labour for introducing student tuition fees and kept promising to remove them the next time they got in to power but didn't make a bit fuss about it in the run up to the 2010 election. The Lib Dems did make a fuss about them in the run up to the 2010 election and yet they get blamed for letting the Conservatives get away with increasing them.

Blair make mistakes in Iraq, Cameron almost repeated the same mistakes but the House of Commons voted against him over Syria but he still made a mess of Libya.

 

[bramling]

Indeed. People seem to be quick to forget what Conservatives or Labour promise and do or think a new leader means all previous promises and mistakes are void. The Conservatives spent 12 years criticising Labour for introducing student tuition fees and kept promising to remove them the next time they got in to power but didn't make a bit fuss about it in the run up to the 2010 election. The Lib Dems did make a fuss about them in the run up to the 2010 election and yet they get blamed for letting the Conservatives get away with increasing them.

Blair make mistakes in Iraq, Cameron almost repeated the same mistakes but the House of Commons voted against him over Syria but he still made a mess of Libya.

I get the feeling a lot of the issue with Blair was the perception of an element of dishonesty - whether true or not, soundbites like "sexed-up" or "dodgy dossier" still stick in the mind. This all comes on top of a prime minister who had already started to turn stale simply thanks to the amount of time in office, and perhaps people starting to see a lot of broken promises.

Personally, I simply don't see the salience of tuition fees. For me, and most people I know, it's a niche issue.

 

[507021]

Maybe there’s no need for a new party. I’d quote like to see a growth in the Liberal Party (not Lib Dem’s). Macron in France proved that a minor party can gain a great deal of seats in just a short amount of time, and given that I agree with a great deal of what the Liberal Party stands for (unless I’ve been lied to), I think it’d be great if they broke the chain of Labour and Tory rule. Plus as a Liverpudlian, a Liverpool-based party would be a great empowerment to us if they won .

Another vote for the Liberal Party here. The Liberal councillors in my area do a very good job year-round, not just at election times, hence why I don't vote Labour in the council elections.

 

[tony_mac]

The fact that the house no longer belongs to the family, having been offered to the National Trust but declined as too much of a liability appears to missing from this tirade.

The house has been owned for some years by a charitable trust.

That all seems very unlikely - as last year it was bought from private owners for £7m (paid for by charitable trusts and lottery money).
https://www.theguardian.com/culture...trust-south-yorkshire-grade-i-listed-georgian

 

[DenmarkRail]

I think the biggest issue that the conservatives have, is that they have no new fresh ideas, and no new fresh faces. It is really similar to the Democratic party in the USA. Every candidate who everyone likes, is an insider, who has been known about for years, through being involved in goverment, or someone who would loose the base of the Conservative party, while failing to attract the new votes needed. In 2017, the Conservatives did a Hillary Clinton, and got all the right votes, just not in the right places - A big London insider, who has been around for years won't be able to appeal to an ex miner in Yorkshire.

The Conservative party need someone, who is relatable, who someone can look at, and think "WOW! This person is like me!". They need someone who has not really engaged in goverment, but still having the relevant experiance from the outside, to know how to command a goverment.

 

[SilentGrade]

I don't support the LibDems at all, but that just reads like a mindless, childish, insult that adds nothing to the discussion

It's genuinely sad the amount of US style hyper-partisanship that has seemingly infected the political dialogue in this country recently.

 

[bramling]

I think the biggest issue that the conservatives have, is that they have no new fresh ideas, and no new fresh faces. It is really similar to the Democratic party in the USA. Every candidate who everyone likes, is an insider, who has been known about for years, through being involved in goverment, or someone who would loose the base of the Conservative party, while failing to attract the new votes needed. In 2017, the Conservatives did a Hillary Clinton, and got all the right votes, just not in the right places - A big London insider, who has been around for years won't be able to appeal to an ex miner in Yorkshire.

The Conservative party need someone, who is relatable, who someone can look at, and think "WOW! This person is like me!". They need someone who has not really engaged in goverment, but still having the relevant experiance from the outside, to know how to command a goverment.

I agree with all of this. Taking this further, I don't see how people can relate to Corbyn either. To me, and most people I know, he comes over as a sloppy and clumsy university lecturer type who is good at delivering a core message but can't go beyond that. Abbott is even worse. McDonnell is better at articulating himself, but comes over as a nasty piece of work.

Then again I don't see how anyone could rate Juncker either, but presumably someone did at some point.

I must add myself to the various posts suggesting someone like Portillo would be a good leader. Trouble is the Conservative membership have tended to be out of step with what might be electorally best, although to be fair things have probably moved on at least a bit since the likes of Hague or IDS were chosen.

 

[Bromley boy]

I agree with all of this. Taking this further, I don't see how people can relate to Corbyn either. To me, and most people I know, he comes over as a sloppy and clumsy university lecturer type who is good at delivering a core message but can't go beyond that. Abbott is even worse. McDonnell is better at articulating himself, but comes over as a nasty piece of work.

Then again I don't see how anyone could rate Juncker either, but presumably someone did at some point.

I must add myself to the various posts suggesting someone like Portillo would be a good leader. Trouble is the Conservative membership have tended to be out of step with what might be electorally best, although to be fair things have moved on since the likes of Hague or IDS were chosen.

Fully agreed!

At least Portillo likes railways...