Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who Do you want as the next Tory leader ? Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Who do you want as the next tory party leader ?
    Osborne
    23.42%
    May
    6.31%
    Johnson ( Boris )
    40.54%
    Gove
    2.70%
    Morgan
    0
    0%
    Fox
    4.50%
    Javid
    5.41%
    Hunt
    0
    0%
    Other
    17.12%

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMallard)
    Gove as Chancellor would be okay.

    I'd have Philip Hammond as leader of the commons. Theresa May as leader of the house of lords. Anna Soubry at welfare. Gove as transport secretary and DPM (imagine the railway equivalent of free schools). Liz Truss to education. Dominic Grieve to defence. I personally would not have Zahawi, as I think he seems a bit too slimy.
    i would have

    Osborne PM and Leader
    Javid as Chancellor
    May as Foreign
    Gove as Home and 1st secretary of state
    Morgan as Justice and lord chancellor
    Fallon as Defence
    Boris as Culture
    Rudd as Education
    Soubry Business
    Patal as Welfare
    Hammond as Leader of the house of commons
    Truss as Transport
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Osbourne is a liberal- there are two concepts of Liberty with Osborne being more focused on negative liberty or economic freedom.
    Yes, except freedom from interference by the government as the Tories advocate is simply traded off for having more interference from private providers and large corporations. It doesn't increase personal liberty even under Osborne's interpretation.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The mentality of the two parties now is very different because of our recent history.

    Labour voters look back upon their years in power and are scarred by them, instead of seeing tax credits and the minimum wage they see Iraq. The Tories look upon their period in power and masturbate at the glory Thatcher brought them, they then look upon the 97-05 period and see ideological purity as leading them to despair and compramise as leading them to victory.

    In short the Tory voters right now seem to be unified in the belief that it is better to get half of what you want in government than none of it in opposition. Labour voters right now are too young to think back longingly of Wilson/Callahan, remember despair in the 80's and are scarred by their own period in office because they can't see beyond Iraq and ideological capitulation. Without a recession, this is their 97-05 period that the Tories had.
    No I don't. The Tories + labour are equally complicit in that and most of the MPs were lied to by Blair and his cronies.

    I look back and see awful PFI schemes, start of privatizing of the NHS and general neoliberal "third way" policies that were part of the same cross party consensus that have ****ed over the majority so badly and is now being used as propaganda for the Tories to go even further in their economic agenda.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    i would have

    Osborne PM and Leader
    Javid as Chancellor
    May as Foreign
    Gove as Home and 1st secretary of state
    Morgan as Justice and lord chancellor
    Fallon as Defence
    Boris as Culture
    Rudd as Education
    Soubry Business
    Patal as Welfare
    Hammond as Leader of the house of commons
    Truss as Transport
    Here goes

    PM: Osborne
    DPM and Transport: Michael Gove
    Chancellor: Steve Baker
    First Secretary of State, communities: Greg Clark
    Foreign Sec: Jeremy Hunt
    Home Sec: Priti Patel
    Defence: Dominic Grieve
    Education: Liz Truss
    Health: Helen Whately
    Business: John Penrose
    Justice: Dominic Raab
    Welfare: Anna Soubry
    Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster: Rupert Harrison (He would be made a lord)
    international Development (to be merged with FO)
    Culture: Ed Vaizey
    Leader of commons: Hammond
    Leader of Lords: May
    Energy: Andrea Leadsom
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMallard)
    Here goes

    PM: Osborne
    DPM and Transport: Michael Gove
    Chancellor: Steve Baker
    First Secretary of State, communities: Greg Clark
    Foreign Sec: Jeremy Hunt
    Home Sec: Priti Patel
    Defence: Dominic Grieve
    Education: Liz Truss
    Health: Helen Whately
    Business: John Penrose
    Justice: Dominic Raab
    Welfare: Anna Soubry
    Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster: Rupert Harrison (He would be made a lord)
    international Development (to be merged with FO)
    Culture: Ed Vaizey
    Leader of commons: Hammond
    Leader of Lords: May
    Energy: Andrea Leadsom
    May is'nt in the lords
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think it was always going to be between Kendall* and Corbyn.

    Burnham was the man who would say anything to get in power. Cooper was the woman who would say nothing to get in power.


    *Whilst yes she only got 4.5% I think she would have far greater electability with non voters than any of the others. If she had moved her economic outlook to the left and made some left pleasing concessions she would have been the best candidate by a country mile.
    Sorry but that's just your own political bias I think. Kendall looked harried, lacked any charisma - yes even less than Cooper - and struggled to articulate any ideas at all. At least Andy Burnham was photogenic with some kind of charm. I understand that Kendall was an outside establishment candidate but she just didn't have the chops I don’t think. Dan Jarvis from the right would have been way better and I might have voted for him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    May is'nt in the lords
    I know, I was thinking that I might be able to move her there. Also this will be in a few years time, unless Cameron goes earlier.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think either Rupert Grint, my grandma or myself should be the next tory leader
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Sorry but that's just your own political bias I think.
    Which you seem to be immune to


    Kendall looked harried, lacked any charisma - yes even less than Cooper - and struggled to articulate any ideas at all. At least Andy Burnham was photogenic with some kind of charm. I understand that Kendall was an outside establishment candidate but she just didn't have the chops I don’t think. Dan Jarvis from the right would have been way better and I might have voted for him.
    Meh I haven't found the Jarvis hype yet, I'd like to believe though...

    None of the candidates really had any new ideas (and the therin lies the problem) least of all Corbyn.

    I thought Kendall made some noises in the right direction ( ie looking at WWC inequality, actually looking at why labour lost the general election (not because it was too left wing but not because it necessarily too right wing either) . i also liked that she told a journalist to eff off for asking about her weight. I think she would be ten times the electoral asset that Corbyn would be.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Osborne.

    Likeable, pragmatic, classical liberal.

    .
    :confused: sorry, were you talking about George Osbourne there?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Sorry but that's just your own political bias I think. Kendall looked harried, lacked any charisma - yes even less than Cooper - and struggled to articulate any ideas at all. At least Andy Burnham was photogenic with some kind of charm. I understand that Kendall was an outside establishment candidate but she just didn't have the chops I don’t think. Dan Jarvis from the right would have been way better and I might have voted for him.
    Dan Jarvis isn't to the right. I don't know why people keep saying this. He voted for Andy Burnham in the leadership campaign and also Stella Creasy. Burnham isn't a Blairite at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Which you seem to be immune to




    Meh I haven't found the Jarvis hype yet, I'd like to believe though...

    None of the candidates really had any new ideas (and the therin lies the problem) least of all Corbyn.

    I thought Kendall made some noises in the right direction ( ie looking at WWC inequality, actually looking at why labour lost the general election (not because it was too left wing but not because it necessarily too right wing either) . i also liked that she told a journalist to eff off for asking about her weight. I think she would be ten times the electoral asset that Corbyn would be.
    From reading various sources the problem with Kendall was that she came across as another Blarite and somebody who wouldn't look out of place in the Conservative party. Many thought that she would struggle to debate Cameron in the commons because she agrees with pretty much everything he says.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    It does boggle the mind slightly that it is seen as a virtue for politics to be about winning rather than voting for what one believes in. If Tory views are so out of touch with what the wider electorate would vote for that they have to twist and turn to choose someone electable, well...

    As for Labour, I think only Burnham was more electable than Corbyn.
    Except politics is a game about compromise and winning, the winner is the one that gets to set the agenda, the loser just gets to sit there and wave their fists in the air hoping that they can find some stuff where there are enough government back bench rebels to block something. Ideological purity is all well and good until it stops you from imposing that ideology, any rational individual should be able to see that an enacted watered down idea is better than a purer fantasy, at the very least it sets the ground works for future purifying.

    We also get a rather wonderful mindset of a great number of young lefties that seem to believe that left wing government is the default of British politics, ergo they can afford to be purer because they don't even need to try to win elections, they just win them

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    sorry but George Osbourne?? just look at him, looks like a wrongun
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except politics is a game about compromise and winning, the winner is the one that gets to set the agenda, the loser just gets to sit there and wave their fists in the air hoping that they can find some stuff where there are enough government back bench rebels to block something. Ideological purity is all well and good until it stops you from imposing that ideology, any rational individual should be able to see that an enacted watered down idea is better than a purer fantasy, at the very least it sets the ground works for future purifying.

    We also get a rather wonderful mindset of a great number of young lefties that seem to believe that left wing government is the default of British politics, ergo they can afford to be purer because they don't even need to try to win elections, they just win them

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not news that governments have to compromise to rule, as well as to get elected, while oppositions have the luxury of waving fists in the air and attacking the government from every angle. That has nothing to do with which party is in government and which in opposition. But there should surely be some kind of utopia you believe in that you're aiming at otherwise what's the point. I suppose the Tories do have this with their mad obsession with reducing the deficit but 1. it's not articulated how it would make our lives better and 2. I'm 99% sure they don't believe a word of it, they just know the electorate do.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    This a Thousand times. I've said it before and i'[ll say it again- Corbyn is the Lefts Ian Duncan Smith
    Yes it's an obvious parallel. There is one massive difference though: the size of the Labour vs Tory majorities.

    I am secretly glad the Tories won in 2010 because if Labour (who were practically Cameronian Tories from 2008 anyway) had held on or done a 2007-2012 term with Brown we would be looking at a Tory landslide now.

    What happened with the Tories in 2010 is exactly the same as what really should have happened in 1992 with Kinnock/Smith. That election was what caused the modern political consensus where for some insane reason we are not allowed to raise taxes any more, taking out one whole side of the fiscal equation, hence Tory cuts and Labour PFI.

    Instead the Tories will have been prevented by narrow majorities for 10 years from implementing their most destructive policies.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    It's not news that governments have to compromise to rule, as well as to get elected, while oppositions have the luxury of waving fists in the air and attacking the government from every angle. That has nothing to do with which party is in government and which in opposition. But there should surely be some kind of utopia you believe in that you're aiming at otherwise what's the point. I suppose the Tories do have this with their mad obsession with reducing the deficit but 1. it's not articulated how it would make our lives better and 2. I'm 99% sure they don't believe a word of it, they just know the electorate do.
    Assuming that most Tories are similar to me then the utopia so to speak is one of a prosperous and powerful nation with significant home ownership, significant international leverage (diplomatically and militarily) and one in which taxes are low, small business thrives and fiscal discipline keeps the state reigned back. I assume most Tories care less for social policy but there's a large spread between the libertarians and social conservatives albeit its a generational thing i think. One in which competition allows the strongest to thrive on an individual level.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Assuming that most Tories are similar to me then the utopia so to speak is one of a prosperous and powerful nation with significant home ownership, significant international leverage (diplomatically and militarily) and one in which taxes are low, small business thrives and fiscal discipline keeps the state reigned back. I assume most Tories care less for social policy but there's a large spread between the libertarians and social conservatives albeit its a generational thing i think. One in which competition allows the strongest to thrive on an individual level.
    Well as far as I can see the present Tories are going backwards on at least half of that, most egregiously home ownership. Furthermore, to me home affordability also has to come into the equation. If you can't afford to buy your way into the property market you should at least get one with a rent significantly cheaper than the equivalent mortgage payments, i.e. a social rent. (The market will always have rents and mortgages more or less equal because everyone earns about the same wage.)

    I think small businesses tend to do better when Labour is in because they get taxed hard by either government and with Labour the majority of normal people, especially those at the bottom of the income distribution who use small businesses, have more money to spend. Plus with tax credits wage spends are lower.

    "Fiscal discipline" just doesn't make any sense. The whole point of capitalism is so we can reverse the arrow of time when it comes to money, i.e. you can have it created for you to spend up front if you promise to give it back with interest later, and everyone is on board with this because otherwise nobody would be able to get the ball rolling on any capital projects.

    So there is no reason why the government has to spend less than it takes in, particularly not as it can print money at will rather than even having to ask banks for a loan. The only reason is if you know there won't be more people/more productivity to pay it back in the future, in which case you might as well give up anyway. And I'm pretty sure that every pound cut from expenditure causes more than a pound's worth of fall in GDP over the business cycle. It seems like common sense that that would be the case.

    But hey ho, I'm sure a lot of Labour's stuff wouldn't work either
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Boris
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Well as far as I can see the present Tories are going backwards on at least half of that, most egregiously home ownership. Furthermore, to me home affordability also has to come into the equation. If you can't afford to buy your way into the property market you should at least get one with a rent significantly cheaper than the equivalent mortgage payments, i.e. a social rent. (The market will always have rents and mortgages more or less equal because everyone earns about the same wage.)

    I think small businesses tend to do better when Labour is in because they get taxed hard by either government and with Labour the majority of normal people, especially those at the bottom of the income distribution who use small businesses, have more money to spend. Plus with tax credits wage spends are lower.

    "Fiscal discipline" just doesn't make any sense. The whole point of capitalism is so we can reverse the arrow of time when it comes to money, i.e. you can have it created for you to spend up front if you promise to give it back with interest later, and everyone is on board with this because otherwise nobody would be able to get the ball rolling on any capital projects.

    So there is no reason why the government has to spend less than it takes in, particularly not as it can print money at will rather than even having to ask banks for a loan. The only reason is if you know there won't be more people/more productivity to pay it back in the future, in which case you might as well give up anyway. And I'm pretty sure that every pound cut from expenditure causes more than a pound's worth of fall in GDP over the business cycle. It seems like common sense that that would be the case.

    But hey ho, I'm sure a lot of Labour's stuff wouldn't work either
    I agree with you regarding home ownership (it's been declining since 01) and being an aspirational political capitalist rather than a purist (i.e. a moderate over ancap) i'm actually prepared to both limit the supply of credit for mortgages (something responsible for fueling house price growth well above wage inflation) and also to combine MacMillion and Thatcher's housing policies until we can have a private sector that meets demand. The problem was that in 2015 we had the Tories proposing 200,000 starter homes and phase 1 of Help To Buy while Labour had a aim of 200,000 per year (a million over the parliament) but no real description of how to make the private sector do that. Thus i concluded the Tories were closer to my aim.

    Spurious since your essentially basing this on the 00's vs 1980's unless you actually believe another government would have solved the real wage crisis last term. Your tax credit point is valid though. I'm not overly sure that small business under either of the current two parties succeeds more under one than the other.

    You forget that much of what government spends its money on is not capital projects and there's really no reason to tax the populous more in order to pay for European levels of welfare for example. Fiscal discipline does not mean cutting to the bone per say (that's somewhat ideological) but simply reigning in the speed at which government spending grows so that it is more affordable as a percentage of GDP over time. Given current tax and spending levels there's more than enough room to cut departments and transfer that spending to capital projects and defense while reducing the state as a proportion of GDP.

    So not perfect in my eyes but better than the current alternatives. For reference i should probably say that 93-03 was probably the closest period to perfection that i'm aware of in recent times.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.