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

Who should replace TM as leader of the Tories? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who should be Conservative leader in 2018/19?
    Theresa May (or Amber Rudd)
    9
    11.84%
    Boris Johnson
    20
    26.32%
    Other (please state)
    47
    61.84%

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
    I think the gamble that the Prime Minister took with calling an early General Election has done some damage. However, she has taken her stride and recover from that.
    Understatement of the year, some damage! More liked holed below the waterline and it is now a question whether the baler being used is big enough to keep pace with the water ingress and which of the crew are helping to quell the ingress and which are deciding to mutiny.

    There is no earthly way she can be described as having recovered, she is merely treading water; perceived weakness is rarely recovered from, her best bet is maybe helping steer the choice of successor to a favourite or at least damage those she detests the most.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Which may, counter intuitively. count as a negative re his chance of success next time. Yes, it can give him a platform to drive forward over the line, but for those who voted for him as a form of protest against the Conservatives they are now, fully aware, he is a possible "clear and present danger."

    The key for him is how much more there is for him to mop up in left field and is that enough to cover the centrist "protest" vote which may, in part, run for safety.

    Of course there are movements of the vote in all directions but it will be a very stupid Labour move to assume those they acquired this year are theirs for keeps.

    Labour's main hope is that the Conservatives continue to carry on as a party with little certainty, next to no message, and which currently cannot fall back on its usual selling point of competence, its usual protection against bad weather which is currently looking somewhat threadbare.
    There's also the fact that the Tories are running out of things to say about Corbyn. At the last election, they repeatedly hammered home the point about him being a 'terrorist sympathiser' and as supporting the IRA. Yet 40% of the electorate still voted for him. Negative campaigning is losing its effectiveness and even now, the Tories seem to spend far more time talking about why Labour are bad, rather than anything they could offer themselves.

    There is little evidence that those who voted for Labour regret it, or that people only voted Labour because they thought he wouldn't be Prime Minister.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=L i b;74031590
    I'm sure Brexit has the potential to cause economic harm, but ultimately I think that regardless of how hard it is, the damage in Scotland is small enough that it could be completely ameliorated by using some fairly straightforward domestic policy levers.[/QUOTE]

    You should not hold your breath if you are waiting for an SNP administration to pull said levers, they have not been stunning anywhere but frankly, on economic matters, they are noticeable by the lack of real content.

    One does not even need to wait until Brexit to get harm, a combination of Indyref1, EU referendum and will we/won't we re Indyref2 has managed a fair bit already.

    If I played golf then right now I could get down to a single digit handicap given spare time I have, frankly enquiries coming in from business entities for new premises/changing premises in Edinburgh are a fraction of what they were pre Indyref 1, business has decided that in uncertainty its best approach is to do very little.

    My best gauge of the Edinburgh economy is how often the phone rings, these days not very often, possibly running at 30%.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Even two thirds of Tory voters support renationalising the railways! As i've seen a few commentators note, it's as if the public mood has finally caught up with the 2008 financial crash.
    In some ways you are likely correct, the catch with Labour (and the Tories for that matter with privatization) is that given the chance they will over time likely push outwith the electorate's comfort zone and go too far, as a sort of middle of the road voter to me railways, fine, Royal Mail, not convinced, banks- god no way.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I am so ready for Rees-Mogg.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There's also the fact that the Tories are running out of things to say about Corbyn. At the last election, they repeatedly hammered home the point about him being a 'terrorist sympathiser' and as supporting the IRA. Yet 40% of the electorate still voted for him. Negative campaigning is losing its effectiveness and even now, the Tories seem to spend far more time talking about why Labour are bad, rather than anything they could offer themselves.

    There is little evidence that those who voted for Labour regret it, or that people only voted Labour because they thought he wouldn't be Prime Minister.
    Next time it will be the economy front and centre with fully costed budgets as the weapon of choice. Now whether this will still work is not yet clear, I accept the electorate is changing, but there is no way the Conservatives can run as inept a campaign as last time.

    I think you are wrong if you believe Labour's vote was an endorsement that will not change allegiance, I stopped voting for parties years ago and now often cast my vote against rather than for, there are millions like me, we are older, have been lied to for longer, appreciate none of them can actually really deliver anything and vote on a least damage basis.

    Labour are of course far more exciting, radical, but you may find by the next time the middle of the road UK electorate, that is needed to win, have had enough excitement.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would say Amber Rudd but her seat will definitely go to Labour lol. So then it would be David Davis, but he's going to resign after Brexit. We would need someone fresh and new - I quite like Kwasi Kwarteng, surprised he isn't in the cabinet. Perhaps one to keep an eye on! I wouldn't mind Rees-Mogg, at this rate anyone is better than May but I'd rather the leadership changes happen after Brexit.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Next time it will be the economy front and centre with fully costed budgets as the weapon of choice. Now whether this will still work is not yet clear, I accept the electorate is changing, but there is no way the Conservatives can run as inept a campaign as last time.

    I think you are wrong if you believe Labour's vote was an endorsement that will not change allegiance, I stopped voting for parties years ago and now often cast my vote against rather than for, there are millions like me, we are older, have been lied to for longer, appreciate none of them can actually really deliver anything and vote on a least damage basis.

    Labour are of course far more exciting, radical, but you may find by the next time the middle of the road UK electorate, that is needed to win, have had enough excitement.
    Politics right now is certainly unpredictable.

    True, the Conservatives probably won't run as a bad a campaign next time but there's also no reason to suspect that Labour can't run an even better one. There does genuinely seem to be an appetite for some real Keynsian economics of investment, nationalisation and public spending.

    Plus there isn't much sign that the Tories have learnt the lessons of their campaign mistakes last time. They still are accusing Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathiser/ IRA supporter fairly frequently. The public are starting to dislike negative campaigns more and more.

    The problem is that the 'middle of the road electorate' is becoming smaller and smaller. Home ownership is down significantly and your middle of the road type voter is now struggling more than they were as wages have fallen behind inflation.

    You now have people in their early 30s, on a decent wage but just not really able to save anything to put towards buying a house.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Politics right now is certainly unpredictable.

    True, the Conservatives probably won't run as a bad a campaign next time but there's also no reason to suspect that Labour can't run an even better one. There does genuinely seem to be an appetite for some real Keynsian economics of investment, nationalisation and public spending.

    Plus there isn't much sign that the Tories have learnt the lessons of their campaign mistakes last time. They still are accusing Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathiser/ IRA supporter fairly frequently. The public are starting to dislike negative campaigns more and more.

    The problem is that the 'middle of the road electorate' is becoming smaller and smaller. Home ownership is down significantly and your middle of the road type voter is now struggling more than they were as wages have fallen behind inflation.

    You now have people in their early 30s, on a decent wage but just not really able to save anything to put towards buying a house.
    I do not fully disagree, but Labour needs to temper its radical programme slightly or it is in danger of scaring the middle of the road electorate who are often long enough in the tooth to know that whilst thinks may not be that great, standards of living eroded etc, they can still get a whole lot worse.

    While they know the Tory "Economic Competence Proficiency Badge" is looking somewhat tarnished they possibly are a little cautious that Corbyn's "Fire Starting Badge" may lead to a blaze that gets a tad out of control, and they are not that sure he has passed the "Fire Fighting Proficiency Badge"
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    I do not fully disagree, but Labour needs to temper its radical programme slightly or it is in danger of scaring the middle of the road electorate who are often long enough in the tooth to know that whilst thinks may not be that great, standards of living eroded etc, they can still get a whole lot worse.

    While they know the Tory "Economic Competence Proficiency Badge" is looking somewhat tarnished they possibly are a little cautious that Corbyn's "Fire Starting Badge" may lead to a blaze that gets a tad out of control, and they are not that sure he has passed the "Fire Fighting Proficiency Badge"
    Yes I agree. Labour's big challenge is to win the economic argument and convince people that Keynsian economics isn't just fairer and more desirable, but that it can work as well as, if not better than a more free-market version of capitalism.

    The problem for the Tories though is that they are quickly losing their perceived economic competence, with sluggish growth, rising house prices and stagnating wages.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes I agree. Labour's big challenge is to win the economic argument and convince people that Keynsian economics isn't just fairer and more desirable, but that it can work as well as, if not better than a more free-market version of capitalism.

    The problem for the Tories though is that they are quickly losing their perceived economic competence, with sluggish growth, rising house prices and stagnating wages.
    There is the rub, how far does one go down the role of state direct management of industries. It cannot just be labelled Keynesian, I do not recall Keynes advocating direct control of myriad industries, it needs qualified.

    It also extends the question in requiring the electorate to accept that politicians are competent enough to direct entire industries, on past performance a pretty hard sell,day to day management by civil servants directed by transient politicians who are re the industry mere fish out of water does not inspire confidence.

    My late father used to regularly point out that the ability to convince so many thousand voters on a day to mark an x alongside one's name was hardly a benchmark of business competence and that was in the day when a fair few politicians had actually achieved something in business prior to elected office, these days said real experience is, in the main, lacking.

    They need to sell to the electorate that not only can they manage things like levels of taxation etc (the normal purview of Ministers) but they can also manage individual industries, a much harder sell and more vulnerable to attacks that clearly demonstrate that, at times, they do not really know what they are talking about.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Who (if anyone) should replace Theresa May as leader of the Conservative party?

    Boris or someone else?

    Disclaimer

    Ruth Davidson, David Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg are all ineligible/ uninterested in becoming leader. ( I think Ruth would back May as would probably Davis where’s Mogg would back Boris) if you disagree with me put other.


    I think May has generally been a disaster. I don’t particularly think Boris is suitable but god help me I think I’d choose him over May. That said ideally I’d like to see a newish (2010 onwards) to step forward with some more radical proposals on house building and cutting immigration.
    No one, it would be retarded to replace her with anyone until the brexit deal is sorted.

    Who should replace her after that?

    Well that’s complicated as there isn’t a standout.

    Boris is an idiot, so the three best candidates unless an MP comes to the fore in the meantime is....

    Amber Rudd - too small a majority unfortunately as she would be perfect.

    David Davies - what will his stock be post deal? Could be high or low.

    Teresa May - you see the issues with the above people. If brexit goes well she will be seen as much stronger and if it doesn’t you still have the issue with Davies then and Rudd’s majority still hasn’t changed.

    To anyone who says Ruth Davison she isn’t an MP and wants to be first minister so that excludes her.

    Which leaves a surprise contender, Steven crabb maybe? Or someone from the 2010 intake?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I am so ready for Rees-Mogg.
    I love JRM but he isn’t electable purely on his voice alone never mind dragging up his none pc views on certain issues even if he isn’t interested in foisting them on the country

    You can forget this happening
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    There is the rub, how far does one go down the role of state direct management of industries. It cannot just be labelled Keynesian, I do not recall Keynes advocating direct control of myriad industries, it needs qualified.

    It also extends the question in requiring the electorate to accept that politicians are competent enough to direct entire industries, on past performance a pretty hard sell,day to day management by civil servants directed by transient politicians who are re the industry mere fish out of water does not inspire confidence.

    My late father used to regularly point out that the ability to convince so many thousand voters on a day to mark an x alongside one's name was hardly a benchmark of business competence and that was in the day when a fair few politicians had actually achieved something in business prior to elected office, these days said real experience is, in the main, lacking.

    They need to sell to the electorate that not only can they manage things like levels of taxation etc (the normal purview of Ministers) but they can also manage individual industries, a much harder sell and more vulnerable to attacks that clearly demonstrate that, at times, they do not really know what they are talking about.
    When there is a natural monopoly, such as with the railways, energy, water, royal mail etc, the industry should be nationalised. The public seems to agree with that. It seems utterly bizarre that while water prices go up for the average person, you get wealthy individuals taking the profits for themselves.

    I don't think the country should be treated like a business. I also trust the public sector to run many services more efficiently and of a higher standard than the private sector can.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When there is a natural monopoly, such as with the railways, energy, water, royal mail etc, the industry should be nationalised. The public seems to agree with that. It seems utterly bizarre that while water prices go up for the average person, you get wealthy individuals taking the profits for themselves.

    I don't think the country should be treated like a business. I also trust the public sector to run many services more efficiently and of a higher standard than the private sector can.
    The public sector is notoriously inefficient. What we need is competition and cheap energy.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    The public sector is notoriously inefficient. What we need is competition and cheap energy.
    There can be no real competition for energy, given that it comes from the same source. It's a natural monopoly.

    The notion that the private sector is often more efficient than the public sector seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy. Indeed Medicare in America tends to spend a far lower percentage of its capital on bureaucracy than private providers do.

    The private sector gets this rather unmerited reputation for being efficient when reality is often rather different.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    When there is a natural monopoly, such as with the railways, energy, water, royal mail etc, the industry should be nationalised. The public seems to agree with that. It seems utterly bizarre that while water prices go up for the average person, you get wealthy individuals taking the profits for themselves.

    I don't think the country should be treated like a business. I also trust the public sector to run many services more efficiently and of a higher standard than the private sector can.
    But there are not always wealthy individuals taking the profits for themselves, the profits go to the shareholders who are you, me, the teachers pension scheme, everyone.

    Quoted companies are owned by myriad individuals either directly or indirectly through other financial products, there is really no us and them here.

    And sorry, whilst Royal Mail may be a natural monopoly re letters/cards it is not re parcels (the growth part of the industry whilst letters/cards is declining)- how many letters do you send a year, I suspect not that many? I also suspect fewer than last year and fewer than the year before?

    I used to go through two cheque books a year, mainly posted, I now use about two to three cheques a year . How many years until the generation brought up on the internet and e mail sends virtually no snail mail?

    Offloading it now has saved a fortune for the future as I am afraid mail would have required to become a more and more subsidised industry, sorry, its days are numbered.

    And whilst you may trust the public sector to manage I do not trust the public sector to run all these things, I am old enough to remember when they did.

    I do agree with you re the railways, and would have left water as it was though doubt I would now bring it back into state management, but the telecoms/power, horse has bolted, state control is pointless and wresting back control very, very, expensive.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    There can be no real competition for energy, given that it comes from the same source. It's a natural monopoly.

    The notion that the private sector is often more efficient than the public sector seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy. Indeed Medicare in America tends to spend a far lower percentage of its capital on bureaucracy than private providers do.

    The private sector gets this rather unmerited reputation for being efficient when reality is often rather different.
    Energy certainly does not come from the same source.

    The government is so keen on using taxpayers money to pay rich landowners to install wind turbines, which double energy prices; doesn't work when it's not windy or too windy and blights the landscape.

    They are too concerned of public opinion to take advantage of fracking and instead rely on importing fuel then putting high tax on it so companies and manufacturers go abroad to the Far East and use non-green energy.

    So household energy is ridiculously high while green policies have a negative impact on the environment.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yep.

    Scottish politics is unpredictable but i'm hoping that if it seems like Labour actually have a good chance of winning a general election, that former Labour, SNP voters will come back in numbers.
    It's hard to see this happening personally. As much as the SNP don't have their glow anymore (they have created their own domestic issues and have been governing too long to blame somebody else and they also overplayed their hand on independence) it's hard to see much of a credible reason for the left in Scotland to rally round in numbers that could win an election. It's possible they could exchange a few percent here or there but the loyalty labour had in Scotland no longer exists.

    I think the Lib Dem's are far more vulnerable in Scotland personally and fortunately that the Tory vote is probably pretty stable.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    But there are not always wealthy individuals taking the profits for themselves, the profits go to the shareholders who are you, me, the teachers pension scheme, everyone.
    And to wealthy directors like Damien Green who was making a huge profit off our water industry while prices were becoming more expensive for the consumer. The surplus generated should benefit everyone rather than just a handful of people. It should be reinvested back into the system, not taken out as dividends.

    Quoted companies are owned by myriad individuals either directly or indirectly through other financial products, there is really no us and them here.
    That's a rather romantic view of shareholder capitalism. The reality is that prosperous companies tend to be largely owned by relatively few shareholders, often companies themselves. A lot of our key industries are largely owned by foreign governments, rather than ours.

    And sorry, whilst Royal Mail may be a natural monopoly re letters/cards it is not reparcels (the growth part of the industry whilst letters/cards is declining)- how many letters do you send a year, I suspect not that many? I also suspect fewer than last year and fewer than the year before?
    It's still better off being in public hands where surpluses can be reinvested back into the system.

    And whilst you may trust the public sector to manage I do not trust the public sector to run all these things, I am old enough to remember when they did.
    I've been thoroughly unimpressed with the private sector's handling of key industries. For some reason the private sector's failures keep being overlooked.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.