for the next Tory leader.
Fancy either of these would significantly re-invent a Party heading for wilderness years.
Two major Parties living in fantasy land really isn't good for this country.

Ruth Davidson please. She's brilliant. Probably not enough to make me vote Tory but she's far more genuine and decent than any of the ***** running the party now.

Ruth Davidson vote here too. She isn't afraid to laugh at herself and seems to be genuine. The suits in the Tory party will probably shudder at the thought of a Scottish leader but she's actually affable and likeable!

Good to see Heidi Allen calling for Johnsons resignation, these two are not afraid to challenge the Party line, make an interesting partnership at the top of their party.

Think about the Conservative membership for a sec.

Think about them again, and then ask how likely they are to vote for either Heidi Allen or Ruth Davidson.

The membership doesn't have the first choice, it is served candidates.
All unlikely at present but would enable them to make a big change in direction and appeal to the centre ground which both parties have abandoned.

But, but, but everyone's united behind Theresa May, aren't they ?

Davidson would be the most effective in holding off Labour's resurgence. She'd negate any potential gains Labour might get in Scotland and she'd have more appeal than May, Mogg and Johnson with the young voters Labour will be counting on.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think about the Conservative membership for a sec.

Think about them again, and then ask how likely they are to vote for either Heidi Allen or Ruth Davidson.

Of course they wouldn't.

A big issue for the Conservatives (as highlighted here by Jacob Rees Mogg: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orea-rally" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) is they have few mechanisms for ideas to make their way from the bottom to the top, and even then don't give their membership a means to vote on them. There's no democracy for the rank and file. This might have seemed a good idea when the fashion was for policy to be triangulated and market tested, but it's not going to solve the problem of how to get more people to join. Especially younger people. And without this input the party will struggle to connect with younger voters, and be left having to steal Labour's ideas. This is compounded by the fact the people who fund the party (The CIty), won't want this kind of input, because it's likely to be progressive, and they've been quite happy so far to keep chiselling down their own tax obligations, while piling the cost of the financial crisis onto the backs of the poor. Something, somewhere will have to give.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think about the Conservative membership for a sec.
Think about them again, and then ask how likely they are to vote for either Heidi Allen or Ruth Davidson.

How exactly do you think Ruth Davidson was elected as leader of the Scots Conservatives?

First Jewish/Non-Christian leader of a political party:
Benjamin Disreali

First woman leader of a political party:
Margaret Thatcher

First openly gay leader of a political party:
Ruth Davidson

Time to address your own prejudices perhaps?

19th century leader - yeah, cos thats relevant. Not even the oldest Conservative member today was alive then (I think!)

Thatcher - good point, but a different Conservative party to the one we have now, as you are well aware

Davidson - excellent politician, really, really good but in a party that hadn't done anything north of the border for years and had to change from the mainstream English conservatives to have a chance.

But yeah, apart from all those good points.

A dose of reality wouldn't go amiss with you sometimes Rowls.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think about the Conservative membership for a sec.

Think about them again, and then ask how likely they are to vote for either Heidi Allen or Ruth Davidson.

member here.

Yes, very.

Should there be a vacancy .....

Nailed on now I would think.

Don't think either will get a look in.

Davidson would be great though, but are the majority of the Conservatives able to realise that?

I think Ruth Davidson would do extremely well in any Tory leadership contest

Lancasterclaret wrote:19th century leader - yeah, cos thats relevant. Not even the oldest Conservative member today was alive then (I think!)
Thatcher - good point, but a different Conservative party to the one we have now, as you are well aware
Davidson - excellent politician, really, really good but in a party that hadn't done anything north of the border for years and had to change from the mainstream English conservatives to have a chance.
But yeah, apart from all those good points.
A dose of reality wouldn't go amiss with you sometimes Rowls.

It's funny how these genuine barrier breaking appointments can all be brushed away. Perhaps we could take a look at the diversity of the Labour leaders and conclude how it was all in spite of their best efforts at "inclusivity"?

It's a similar theme to the "virtue signalling" debate isn't it. One side talks about "diverisity" and appoints only middle-class men. The other side actually appoints those creatures called women (and isn't bothered about their sexuality).

I wonder what Angela Eagle thinks on the matter?

As I said, dismiss it all you like but three in a row for the Conservatives is getting beyond a coincidence. It's not as though Labour have had an opportunity to appoint a candidate from a different background is it?

At very least you ought to admit how ridiculous is was to suggest that the Conservative Party could never vote for a leader who they had .... ahem .... already voted as a leader?

HatfieldClaret wrote:I think Ruth Davidson would do extremely well in any Tory leadership contest

I'm not sure she'd stand.

I'm not a Labour voter, which if you actually bothered to read any of my posts you would understand!

So you admit that the Scottish conservatives are a different party to the English ones then?

Thats fine, happy with that

I'd love them to vote in Davidson. She's principled, had good ideas and isn't stuck in the rut that too many of the top tories are.

Would you (hypothetically of course!) vote for her?

Rowls wrote:I'm not sure she'd stand.

Would'n't see need to become an MP first?

Ruth Davidson has already made it clear she is not interested as she has no intention of residing in London

Caballo wrote:Would'n't see need to become an MP first?

I don't know.

Lancasterclaret wrote:So you admit that the Scottish conservatives are a different party to the English ones then?

Where did you get that idea?

The two parties are united. Hence one conference.

Disraeli wasn’t Jewish. The first Jewish mp would have entered parliament after they changed the law to allow it 1850s/1860s. Not to take away from the point further, but the Conservative Party was a different beast back then (more aligned with landlords than business).

Disreali was Jewish. He wasn't a practising Jew but he was Jewish.

ExistentialWanderer wrote:Ruth Davidson vote here too. She isn't afraid to laugh at herself and seems to be genuine. The suits in the Tory party will probably shudder at the thought of a Scottish leader but she's actually affable and likeable!

Tory Party and affable and likeable in the same sentence

Well that's a first

Not sure the blue rinse brigade would go for Ruth Davison.

IanMcL wrote:Not sure the blue rinse brigade would go for Ruth Davison.

The Tory leadership have in theory 'embraced' gay rights but not sure the backbenchers or Tory members have. The party have an appalling recent record on all things gay so I very much doubt if Ruth would get anything less than the bum's rush from blue rinse brigade.

Exactly. Dinosaur party.

Cirrus_Minor wrote:The Tory leadership have in theory 'embraced' gay rights but not sure the backbenchers or Tory members have. The party have an appalling recent record on all things gay so I very much doubt if Ruth would get anything less than the bum's rush from blue rinse brigade.

You clearly under-estimate the Conservative Party, which is, like it or not, one of the most successful Election winning parties in history ! Disrali, was a ( non practising ) Jew, they elected an unmarried man ( Heath ), two women ( Thatcher & May ). In all that time, Labour have elected middle class, white , mostly Christian males and nothing else.

The Conservative party is about power, because, they realise that without power, you can't change or control things ! They will happily elect a Scottish Lesbian leader, if they consider her the best chance of winning the next Election.

I'm no Tory, but who was it who introduced " Gay Marriage "? Labour, fearful of the backlash from it's traditional white working class vote, and it's Muslim voters, would never have dared ! Mrs Merkl voted against Gay Marriage earlier this year in the German Parliament, did you hear any word of comment from any British Labour Politician ? Of course not...

Lancasterclaret wrote: Thatcher - good point, but a different Conservative party to the one we have now, as you are well aware

All right then, how about second political party to appoint a woman leader?

Ironically I had a respectful pop at Heidi Allen today and suggested she could lead to Corbyn getting to number 10 (in essence, the Remain lynch mob against Boris will lose them 5% of their vote share, whether Boris is wrong or not. Anybody thinking it isn’t a Remain lynch mob should look closely at the MPs who are slating him, and it is all political game playing.)

Which brings me to the key point. Allen or Davidson could not be the next PM because they are hugely pro-Remain. That in turn could lose the Tories 10% of their vote share.

It has to be a Brexiteer to take over. Yes, the 48% need a say and their feelings considered but if it had been 48/52 rather than 52/48 do we really think they would be saying the 48% of Leavers should get a say and have their needs considered in any future EU relationship? Of course not. It would simply be Remain for good.

So no, it won’t be either of those two, nor will it be Rudd or Hammond. It will, in all probability, be Davis or Raab, with Boris deliberately playing Brutus to clear the field for them, knowing he would never get shortlisted himself.

Clarets4me wrote:You clearly under-estimate the Conservative Party, which is, like it or not, one of the most successful Election winning parties in history ! Disrali, was a ( non practising ) Jew, they elected an unmarried man ( Heath ), two women ( Thatcher & May ). In all that time, Labour have elected middle class, white , mostly Christian males and nothing else.

The Conservative party is about power, because, they realise that without power, you can't change or control things ! They will happily elect a Scottish Lesbian leader, if they consider her the best chance of winning the next Election.

I'm no Tory, but who was it who introduced " Gay Marriage "? Labour, fearful of the backlash from it's traditional white working class vote, and it's Muslim voters, would never have dared ! Mrs Merkl voted against Gay Marriage earlier this year in the German Parliament, did you hear any word of comment from any British Labour Politician ? Of course not...

Errm... https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... riage-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More Tory MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it. Labour voted 217-22 in favour of it. So tell me more about how it was Labour who were terrified of losing white working class voters.

Would not kick Hedi out of home for any of you !!!!!

I wouldn`t bang either of them. Oh! It`s not that kind of thread.

IanMcL wrote:Not sure the blue rinse brigade would go for Ruth Davison.

You mean the same Ruth Davidson who was elected leader by party activists?

I am pretty certain Tory leaders come from MP's in the Commons these days. It used to be that the mantle of leadership was passed from Leader to leader by "taking soundings" but after 1963 things changed and became more democratic. I don't think someone not sitting as an MP can become leader. That being the case Ruth is a non starter. If she could be elected leader she would need to fight a by election to become an MP to become PM. From memory the last time a by election was held to shoe in an MP was when Wilson did it with Frank Cousins who was leader of the TGWU and Wilson made him a minister without a seat, which he got in a by election later in the 64-66 Parliament and more importantly Patrick Gordon Walker labour's Foreign Secretary who lost his Smethwick seat and then lost a by election engineered to get him back into Parliament.
So the Tories need to be careful; the electorate does not always like by elections caused for political reasons other than the loss of the sitting MP from death, illness or a good reason for applying to take the Chiltern Hundreds

lucs86 wrote:Davidson would be the most effective in holding off Labour's resurgence. She'd negate any potential gains Labour might get in Scotland and she'd have more appeal than May, Mogg and Johnson with the young voters Labour will be counting on.

"Resurgence"? Labour would appear to be a delusional party, lead by a delusional leader who has convinced himself that they lost out by a whisker at the last Parliamentary election.

Er, I think even Rowls will admit unless there is a change at the top AND a change of focus in the Conservative Party then Corbyn will win the next election.

The only reason I think may is still there is that no one wants the job till the brexit shitstorm has landed.

They are in as bad a situation as they were in 1963 IMO and whilst I believe JC will leave the Country worse off if he gets elected and does what he plans the situation that many folk under 40 face is that they see that they cannot match their aspirations and they have little knowledge of what it means when the IMF have to bale us out and how the Unions with power can cripple the Country even leaving the dead unburied and kids not at school because the school caretaker is on strike. JC's policies sound attractive and for far too long Governments have left the housing crisis fester.
When I left Uni everything was paid for vis a vis tuition fees-no one had to pay for them (needed back handers from my Dad as the grant was not enough-all gone half way through my first term on books and equipment). Within 3 years I had a mortgage on a property that cost 1.6 times my gross salary.
Today I would have at least £60k of debt from Uni and my property would be about 5 times my salary and my pay would be above the National average.
As Stan would say "A blind man on a galloping horse" can see the unfairness in the system and successive Governments could and should have been addressing it. JC is spot on when he says everyone should have a right to a decent home- the present crisis is not a crisis-it is a sore on society that has been festering for years.
I am no socialist these days but we should start by taking the land, developers are holding and not using, and freeing it up for Council houses and try to offer subsidised rents subject to means test, a sensible rent for those who can afford it and consider that rent as a mortgage for those wishing to eventually own the property. The building programme should continue until we have at least another 2-3 million homes so that supply equals demand or maybe exceeds it so that there is a slow fall (after inflation) in property values. Whilst we are at it these homes should be 21st century energy efficient to keep heating costs down.
Job done

ablueclaret wrote:for the next Tory leader.
Fancy either of these would significantly re-invent a Party heading for wilderness years.
Two major Parties living in fantasy land really isn't good for this country.

Think their best option is to dig Thatcher up!

mdd2 wrote:I am pretty certain Tory leaders come from MP's in the Commons these days. It used to be that the mantle of leadership was passed from Leader to leader by "taking soundings" but after 1963 things changed and became more democratic. I don't think someone not sitting as an MP can become leader. That being the case Ruth is a non starter. If she could be elected leader she would need to fight a by election to become an MP to become PM. From memory the last time a by election was held to shoe in an MP was when Wilson did it with Frank Cousins who was leader of the TGWU and Wilson made him a minister without a seat, which he got in a by election later in the 64-66 Parliament and more importantly Patrick Gordon Walker labour's Foreign Secretary who lost his Smethwick seat and then lost a by election engineered to get him back into Parliament.
So the Tories need to be careful; the electorate does not always like by elections caused for political reasons other than the loss of the sitting MP from death, illness or a good reason for applying to take the Chiltern Hundreds

I think it's rather simple if they want Davidson as leader.
May resigns, and presumably resigns from her constituency, (which is generally what ex-PMs do).
Tories have a caretaker leader whilst they elect a new leader. In the meantime Davidson stands as candidate in May's old seat, which is an absolute guaranteed Tory hold.
Davidson then stands and, if they have any sense they elect her.

Give it Boris! Him and Trump would be like Cannon and Ball reunited and running the world!!

Rowls wrote:You mean the same Ruth Davidson who was elected leader by party activists?

In Scotland not England.

.

Give it Giggsy till the end of the season.

IanMcL wrote:In Scotland not England.

Across the magical fairy border where all prejudices and hatreds disappear and turn to rainbows.

Rowls wrote:Across the magical fairy border where all prejudices and hatreds disappear and turn to rainbows.

Not all but different culture.

mdd2 wrote:They are in as bad a situation as they were in 1963 IMO and whilst I believe JC will leave the Country worse off if he gets elected and does what he plans the situation that many folk under 40 face is that they see that they cannot match their aspirations and they have little knowledge of what it means when the IMF have to bale us out and how the Unions with power can cripple the Country even leaving the dead unburied and kids not at school because the school caretaker is on strike. JC's policies sound attractive and for far too long Governments have left the housing crisis fester.
When I left Uni everything was paid for vis a vis tuition fees-no one had to pay for them (needed back handers from my Dad as the grant was not enough-all gone half way through my first term on books and equipment). Within 3 years I had a mortgage on a property that cost 1.6 times my gross salary.
Today I would have at least £60k of debt from Uni and my property would be about 5 times my salary and my pay would be above the National average.
As Stan would say "A blind man on a galloping horse" can see the unfairness in the system and successive Governments could and should have been addressing it. JC is spot on when he says everyone should have a right to a decent home- the present crisis is not a crisis-it is a sore on society that has been festering for years.
I am no socialist these days but we should start by taking the land, developers are holding and not using, and freeing it up for Council houses and try to offer subsidised rents subject to means test, a sensible rent for those who can afford it and consider that rent as a mortgage for those wishing to eventually own the property. The building programme should continue until we have at least another 2-3 million homes so that supply equals demand or maybe exceeds it so that there is a slow fall (after inflation) in property values. Whilst we are at it these homes should be 21st century energy efficient to keep heating costs down.
Job done

Sounds nice. Who pays for this ? Seize land off those greedy developers they shouldn't be allowed to make profits, pay taxes and employ people who pay taxes. Who subsidises it all ? Oh yes the taxpayer.

mdd2 wrote:They are in as bad a situation as they were in 1963 IMO and whilst I believe JC will leave the Country worse off if he gets elected and does what he plans the situation that many folk under 40 face is that they see that they cannot match their aspirations and they have little knowledge of what it means when the IMF have to bale us out and how the Unions with power can cripple the Country even leaving the dead unburied and kids not at school because the school caretaker is on strike. JC's policies sound attractive and for far too long Governments have left the housing crisis fester.
When I left Uni everything was paid for vis a vis tuition fees-no one had to pay for them (needed back handers from my Dad as the grant was not enough-all gone half way through my first term on books and equipment). Within 3 years I had a mortgage on a property that cost 1.6 times my gross salary.
Today I would have at least £60k of debt from Uni and my property would be about 5 times my salary and my pay would be above the National average.
As Stan would say "A blind man on a galloping horse" can see the unfairness in the system and successive Governments could and should have been addressing it. JC is spot on when he says everyone should have a right to a decent home- the present crisis is not a crisis-it is a sore on society that has been festering for years.
I am no socialist these days but we should start by taking the land, developers are holding and not using, and freeing it up for Council houses and try to offer subsidised rents subject to means test, a sensible rent for those who can afford it and consider that rent as a mortgage for those wishing to eventually own the property. The building programme should continue until we have at least another 2-3 million homes so that supply equals demand or maybe exceeds it so that there is a slow fall (after inflation) in property values. Whilst we are at it these homes should be 21st century energy efficient to keep heating costs down.
Job done

We don't have to take land from anyone, we just need to tax it differently to stop disincentivising development, and Corbyn has a plan for that. It's called the Land Value Tax. It's not a new idea, it's just newer than property tax. But of course it was dishonestly portrayed as a "garden tax" by the kinds of people who it would negatively affect, in order to frightened people into voting against their own interests.

It's a bit ridiculous that people who develop their land have to pay more tax than those who leave it idle. If we stop doing that then i don't think we'll see developers hoarding land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;