Why did it go so badly for the Conservatives?

First topic message reminder :

So the election is over and what was predicted to be an easy election just 8 weeks ago where the tories had a 20 point lead which would have resulted in a 100 seat majority has in fact turned into a horrible night for the tories where they actually LOST their majority.

So what went wrong? Was it the election debates that May appeared on? Was it May refusing to debate Corbyn 1v1? was it the dementia tax? or the U-turns? What was it that made her lose a 20 point lead in the space of 7 weeks?


Or was it just that Corbyn ran a better campaign?

What is the point in this section of the forum? It's not debate, it's people taking views based on party lines and nothing else, refusing to see the argument from the other side.

What does anyone get out of it?

Scottrf wrote:What is the point in this section of the forum? It's not debate, it's people taking views based on party lines and nothing else, refusing to see the argument from the other side.

What does anyone get out of it?

I didn't vote Labour.........Just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying we can't afford anymore nurses and then chucking out a 1 billion bribe.

As the old saying goes if you don't like this section......Don't come on to it..

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the DUP get a billion quid and the Queen gets an 8% pay rise.

Looks like there was a magic money tree after all.

Its almost as if austerity is a political ideology and not an economic necessity after all.  And people still vote for this lie.

Clearly some don't understand that the Queen's (i.e. one person) increase represents a tiny amount nationwide - the perception is another thing entirely. The DUP £billion I won't comment on as I think that deal stinks, regardless of affordability.

1 billion represents 0.13% of the budget - hardly a magical amount to try and find.

But these are modern times and post-truth is what matters, not facts.

During the Question Time election special a nurse told May that she had seen real time pay cuts for 7 consecutive years. She was told there was 'No magic money tree'. The billion pounds May has handed to the DUP would have hired an extra 26000 nurses.

If its hardly a magical amount to find, why did May patronizingly brush this woman off?

Samo wrote:

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the DUP get a billion quid and the Queen gets an 8% pay rise.

Looks like there was a magic money tree after all.

Its almost as if austerity is a political ideology and not an economic necessity after all.  And people still vote for this lie.

Clearly some don't understand that the Queen's (i.e. one person) increase represents a tiny amount nationwide - the perception is another thing entirely. The DUP £billion I won't comment on as I think that deal stinks, regardless of affordability.

1 billion represents 0.13% of the budget - hardly a magical amount to try and find.

But these are modern times and post-truth is what matters, not facts.

During the Question Time election special a nurse told May that she had seen real time pay cuts for 7 consecutive years.  She was told there was 'No magic money tree'.  The billion pounds May has handed to the DUP would have hired an extra 26000 nurses.

If its hardly a magical amount to find, why did May patronizingly brush this woman off?

How many shelters for the homeless ????..........

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It is entirely the point, it just doesn't suit your agenda.

Feel free to back this feeble argument up with something. Anything.

I have, your turn.

Pr4wn wrote:

Ent wrote:Just to be clear I am centre left and support new labour ideals.

Both conservative and Labour manifestos were poor and the electorate had poor options to choose from.

However - the labour manifesto was an absolute fantasy.

No more of a fantasy than the Tory manifesto, the economic premise was just different.

Also, while a billion quid may not be much to you, especially when you compared it to the entire budget, which does nobody any favours, it is a lot of money. This is a billion pounds that was found, seemingly out of thin air, when the rich had their taxes cut and the public sector are earning less than they were in 2008. Homelessness has doubled since the Tories were in government and food bank use is at a record high. Now inflation is rising along with the wealth gap.

That's the point with this figure. Everyone knows that, compared with the entire economy, it's a relatively small figure, but that's not the point.

How was the conservative manifesto a fantasy? It lacked detail but was based on the previous government plan and the most recent budget - you may disagree with it but it can't be called fantasy.

The Labour party did not cost any of it's nationalisation projects and got its sums wrong:

The IFS says the sums don’t add up. The projections are too optimistic on how much money will be raised by various taxes, and Labour have made basic accounting errors too, like quoting the wrong official figures for estimated revenue.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-ifs-verdict-on-labour-tory-and-lib-dem-spending-plans

It is utter fantasy to suggest that taxing the rich and corporations could pay for what labour promised. We would all need to pay more tax to attempt to get close to this.

A billion pounds is clearly a lot to me, but when the treasury is spending £784 billion a year it isn't that much to ensure a government can be formed. This money isn't going into peoples pockets (well until the DUP hire their mates to do the work again) but into mental health resources and infrastructure projects in NI. The most recent general election cost £143 million, so there is that to consider too.

I am no fan of the conservative party, but the labour party under Corbyn are a joke and I reiterate I think the electorate had poor options to choose from in the GE.

Samo wrote:

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the DUP get a billion quid and the Queen gets an 8% pay rise.

Looks like there was a magic money tree after all.

Its almost as if austerity is a political ideology and not an economic necessity after all.  And people still vote for this lie.

Clearly some don't understand that the Queen's (i.e. one person) increase represents a tiny amount nationwide - the perception is another thing entirely. The DUP £billion I won't comment on as I think that deal stinks, regardless of affordability.

1 billion represents 0.13% of the budget - hardly a magical amount to try and find.

But these are modern times and post-truth is what matters, not facts.

During the Question Time election special a nurse told May that she had seen real time pay cuts for 7 consecutive years.  She was told there was 'No magic money tree'.  The billion pounds May has handed to the DUP would have hired an extra 26000 nurses.

If its hardly a magical amount to find, why did May patronizingly brush this woman off?

For one there are not 26000 nurses lying around, you have to take into account the costs and time to train them. Then you have to pay their pension and NI contributions, then of course it is a recurring cost as you do not just pay them once (unlike this money to the NI executive). You also have to take into account that in a female dominated job market you need to cover for maternity leave which again has cost implications.

So no the billion pounds would not have hired 26000 nurses, these things are not that simple. It costs half a billion pounds to give NHS staff a 1% pay rise (every year).

Scottrf wrote:What is the point in this section of the forum? It's not debate, it's people taking views based on party lines and nothing else, refusing to see the argument from the other side.

What does anyone get out of it?

I did not vote for either the conservatives or labour party.

Part of the reason we are in this mess is how ill informed people are, this section was of great use to me in the run up to the EU referendum - it could be useful for some people.

Ent wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Ent wrote:Just to be clear I am centre left and support new labour ideals.

Both conservative and Labour manifestos were poor and the electorate had poor options to choose from.

However - the labour manifesto was an absolute fantasy.

No more of a fantasy than the Tory manifesto, the economic premise was just different.

Also, while a billion quid may not be much to you, especially when you compared it to the entire budget, which does nobody any favours, it is a lot of money. This is a billion pounds that was found, seemingly out of thin air, when the rich had their taxes cut and the public sector are earning less than they were in 2008. Homelessness has doubled since the Tories were in government and food bank use is at a record high. Now inflation is rising along with the wealth gap.

That's the point with this figure. Everyone knows that, compared with the entire economy, it's a relatively small figure, but that's not the point.

How was the conservative manifesto a fantasy? It lacked detail but was based on the previous government plan and the most recent budget - you may disagree with it but it can't be called fantasy.

The Labour party did not cost any of it's nationalisation projects and got its sums wrong:

The IFS says the sums don’t add up. The projections are too optimistic on how much money will be raised by various taxes, and Labour have made basic accounting errors too, like quoting the wrong official figures for estimated revenue.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-ifs-verdict-on-labour-tory-and-lib-dem-spending-plans

It is utter fantasy to suggest that taxing the rich and corporations could pay for what labour promised. We would all need to pay more tax to attempt to get close to this.

A billion pounds is clearly a lot to me, but when the treasury is spending £784 billion a year it isn't that much to ensure a government can be formed. This money isn't going into peoples pockets (well until the DUP hire their mates to do the work again) but into mental health resources and infrastructure projects in NI. The most recent general election cost £143 million, so there is that to consider too.

I am no fan of the conservative party, but the labour party under Corbyn are a joke and I reiterate I think the electorate had poor options to choose from in the GE.

All manifestos are bollox (Remember the 350 million for the NHS from Boris and pals at the ref ??) why pick on Labour's ??..and If you can't see the hypocrisy of saying there isn't any money for nurses etc and then chucking out a billion as a bribe to the DUP then don't vote...

The reason we are in this Brexit hole is because of people that haven't got a clue..

Pr4wn wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It is entirely the point, it just doesn't suit your agenda.

Feel free to back this feeble argument up with something. Anything.

I have, your turn.

You stated your factless feeble opinion and I stated mine.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Ent wrote:Just to be clear I am centre left and support new labour ideals.

Both conservative and Labour manifestos were poor and the electorate had poor options to choose from.

However - the labour manifesto was an absolute fantasy.

No more of a fantasy than the Tory manifesto, the economic premise was just different.

Also, while a billion quid may not be much to you, especially when you compared it to the entire budget, which does nobody any favours, it is a lot of money. This is a billion pounds that was found, seemingly out of thin air, when the rich had their taxes cut and the public sector are earning less than they were in 2008. Homelessness has doubled since the Tories were in government and food bank use is at a record high. Now inflation is rising along with the wealth gap.

That's the point with this figure. Everyone knows that, compared with the entire economy, it's a relatively small figure, but that's not the point.

How was the conservative manifesto a fantasy? It lacked detail but was based on the previous government plan and the most recent budget - you may disagree with it but it can't be called fantasy.

The Labour party did not cost any of it's nationalisation projects and got its sums wrong:

The IFS says the sums don’t add up. The projections are too optimistic on how much money will be raised by various taxes, and Labour have made basic accounting errors too, like quoting the wrong official figures for estimated revenue.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-ifs-verdict-on-labour-tory-and-lib-dem-spending-plans

It is utter fantasy to suggest that taxing the rich and corporations could pay for what labour promised. We would all need to pay more tax to attempt to get close to this.

A billion pounds is clearly a lot to me, but when the treasury is spending £784 billion a year it isn't that much to ensure a government can be formed. This money isn't going into peoples pockets (well until the DUP hire their mates to do the work again) but into mental health resources and infrastructure projects in NI. The most recent general election cost £143 million, so there is that to consider too.

I am no fan of the conservative party, but the labour party under Corbyn are a joke and I reiterate I think the electorate had poor options to choose from in the GE.

All manifestos are bollox (Remember the 350 million for the NHS from Boris and pals at the ref ??) why pick on Labour's ??..and If you can't see the hypocrisy of saying there isn't any money for nurses etc and then chucking out a billion as a bribe to the DUP then don't vote...

The reason we are in this Brexit hole is because of people that haven't got a clue..

The £350 million wasn't a manifesto though was it? I suppose it might have made it into UKIPs at one point.

Picking on Labours because it is absolute utter nonsense and independent financial bodies have said the same. Already criticised the conservatives (fox hunting a real vote winner) but it lacked detail and was based on the previous budget so there isn't much to go on.

Explained the non sensical points RE nurses already.

The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

Is this pay rise for one year only? If not, it's not equal to a one off bribe.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

I'd much rather austerity than a socialist paradise where laziness is rewarded.

The £1billion for Northern Ireland highlights that people on the whole are only interested in what benefits them, £500mil for the NHS in England would be a good thing as far as people like Samo are concerned.

I can't speak for the whole country but the incompetence of nursing in my area is the main reason I no longer use the NHS, there are some fabulous doctors and nurses out there but you must first help yourself.

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

Is this pay rise for one year only? If not, it's not equal to a one off bribe.

It isn't a one off bribe............The DUP deal is for two years.........They will take some more dough after then...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

Is this pay rise for one year only? If not, it's not equal to a one off bribe.

It isn't a one off bribe............The DUP deal is for two years.........They will take some more dough after then...

Have you a source for this?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

I'd much rather austerity than a socialist paradise where laziness is rewarded.

I didn't realise it was one or the other...

But there you go......Life is black and white if you want it to be..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

I'd much rather austerity than a socialist paradise where laziness is rewarded.

I didn't realise it was one or the other...

But there you go......Life is black and white if you want it to be..

That's the choice between the Tories and Corbyn's socialist fantasy party.

Ent wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

Is this pay rise for one year only? If not, it's not equal to a one off bribe.

It isn't a one off bribe............The DUP deal is for two years.........They will take some more dough after then...

Have you a source for this?

You did know that the deal is to be reviewed after two years ??

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

I'd much rather austerity than a socialist paradise where laziness is rewarded.

The £1billion for Northern Ireland highlights that people on the whole are only interested in what benefits them, £500mil for the NHS in England would be a good thing as far as people like Samo are concerned.

I can't speak for the whole country but the incompetence of nursing in my area is the main reason I no longer use the NHS, there are some fabulous doctors and nurses out there but you must first help yourself.

Nursing standards in the NHS are falling because of their working conditions, too few nurses, too many complicated patients. Bit of a low blow to have a go at them.

Private providers only interested in what they can make a profit from and don't provide all the essential services, you could end up back with the NHS depending on how your luck is (and I don't mean financial).

Bit of a myth surrounding private health care, same Doctors and nurses tend to work across both sectors. Facts are in private care you don't have to take on overly sick/complex patients or an unmanageable work load.

The NHS is currently short by 20,000 nurses on what is required. 1 in 10 nurse posts are unfilled and 29% of nurses are over the age of 50 (so there's a bigger timebomb going to go off pretty soon do to the aging workforce), the Royal College of Nursing have requested for visa restrictions to be relaxed so they can try to address the shortfall yet instead they're being tightened due to Brexit.
Understaffed, underpaid, overworked, that's why they get labelled as 'incompetent' by HH.

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the DUP get a billion quid and the Queen gets an 8% pay rise.

Looks like there was a magic money tree after all.

Its almost as if austerity is a political ideology and not an economic necessity after all.  And people still vote for this lie.

Clearly some don't understand that the Queen's (i.e. one person) increase represents a tiny amount nationwide - the perception is another thing entirely. The DUP £billion I won't comment on as I think that deal stinks, regardless of affordability.

1 billion represents 0.13% of the budget - hardly a magical amount to try and find.

But these are modern times and post-truth is what matters, not facts.

Sorry. I must be in another Universe as I'm sure I posted that I wasn't commenting on the £billion the DUP have screwed out of May et al...

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The cost to the tax payer would be 500m for every 1% salaries go up in the NHS ......Current salary bill is 50 billion..

So you'll be happy for a 2% rise for Nurses et al won't you.. ...

Though I imagine Austerity is only for times when the Tories aren't in need of electoral help..

I'd much rather austerity than a socialist paradise where laziness is rewarded.

The £1billion for Northern Ireland highlights that people on the whole are only interested in what benefits them, £500mil for the NHS in England would be a good thing as far as people like Samo are concerned.

I can't speak for the whole country but the incompetence of nursing in my area is the main reason I no longer use the NHS, there are some fabulous doctors and nurses out there but you must first help yourself.

Are you implying that an extra £500m for the NHS would be a bad thing?  

Im Scottish, and our NHS is a devolved issue so what happens in England and Wales doesnt really affect me, but I still want to see the best done for the people of England and Wales because Im a human being capable of feeling a shred of empathy for another person.

I'd suggest you either foe me or ignore my posts, writing that after every post is contributing nothing.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the DUP get a billion quid and the Queen gets an 8% pay rise.

Looks like there was a magic money tree after all.

Its almost as if austerity is a political ideology and not an economic necessity after all.  And people still vote for this lie.

Clearly some don't understand that the Queen's (i.e. one person) increase represents a tiny amount nationwide - the perception is another thing entirely. The DUP £billion I won't comment on as I think that deal stinks, regardless of affordability.

1 billion represents 0.13% of the budget - hardly a magical amount to try and find.

But these are modern times and post-truth is what matters, not facts.

Sorry. I must be in another Universe as I'm sure I posted that I wasn't commenting on the £billion the DUP have screwed out of May et al...

Follow the quote thread, you commented on the 8% for the Queen and I the DUP deal.

May is apparently looking at the cap on public sector pay..

Seems like Labour won the Election after all...

A prime minister that listens to the will of the people.

Actually, no. The Labour amendment to lift the Public Sector pay freeze was rejected by the Tories and the DUP.

I'd imagine that the mutterings around lifting the cap were due to uncertainty of getting the DUP and sufficient Tory MPs on board with the vote.

A Prime Minister that listens to the will of the people.

Pr4wn wrote:Actually, no. The Labour amendment to lift the Public Sector pay freeze was rejected by the Tories and the DUP.

I'd imagine that the mutterings around lifting the cap were due to uncertainty of getting the DUP and sufficient Tory MPs on board with the vote.

A Prime Minister that listens to the will of the people.

It was an amendment to the Queen's speech (not just containing the 1% cap removal) that was voted against, not a vote on the 1% pay cap - a number of conservative MPs back removing that so that vote would have won.

Remains to be seen what happens, conflicting reports coming out of Downing street. I imagine the purse strings may loosen once there is some news RE free trade post leaving the EU.

Don't go using facts Ent.

Amendment to the Queen's speech...

I bet it was..and you guys accuse me of spinning..

Ent wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Actually, no. The Labour amendment to lift the Public Sector pay freeze was rejected by the Tories and the DUP.

I'd imagine that the mutterings around lifting the cap were due to uncertainty of getting the DUP and sufficient Tory MPs on board with the vote.

A Prime Minister that listens to the will of the people.

It was an amendment to the Queen's speech (not just containing the 1% cap removal) that was voted against, not a vote on the 1% pay cap - a number of conservative MPs back removing that so that vote would have won.

Remains to be seen what happens, conflicting reports coming out of Downing street. I imagine the purse strings may loosen once there is some news RE free trade post leaving the EU.

The amendment to the Queen's Speech in question called for an end to cuts to the emergency services and an end to the public sector pay cap, I believe. And it was defeated.

Pr4wn wrote:

Ent wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Actually, no. The Labour amendment to lift the Public Sector pay freeze was rejected by the Tories and the DUP.

I'd imagine that the mutterings around lifting the cap were due to uncertainty of getting the DUP and sufficient Tory MPs on board with the vote.

A Prime Minister that listens to the will of the people.

It was an amendment to the Queen's speech (not just containing the 1% cap removal) that was voted against, not a vote on the 1% pay cap - a number of conservative MPs back removing that so that vote would have won.

Remains to be seen what happens, conflicting reports coming out of Downing street. I imagine the purse strings may loosen once there is some news RE free trade post leaving the EU.

The amendment to the Queen's Speech in question called for an end to cuts to the emergency services and an end to the public sector pay cap, I believe. And it was defeated.

Amendment

Spoiler:

The amendment was defeated, lot of politicking in it though - lifting the 1% pay cap alone would have been far more likely to succeed. It can always be done at another time.

Ent isn't a Tory by the way..

Ten point plan..

1 Don't call an election on the spur of the moment.
2 Don't take the people for granted
3 Don't rely on slogans
4 Don't campaign negatively for 6 weeks
5 Understand Social media because kids do and it is the future.
6 Don't Bottle out of debates
7 Don't take the pee out of young voters by saying they are lazy because they will just share your message on twitter
8 Come across as human the Public like it..
9 Ordinary folk don't like Fox hunting.
10 If the Queen is willing to go to Grenfell don't say your bottling is security related.

Boom...With a capital B

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Don't go using facts Ent.

I got banned for this comment?

mighty atom wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Don't go using facts Ent.

I got banned for this comment?

Welcome back....Pr4wny is having a bad day he won't even tell me what his favorite color is..

But we all have bad days..

Let's move on.

mighty atom wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Don't go using facts Ent.

I got banned for this comment?

I banned you the other day for insulting another user. Haven't touched you today. Thank goodness.

Conservatives really showing their new found caring for all approach in the House of Commons last night where they cheered defeating the bill to give nurses, firefighters etc more than the 1% pay rise. That won't rub up the public sector workers at all will it.

They also cheered and laughed at a terrorist attack in Venezuela.

These next few months/years (however long the government lasts) are going to be fun. Whenever there's a hint of defeat on anything they'll simply cave in. Strong and stable?

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the DUP get a billion quid and the Queen gets an 8% pay rise.

Looks like there was a magic money tree after all.

Its almost as if austerity is a political ideology and not an economic necessity after all.  And people still vote for this lie.

Clearly some don't understand that the Queen's (i.e. one person) increase represents a tiny amount nationwide - the perception is another thing entirely. The DUP £billion I won't comment on as I think that deal stinks, regardless of affordability.

1 billion represents 0.13% of the budget - hardly a magical amount to try and find.

But these are modern times and post-truth is what matters, not facts.

Sorry. I must be in another Universe as I'm sure I posted that I wasn't commenting on the £billion the DUP have screwed out of May et al...

Follow the quote thread, you commented on the 8% for the Queen and I the DUP deal.

Ah well, missed that nuance. Entirely me

"Dozens of Tory Mps have emailed Andrea Leadsom asking her to run for leader"..

Now I can understand having a lame duck leader is frustrating but...

She is worse than May.......

#masochism

Rather have Hammond as interim

Not sure they can afford to have another leader without the party voting.

May had a coronation........My guess is Hammond won't have the support of the majority...

Davis v Boris most likely..

Boris always in the frame but not sure where his support is.

Davis would take the eurosceptic vote I assume.

Not sure the Tories could hold a vote without another GE mind.

For me the Tories need to get Ruth Davidson into a safe seat asap and then start building her up to take over the party.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not sure they can afford to have another leader without the party voting.

May had a coronation........My guess is Hammond won't have the support of the majority...

Davis v Boris most likely..

If that's actually the only realistic option for them, they really are FUBAR.

Hero wrote:For me the Tories need to get Ruth Davidson into a safe seat asap and then start building her up to take over the party.

Given how popular wee Ruth seems to be with the more 'Orange' contingent in Scotland thats a terrifying prospect.

I'll give her one thing, she's a bloody good politician and hides the more sinister side of her party well. She seems to have managed to convince people that shes not like other Tories even if the mask does slip occasionally.

Samo wrote:

Hero wrote:For me the Tories need to get Ruth Davidson into a safe seat asap and then start building her up to take over the party.

Given how popular wee Ruth seems to be with the more 'Orange' contingent in Scotland thats a terrifying prospect.

I'll give her one thing, she's a bloody good politician and hides the more sinister side of her party well.  She seems to have managed to convince people that shes not like other Tories even if the mask does slip occasionally.

The elephant in the room is she is a lesbian....130 Tories voted against the same sex marriage bill...............I imagine most are still in Westminster.........