Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
freudian slip. I mean defects of course!
Not sure whether to be happy the right is splitting, or sad people can seriously entertain UKIPs dubious ideals in todays day and age.
I suppose overall I'm sad. But it's good that the Tories are suffering.
He drinks enough to be a Ukipper
Not sure he's got as much going for him as Carswell does - if his vote splits then Labour aren't actually too far behind. Probably good news for UKIP even if he does lose it though - keeps their profile well up.
Invented by David Cameron when "The Big Society" was still a thing.
as Third Sector Minister actually: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Smith,_Baroness_Smith_of_Basildon
Anyone who doesn't understand why the post exists clearly doesn't have a clue how much the last few governments have used charities to provide public services.
I didn't realise Cameron just renamed it. Just saw the list of previous holders went back to 2010 and assumed it was invented then - https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/parliamentary-secretary-minister-for-civil-society
The 'Big Society' agenda was not part of the responsibilities of the post previously. There is a difference between utilising charities to provide public services and using them as a means to reduce the size of government.
as saying it shouldn't be a cabinet position though, eh?
I could have more clearly criticised the current version of the Third Sector position in this Government, rather than the general principle of having a Third Sector position.
(please no fact-loving bores interrupt us with "the answer"). I've heard that he was running an operation to smuggle weapons into Chechnya, in order to fund his wife's coke habit. Think the papers found out through an elaborate honeytrap investigation involving Richard Littlejohn in a burqa.
"American-born Newmark, who has two homes including a £2.2million property in posh Belgravia in central London, regularly attends social events with his wife Lucy, with whom he has four sons and a daughter, and pal Boris Johnson. He has also been snapped at Tory functions with bigwigs including Baroness Thatcher."
If you're going to disgrace yourself then go for a botched asphyxiwank or a massive drug-fuelled orgy or something, not just getting the old man out on Twitter for a Guardian reporter.
But if you have to send someone "intimate pictures" before they respond in kind, you're probably not winning a Pulitzer for your unmasking of "inappropriate use of social media".
i don't think i'm being overdramatic here but that sounds like absolutely the least sexy thing in the history of time
Having said that, the Mirror are gonna have to fork out some damages to the Swedish model whose Instagram pics they used to lure him
I wonder if there was a wide net cast in this sting or whether he was specifically targeted because he'd had (rumoured) previous ?
It's a bit of a mucky piece of journalism all round.
but apparently this 'freelance' journo was fishing round loads of MPs. Deliciously clueless stuff though.
if nothing else.
"The website Buzzfeed recovered tweets from the since-deleted account describing Robert Jenrick as a 'fitty' and Charlie Elphick as a 'legend'. Both MPs sent polite replies."
In spite of his initial `stick to your knitting` faux pas (his later clarification over this was reasonable enough, to be fair) he seemed to be getting pretty well stuck in with brief and pretty engaged with the sector but... ah well. He's a silly sod, mind.
Most of the people I know who work in the third sector and have had to deal with him have said quite the opposite.
I know no-one who's had any direct dealings with him in his very, very brief time as minister. What did they say then?
But he and his department have not made it a secret that they will seek to marginalise charities that seek to campaign on UK-based issues. Nick Hurd was pretty ineffectual, but at least he got involved with the campaigning charities, even if it was only those focussed on environmental issues. Hurd was spineless when it came to standing up to IDS and Gove and their criticism of the sector, but Newmark seemed to by-pass the need for that by doing the briefing himself.
how the minister in that role can actually `marginalise` charities that seek to campaign on UK-based issues. How would they do that? Be interested to hear about what that actually means but, I suppose we don't have to worry about that now Newmark's resigned...
All Ministers for Civil Society will have to toe the line re: the new Lobbying Bill also. So his stance seems reasonably congruent with that... (wonder if Labour would seek to repeal it if they got in - haven't heard anything about that).
or consultation groups or steering committees; excluding them from seeing draft documents etc etc etc. All ministers in every department have their favourite consultants, Newmark made it pretty clear who his weren't.
Amazed he had that level of tangible impact on them seeing as he was only in post for 2 months... To be honest, it's pretty clear what sort of charities the Tories have the knives out for at the moment (i.e. anyone who dares mention poverty in the UK).
(in terms of resulting policy), but in terms of being engaged with the sector etc, you can set the tone very easily in a couple of months.
Should have seen it coming with a guy called Reckless to be fair!
"...and the damage deposit is £25, can I take your name please?"
"Yes, it's Mr Reckless"
"ah...could you hold for a moment"
Well I, for one, welcome our new Farage overlord.
claim to drink more than they do
This ain't gonna be a 1983 moment. Although the amount of shooting selves in footery over on the right wing of the Tory party is rather astounding.
and depending on whether the Tories are in power or not (they definitely won't be at this rate), possibly post referendum. I don't see a way they can avoid splitting unless they completely withdraw from Europe entirely, particularly with UKIP providing a more natural home for the right flank of the party.
I don't see UKIP lasting as a reasonable alternative who can realistically govern. Plus a lot of rancour is due to a hatred of Cameron, rather than a lot of Tories really believing in UKIP's insane spending policies. Amazing how many within the Conservative party think that for it to win majorities at elections it needs to be MORE right wing. They had this problem in the New Labour years... (and look where it got 'em.)
Boris and Sajid Javid both standing as leader (one libertarian populist, one cast-iron tax-obliterating Thatcherite) would help bring the UKIP flirters back onside. Think Osbourne's gonna have to sit it out I'm afraid.
is said to be how well he plays politics, he's almost certain to have been outmaneuvered by several people when it comes to the leadership.
Expected it to be another MP or an MEP though to try and steal the headlines from Dave properly. Seemed more like Farage's style to try and get the limelight on UKIP on a day when it's supposed to be all about Dave's vision for the NHS.
Incidentally, one of Boris' old deputy mayors went yesterday too. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/richard-barnes-ditches-tories-for-ukip-mayors-former-righthand-man-defects-9763938.html
It's going to be a steady stream for a while, but the Tories probably won't sweat it too much unless more MPs go. The next big deal is going to be Carswell's by-election win.
wouldn't you, like it did the Ulster Unionists back in the dog days if the Major government? But no, they're not exercising their increased leverage at all.
of doing/saying nothing during another party's conference. I expect theirs to be one part self-congratulatory about how they've kept their discipline and one part stoic about their impending electoral defeat next year though. Same as the last three or four years.
They desperately need new leadership and to break with the broken promises of the Yellow Book group, but that's not going to happen until after the election so they can 'prove they're mature enough for government'.
I think they'll still hold the balance of power in the next parliament, so I think Clegg and co will still be around at the top for another five years or so.
I'm undecided at the moment whether it's going to be a Labour majority or Lib/Lab coalition. It's possible that in the latter case that Labour make Clegg's resignation as leader a condition of talking the way that the Lib Dems did with Brown in 2010, but that doesn't solve the problem of Danny Alexander, David Laws and co holding a lot of power in the party.
they could be happier just working as a rump of Economic Liberals with a lot of the Social Democrats seemingly having defected to Labour and/or the Greens.
Although looking at personal relationships... don't bet against another Clegg/Cameron union. The ConDem union came about not through electoral ethics, but through the fact that Cameron was someone Clegg could do business with, and not Brown owing to Clegg and Cameron's values being closer aligned through similarity of background (cf. Matt D'Ancona's fabulous book `In It Together`).
Although regarding that - it's getting more likely that even if Cameron is still PM post-2015, he'll be getting an ousting at some point. Don't think even Clegg would be stupid enough to broker a union with him again given that...
Either way, I'm looking forward to how hilariously flat the Lib Dems conference is going to be. The flattest conference in the flattest conference season in god knows how long.
then Clegg will be out the door in no time. It'll surely be the first condition of any deal.
And to be honest Clegg looks tired and sad. I think he's had enough.
I'll reckon he'll go lap up bare €€€€€s in some nonsense EU lobbying job instead.
being returned as the powerbrokers will be seen as an endorsement of his leadership. Whether he's pulled down from the inside is another matter. I think Labour would struggle to force his departure as a condition of any deal.
I stand corrected. Couldn't remember the actual colour and couldn't be bothered to look it up!
'defection' for me isn't that he has crossed the floor (he'd already stood as an Independent anyway), but that Boris hasn't removed him from his position on the TfL board as a result.
As others have said before, Boris doesn't have positions, he has ambitions.
Notice how Boris yesterday gave pretty much the same speech as he gave last year except for the fact he waved a brick around for a bit. Tickled the tummies of the Tory faithful who lap him up, talked about the essence of Conservatism but... once again, zero substance. He can only go so far with that.
By contrast Theresa May yesterday appeared to position herself as the sensible conscientious Conservative's choice for the leadership yesterday. Who'd have thought given the horrors of her voting record pre-2010 that she'd emerge as the most likely `best worst option` post-Cameron...
Ibstock and other brick manufacturers have just started reactivating plants that were mothballed after this government came to power and cut investment spending to the extent that it couldn't cover the shortfall in housing construction. Boris suggested that brick manufacturing was booming, which it's not, it's now just marginally higher than the record lows experienced over the past couple of years.
Theresa May's speech was an odd one. It shows you how far to the right and divorced from reality the Tory party now stands when an anti ECHR-speech riddled with inaccuracies makes someone look like the moderate choice for party leader.
I thought the brick was just meant to represent house-building, but that's a cracking rebuttal.
I've heard a couple of journos say that opposition to ECHR is a Cameron/Osbourne/Hague policy and that she's merely toeing the line on it. Could be wrong mind. Within the Tory party - only those 3 meet regularly, May is very rarely invited to their off-the-record meetings and briefings and such. Just shows the horribly antiquated attitudes within the party go all the way to the top.
May's speech seemed moderate for one reason - she's the only person at this conference who seems to have spoken with any real compassion about anyone (her long bit about stop and search). Expected at a Tory conference but Polly Toynbee's article yesterday for the Guardian was notable for highlighting just HOW uncompassionate this particular lot are.
Think that's why he was moved from the Foreign Office?
A look at the cabinet now is like a who's who of EU/EcHR/HRA hating nutters
voraciously campaigning against the EU. He's softened for sure, but he's not really moderate.
He's moved from the Foreign Office because he's standing down as an MP next year and because his barely hidden apathy towards the job was starting to become gravely noticeable. Understandable on a personal level, but not who you want in the role.
are against the ECHR. The judgment on prisoners' voting has been a recurring nightmare for every recent Home Secretary.
Benefits cuts for the poor!
Human rights no longer for all humans!
More accurate is:
- If you're wealthy: awesome!
- If you're comfortable/middle class: awesome!
- If you're the working poor: fingers crossed the raising of the personal allowance offsets the value of the benefits/tax credits you'll lose!
- If you're non-working poor: you are fucking screwed!
Not gonna quit ECHR though. Which is some sort of progress...
It's effectively impossible without quitting the EU first.
The British Bill of Rights guff is probably more dangerous anyway though as it will add a veneer of legitimacy to the issues of appropriate forums which Labour and the Tories have both tried to exploit in recent years (shouldn't our Supreme Court be supreme?, etc.) as well as likely making basic rights conditional on citizenship or - worst-case scenario - behaviour such as tax-paying, effectively so that we can do whatever the fuck we like to non-Brits.
You can leave one and remain in the other
And the only Tory with any apparent understanding of the law disagrees: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jul/15/dominic-grieve-warns-uk-withdrawal-human-rights-court-echr
Although I agree it would be very hard to remain in, but not impossible
The EcHR has 47 member countries, all in the Council of Europe. This includes countries not currently in the EU (Like Bosnia, Georgia, Serbia etc)
EU is an entirely separate entity, but very heavily integrated into the EcHR and Council of Europe
My point was really just that the government's legal advisors have stressed it's a no-go for some time now. The ongoing "debate" about ECHR has come from two things: 1) Ministers who want to disregard the legal advice, even though that's not going to happen; and 2) a desparation to fit a "British" Bill of Rights into part of a broader EU-bashing narrative.
You can join the ECHR / Council of Europe without being a member of the EU. But in order to be a member of the EU, you also have to be a member of the ECHR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Fundamental_rights (although this says it's a political not a legal requirement...)
I think raising the tax allowance is broadly a good thing, but not if it's at the expense of benefits. Basically seems like a way of punishing the unemployed (or underemployed).
As for letting rich people dodge more tax and scrapping the human rights act... even when we knew the hug-a-huskie early Cameron was just an act, I never thought he'd veer this far to the right.
is that Dave's terrified of UKIP eroding the Tory core vote and he's going to do his best to put forward policies that will appeal to potential UKIP voters next year to try and stop the leak.
[inserts humourously modified version of post from last time I posted about a David Cameron speech]
he did the NHS bit again.
It was brilliant last time and it's brilliant this time. Consistency is key.
Will announce his defection at 5pm.
Dunno, could be someone shit-stirring.
Every MP there will be on edge. Probably some stirring by a mischievous journalist. My money's on Simon Jenkins.
Although it's also got every possibility of being true. If so, Dave will be fucking fuming after giving a speech which should ordinarily get him very, very favourable media coverage. (Pretty sure I saw Tim Montgomerie ACTUALLY spaff himself on BBC News after lunch).
Might be another defection. Might just be a boring donation.
now THAT would be pure bants
Sounds like an astute businessman.
"Tories resent the poor"
"This party is the trade union for children from the poorest estates and the most chaotic homes. This party is the union for the young woman who wants an apprenticeship.For the teenagers who want to make something of their lives. This is who we resent."
He only resents poor people who want to succeed in life. Presumably, as long as you are happy to remain in poverty he has no problem with you.
registered under different variations of his own name. It's like Grant Shapps meets Foley.