Poll
Question:
Who Will Succeed David Cameron As Conservative Party Leader And PM?
Option 1: Boris Johnson
votes: 10
Option 2: Theresa May
votes: 0
Option 3: George Osborne
votes: 6
Option 4: Wild card - Jim Davidson / Gyles Brandreth / Any Other Loon / Jaron
votes: 4
David Cameron isn't going to last out this full 5 year parliament as leader of the conservative party and Prime Minister.
Today it became rather evident that the manoeuvring and canvassing for the coming leadership election has begun.
These three seem to be the clear cut leading candidates, so who do you think likely to win or who'd you like to see become PM?
If you want photos google them. :P
I hope it's the commie.
I voted for the Mormon.
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 09:52:07 PM
:blink:
There are commies inside the Conservative party? :hmm:
You asked two different questions. I responded to one of them.
I'm pulling for James Hacker.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 09:56:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 09:52:07 PM
:blink:
There are commies inside the Conservative party? :hmm:
You asked two different questions. I responded to one of them.
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Gotcha. Then I vote that Cameron will not resign, and I hope the next PM will be the commie.
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Who do you think likely to win and who would you like to win are not at all the same question, even if they do sound similar...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Gotcha. Then I vote that Cameron will not resign, and I hope the next PM will be the commie.
OK, but do catch some of the recent coverage of the jockeying for position, especially at the current party conference and you'll probably see how unlikely you prediction is, I should say of Cameron staying the course, not the 'commie' winning the election. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 06, 2015, 10:04:21 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Who do you think likely to win and who would you like to win are not at all the same question, even if they do sound similar...
No I was referring to the thread title and poll question being the same in effect; it's up to you to choose who you think will win or who you want to win, after all I can't stop you having personal preferences. Though you're perfectly at liberty to vote on way in the poll, but then qualify it by saying something like " I voted X as most likely to win, but would like to see Y win"
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Gotcha. Then I vote that Cameron will not resign, and I hope the next PM will be the commie.
OK, but do catch some of the recent coverage of the jockeying for position, especially at the current party conference and you'll probably see how unlikely you prediction is, I should say of Cameron staying the course, not the 'commie' winning the election. :)
So the man wins an unexpected an rather significant electoral victory, and the party response is to turn him out?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 06, 2015, 10:10:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Gotcha. Then I vote that Cameron will not resign, and I hope the next PM will be the commie.
OK, but do catch some of the recent coverage of the jockeying for position, especially at the current party conference and you'll probably see how unlikely you prediction is, I should say of Cameron staying the course, not the 'commie' winning the election. :)
So the man wins an unexpected an rather significant electoral victory, and the party response is to turn him out?
Thatcher won a historic 3rd general election in 87 with a majority of over 100 seats and yet was kicked out by her own party 3 1/2 years later.
And GHWB had approval ratings of 90% in 1991.
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:20:41 PM
Thatcher won a historic 3rd general election in 87 with a majority of over 100 seats and yet was kicked out by her own party 3 1/2 years later.
There is a considerable difference though. Thatcher was divisive and there was a real case that a different conservative would be a better face to the public.
I know lots of people don't like Cameron, but I think that is the nature of the beast: it is tough to see another conservative being more popular with the public than he is.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 06, 2015, 10:10:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It's the same question intentionally worded in two slightly different ways; the conservative party have an absolute majority in the Commons, so they get to choose who will be the next prime minister of the UK until the next general election. Crises not withstanding.
Gotcha. Then I vote that Cameron will not resign, and I hope the next PM will be the commie.
OK, but do catch some of the recent coverage of the jockeying for position, especially at the current party conference and you'll probably see how unlikely you prediction is, I should say of Cameron staying the course, not the 'commie' winning the election. :)
So the man wins an unexpected an rather significant electoral victory, and the party response is to turn him out?
Cameron said before the Election that he was going to leave the post of Prime-Minister at some point during this Parliament if he won. While many commentators here on Languish thought it was a strange and politically naive idea to announce this as he did (the "lame duck" syndrome) he's made no attempt to retract this statement that I am aware of.
Pitt the Youngest
I thought he said he would not seek another term.
I think it will be Osborne unless the economy takes a significant turn for the worse.
By the way, is it only my impression that Osborne went from being considered an Oxbridge goofball with no actual skill or talent to one of the most prominent British politicians? I remember the stories about him used to involve him mainly hobnobing on yachts and the like.
It was hobnobbing with Russian oligarchs, distasteful perhaps, but not irrelevant to his job.
The left like to pretend that Osborne is a lightweight incompetent, rather foolish of them imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
In what way?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
It was hobnobbing with Russian oligarchs, distasteful perhaps, but not irrelevant to his job.
The left like to pretend that Osborne is a lightweight incompetent, rather foolish of them imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
Couldn't agree more. Osborne is in fact on of the few Tories with an actual vision of conservatism got the next 20 years. I disagree with him on plenty but he's a genuine heavyweight.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 03:25:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
In what way?
For decades the UK has had a "mid-Atlantic" economy when it comes to social spending, we have spent more than the USA but less than our continental equivalents. Politicking aside there has been a consensus on this, perhaps a mild tendency for Labour to spend more but it has not really been worth getting excited about. Osborne plans on reducing the size of the state to a level below that in the USA, to levels last seen in the UK in the 1930s; this is not minor, it will change our way of life.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 03:25:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
In what way?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2F00%2Fs%2FMTYwMFgxNjAw%2Fz%2FLF0AAMXQsOtRi-tp%2F%24T2eC16F%2C%21zUE9s38-N6TBRi-tpTlK%21%7E%7E60_35.JPG&hash=2ecced4133e59d874cdf33f1d1d0f1fbc29d681d)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 03:25:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
In what way?
For decades the UK has had a "mid-Atlantic" economy when it comes to social spending, we have spent more than the USA but less than our continental equivalents. Politicking aside there has been a consensus on this, perhaps a mild tendency for Labour to spend more but it has not really been worth getting excited about. Osborne plans on reducing the size of the state to a level below that in the USA, to levels last seen in the UK in the 1930s; this is not minor, it will change our way of life.
You think he'll be successful at that?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 03:25:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
In what way?
For decades the UK has had a "mid-Atlantic" economy when it comes to social spending, we have spent more than the USA but less than our continental equivalents. Politicking aside there has been a consensus on this, perhaps a mild tendency for Labour to spend more but it has not really been worth getting excited about. Osborne plans on reducing the size of the state to a level below that in the USA, to levels last seen in the UK in the 1930s; this is not minor, it will change our way of life.
:w00t:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 04:33:49 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 03:25:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
In what way?
For decades the UK has had a "mid-Atlantic" economy when it comes to social spending, we have spent more than the USA but less than our continental equivalents. Politicking aside there has been a consensus on this, perhaps a mild tendency for Labour to spend more but it has not really been worth getting excited about. Osborne plans on reducing the size of the state to a level below that in the USA, to levels last seen in the UK in the 1930s; this is not minor, it will change our way of life.
You think he'll be successful at that?
No idea, it is going to be very interesting seeing him try. I would urge those in the UK with decent incomes to start upping their savings, I think it is going to be a grim place for those without some capital.
People who can't afford to live in Londonland should just migrate to cheaper countries, and commute in from Bucharest or Sofia to do their menial jobs (teaching, hairdressing, policing, selling frapuccinos etc.) for those who can. :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 04:40:51 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 04:33:49 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 04:30:13 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 03:25:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 07, 2015, 02:19:54 AM
imo, the country is going to look very different by 2025.
In what way?
For decades the UK has had a "mid-Atlantic" economy when it comes to social spending, we have spent more than the USA but less than our continental equivalents. Politicking aside there has been a consensus on this, perhaps a mild tendency for Labour to spend more but it has not really been worth getting excited about. Osborne plans on reducing the size of the state to a level below that in the USA, to levels last seen in the UK in the 1930s; this is not minor, it will change our way of life.
You think he'll be successful at that?
No idea, it is going to be very interesting seeing him try. I would urge those in the UK with decent incomes to start upping their savings, I think it is going to be a grim place for those without some capital.
What about those who cannot save, with incomes enough only to live on a day-by-day basis? :hmm:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 07, 2015, 04:58:39 AM
What about those who cannot save, with incomes only to live on day-by-day basis? :hmm:
[Yi]They should have made better life choices and earned relevant job skills.[/Yi]
Quote from: Syt on October 07, 2015, 05:00:25 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 07, 2015, 04:58:39 AM
What about those who cannot save, with incomes only to live on day-by-day basis? :hmm:
[Yi]They should have made better life choices and earned relevant job skills.[/Yi]
Improving housing by easing building permit laws is what they seem to be planning, and easing the pressure on the housing market can be a key - I am earning the national average and everything would be pretty rosy price-wise if I wasn't burning an insane portion of my income on renting a ridicoulous "apartment".
Quote from: Tamas on October 07, 2015, 05:03:21 AM
Improving housing by easing building permit laws is what they seem to be planning, and easing the pressure on the housing market can be a key - I am earning the national average and everything would be pretty rosy price-wise if I wasn't burning an insane portion of my income on renting a ridicoulous "apartment".
That's a worldwide phenomenon, not a British-specific one.
But it's a good point that high expenses needs to be addressed, since high costs and debt loads are the main things that keep people from being able to save--making them among the largest barriers to social mobility.
Cameron is an incredibly shrewd operator. He's trying to get his rivals to tear each other apart instead of focusing on him as he becomes vulnerable over the EU question in the next few years.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 07, 2015, 01:11:58 PM
Quote from: Tamas on October 07, 2015, 05:03:21 AM
Improving housing by easing building permit laws is what they seem to be planning, and easing the pressure on the housing market can be a key - I am earning the national average and everything would be pretty rosy price-wise if I wasn't burning an insane portion of my income on renting a ridicoulous "apartment".
That's a worldwide phenomenon, not a British-specific one.
But it's a good point that high expenses needs to be addressed, since high costs and debt loads are the main things that keep people from being able to save--making them among the largest barriers to social mobility.
True that it happens elsewhere, but in Britain it is a lot worse than elsewhere.
Even in cities other than London its rare for young professionals to be able to live alone. Here in Switzerland I've got a rather large place to myself.
It wouldn't solve everything but in the UK a big part of the problem though is the government policy of trying to cram the entire economy into London. If they spread things out more then we could reduce the burden- there's more room to build in the north too.
Also a pain is the amount of power land owners have to block new developments, which usually shows itself in them blocking anything taller than 4 stories. And even going that high is rare.
True, Brits dream of living in a house not a flat...but in Newcastle and other cities half of the houses have been converted into flats because of the amount of people needing somewhere to live.
Quote from: Tyr on October 07, 2015, 01:57:07 PM
the government policy of trying to cram the entire economy into London.
By this do you mean an actual policy to cram the entire economy into London (which I wasn't aware of) or do you mean the absence of policies to promote investment elsewhere, such as subsidies?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2015, 02:03:27 PM
By this do you mean an actual policy to cram the entire economy into London (which I wasn't aware of) or do you mean the absence of policies to promote investment elsewhere, such as subsidies?
There HAVE been those things though. His points about not being able to build properly is probably the more salient point.
Edit: But there's also the macro-environmental factors. Housing won't get cheaper as long as interest rates don't go up.
Housing? You mean Zack de la Rocha?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2015, 02:03:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 07, 2015, 01:57:07 PM
the government policy of trying to cram the entire economy into London.
By this do you mean an actual policy to cram the entire economy into London (which I wasn't aware of) or do you mean the absence of policies to promote investment elsewhere, such as subsidies?
Is there a difference?
Mongers, this thread needs pics. How else are we to make a selection in the time honoured tradition of Languish.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2015, 02:58:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2015, 02:54:28 PM
Is there a difference?
Of course.
I am not sure. A government ignoring a negative phenomenon is as bad as one which causes it.
Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2015, 03:01:36 PM
I am not sure. A government ignoring a negative phenomenon is as bad as one which causes it.
A government not having a policy to address something you don't like doesn't make it a policy.
What about a government who's policy it is to do nothing and let the free market (to the extent there is such a thing) determine the outcome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2015, 12:38:56 AM
I thought he said he would not seek another term.
And the difference is?
Unless he's changed his mind (and he hasn't said anything about doing so) he'll almost certainly resign a minimum of 18 months before the next election. Hence the positioning being done by May and Osborne to try and get the jump on Johnson (who is still tied down as the Mayor of London so can't really make his mark in Parliament or Cabinet for a few more months.)
Quote from: Agelastus on October 07, 2015, 04:23:08 PM
And the difference is?
Unless he's changed his mind (and he hasn't said anything about doing so) he'll almost certainly resign a minimum of 18 months before the next election. Hence the positioning being done by May and Osborne to try and get the jump on Johnson (who is still tied down as the Mayor of London so can't really make his mark in Parliament or Cabinet for a few more months.)
I see a difference because I don't see why he has to resign as PM 18 months before the election. What would prevent him from continuing to serve as PM while the pretenders cut each others throats in preparation for the election?
So the successor can run as the incumbent I suppose.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 07, 2015, 04:23:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2015, 12:38:56 AM
I thought he said he would not seek another term.
And the difference is?
Unless he's changed his mind (and he hasn't said anything about doing so) he'll almost certainly resign a minimum of 18 months before the next election. Hence the positioning being done by May and Osborne to try and get the jump on Johnson (who is still tied down as the Mayor of London so can't really make his mark in Parliament or Cabinet for a few more months.)
:yes:
I think Yi is still not appreciating the difference between a Parliamentary system and the American system. Americans are used to people campaigning to be the next president well before the sitting president's term is over. In a Parliamentary system the PM needs to step down well in advance of the next election to allow the new leader to bring the party into the next election.
Yi, it would be disastrous for a PM, or any leader, to step down just before an election.
You know, I'd pay money for a feed of PMQs of Boris vs Corbyn. :bowler:
Quote from: Tamas on October 07, 2015, 05:03:21 AM
Improving housing by easing building permit laws is what they seem to be planning, and easing the pressure on the housing market can be a key - I am earning the national average and everything would be pretty rosy price-wise if I wasn't burning an insane portion of my income on renting a ridicoulous "apartment".
I think this is going to be the same in most big cities. I have a net income of over 10% above the Austrian median, yet I pay 40% of my net income for rent and utilities (not counting internet). And there's little difference between being in a cheaper, high-immigrant district of town or where I'm now (in fact, apartments in my area tend to be MUCH more expensive than the price I pay). The more affordable option would be to go to the fringes of the city, or to the countryside, but then my commute would easily double or triple.
I'd love it to be BoJo, despite a few disappointments such as affordable housing I think he's done a bang-up job as London Mayor. Sadly it's more likely to be old slappable smug-face Osbourne.
So what is everyone thinking on the "affordable buys" vs. "affordable rents"
FYI the government is saying they will encourage investment by removing the requirement of building council housing flats when building regular ones, and introducing a similar requirement to sell X number of new flats on a reduced rate for first-time buyers.
I am not sure how it will work out but I approve the sentiment of trying to turn as much renters into owners as possible. If done on a big enough scale it should be felt on the reduction of rent prices, since whoever is replacing their rent payments with mortgage payments to move into a new flat/house is off the renting market, reducing demand. A demand that is frankly absolutely ridicoulous at the moment, and I am not talking about London proper either, but it's commuter zone.
And even if buy-to-rent will not be contained too much, the easing of new buildings shall at the very least increase the supply, even if it doesn't touches demand.
Not to mention the moral standpoint: concentrating on cheap unbuyable homes and thus preventing positive change in the market might be better on the short term for the poorest but it helps conserving poverty, preventing the chance to climb out of it.
Not sure what to think of it - comparison with Vienna is a bit difficult, because over the past decade or two the property prices have increased much faster than the rent prices.
While building of public housing was stopped in 2005 (with a few small projects now starting again), the city offers subsidies for "Genossenschaft" projects - a society starts a new apartment complex, and you can buy yourself in for 30-50k - this is basically a down payment on rent for the next ten or fifteen years, so you pay only a small rent during that time (if you leave the apartment early, you get part of the money back). After that period you have the opportunity to buy the apartment for a relatively low price. And obviously there's income limits you must be under to get subsidies from the city for this. I'm over the limit. :(
It's a very popular model for young families.
I think that the demand to live in London may make any supply-side improvements nugatory in their effects on rent levels, though it will have the benefit of making the place even more of a money-making machine since it would permit a larger population :hmm:
Its more council houses that the country really needs.
That's not what we're getting though, its inefficient use of money getting private companies to build and rent or sell flats/houses.
In that case houses to buy seem the better option. Less potential for public money to be funnelled into private hands in the long term.
The flat next to mine is owned by a private landlord that sub-lets to the council. The woman and her daughter there basically get to live in the same accommodation as me but vastly subsidised and were there for years even before I moved in. The daughter must be pushing 20 now, and I don't think the mother will ever let her leave home!
Quote from: Brazen on October 08, 2015, 07:51:34 AM
The flat next to mine is owned by a private landlord that sub-lets to the council. The woman and her daughter there basically get to live in the same accommodation as me but vastly subsidised and were there for years even before I moved in. The daughter must be pushing 20 now, and I don't think the mother will ever let her leave home!
It does seem a bit weird sometimes. I mean I could get the rent subsidy rules wrong but it does seem to me that if the flat you live in is basically impossible to sustain on your salary level, the council will pay most of it. If you are like me, who can rent it on your own due to your income level, even if making sacrificies for doing so, you are on your own.
Not that I want welfare, but this doesn't seem entirely fair.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2015, 04:49:57 AM
Its more council houses that the country really needs.
That's not what we're getting though, its inefficient use of money getting private companies to build and rent or sell flats/houses.
In that case houses to buy seem the better option. Less potential for public money to be funnelled into private hands in the long term.
I think you may have it in reverse. Council housing is probably one of the main causes of the problem.
Housing will be built for the customers in the market, and council housing sucks all the low-income customers out of the market, leaving the building to be done for whoever is left.
It'd be much better to create a way for low-income customers to be part of the market, so there is demand to build for them.
I would be in favour of council housing if it was fundamentally different. Owned by council but then rented out at reasonable rates to middle incomes. Course council taxes would then probably have to increase...
BoJo is big in Japan.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F561f682ddd089574588b4694%2Fimage.gif&hash=4e43dd4a76d2d1f3c8f4ac4400c2e99fe49a5d6c)
I guess that makes it easier to see how the woman could get tackled by her 8 year old nephew. :hmm:
Give us BoJo, or give us death.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 09:46:46 PM
I hope it's the commie.
it would be fun to watch, him and President Trump :)