So, what will it take for the Tories tod itch Cameron?

[WetAugust]

Tories are predicted to come 3rd in the 22 May Euro elections.

They are predicted to lose councillors in the local elections on the same date.

Then there's the Scottish referendum.

How many of these elections can he afford to lose before someone in his party overthrows him?

Who will be leading the party at the General Election in May 2015?

Same question about Clegg - when will the Libs ditch him as unelectable?

Yes, I bet he wishes he was not photographed standing behind dear old Norman when he announced our crash out of the ERM

Voters are quite shallow and some treat it as a beauty contest and that's where Ed will fall down. His presentation is not good and gets worse (quite whiney) when he's under pressure.

Personally, the idea of Ed Balls as Chancellor makes me shudder. He's very much a Brown protege. Shame Darling has packed it in - he did have integrity.

(Plus it was always fun to watch Jeremy on Newsnight saying "Tell me Darling.....". He always played it for a laugh ).

WetAugust - I think Ed's best move now would be to reinstate Alistair Darling as chancellor, he does retain a huge amount of integrity (slightly bizarrely actually, because he was actually chancellor at the time of the crash, Ed Balls was Education Minister, having been City minister, but Balls is much more blamed for it than Darling). Even Cameron seems to have some sort of respect for Darling, and has never blamed him for the economy crashing, and I think the public would feel safer tbh.

Ed Balls is a very good economist, (unlike George Osborne, who has a history degree), but I do think people worry about him being chancellor.

So Ed M, if you're reading this, ditch Balls (for the greater good), get Darling back, and don't worry about the flak for ditching Balls!

LillyBolero …. Before I address a few other issues you have brought up on Labour’s abysmal record in power, you keep mentioning Labour’s Darling as past and future Chancellor, and his 2010 ‘plan to reduce the deficit by 50% in 4-years’.

Labour were in government in 2010, we had lost around 7% of economic output (GDP) in 1-year (2008), our manufacturing base had halved under Labour to 11% of our economy, our financial services sector was no longer a profits/tax cash cow for the government – yet all our expenses of a fat, inefficient government etc still remained – why was leaving it YET ANOTHER YEAR as ‘more of the same’ a good Darling policy, other than get past the 2010 general election?

So unless you can show us THE DARLING UK FINANCIAL PLAN we might have missed in 2010, to reduce our debts and expenditures AND boost a decimated Private Sector (jobs), we have to assume the Fuel Duty and National Insurance rises Labour implemented prior to the general election (to come in afterwards), was the best Labour and Mr Darling had.

“Labour's planned National Insurance increase will cost jobs, Alistair Darling admits”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7539343/Labours-planned-National-Insurance-increase-will-cost-jobs-Alistair-Darling-admits.html

“In his evidence, Mr Darling defended his plans to increase national insurance, saying it was necessary to raise extra money to reduce Government borrowing, which will be £167 billion this year.”

Note the £167 billion figure, Labour had no clue how to solve the UK’s problems other than the ‘more of the same’ that gave us the deficit, yet more taxes than the others they promised us to help our 'cost of living' crisis that started at least 6-years ago and ever more borrowing.

the 1 year consolidation was to cement the growth that was in place by the time Labour left office. Then once the recovery was secure, deficit reduction could be tackled. Without growth in the economy, deficit reduction is pretty well impossible. Which is why Osborne's plan of 'get rid of the deficit in 1 term' failed abysmally.

You could possibly address how a LOW TAX party can consider 50% too high a rate of tax for those on 150k, but 73% is ok for those on a third of that salary. You talk about the conservatives enabling us to 'keep more of the money we earn' - well not in my house. The reality of that policy is that it is totally anti-aspiration - what is the point of working extra hours when 3/4 of the money earned goes straight to the treasury.

I think Clegg may go soonish. But not Cameron.

Clegg is more likely to go than Cameron, but I think we may be stuck with both of them till after the election. Clegg is muttering about wanting to be deputy PM for 10 years...

I find it hard to envisage Cameron or clegg going anywhere. they both seem very safe and cushdy , and I can't see anyone pushing them out. despite the fact that they are both DIRE.

I do a bit too. Cant quite put my finger on why though.

Not sure what to make of Boris. Loose cannon, or safe.
I think that becuase he has had affairs, I think of him as untrustworthy. If you can do that to someone you loved, you can do a lot to the country and not be bothered.

Or should that be alledgedly had affairs? Hard to keep up with celebs.

Didn't the Court of Appeal attack Johnson for his attitude towards his two illegitimate children rabbitrisen? I don't think you need to allege he's had affairs if it's been recognised in a court of law.

Here's something about BoJo's extra-marital activities. The opposition would have a field day if he were selected as Tory leader.

I think Clegg has tied his future to the outcome of the European elections. If they lose all their MEPs, given they're positioning themselves as the party of 'in', it'll be difficult for him to ride it out.

That said, I don't think that there are many LibDems who'd want to take over leadership of the party ATM. You don't get the impression that there are any Liberal Democrats stalking Nick Clegg, waiting to pounce at his weakest moment. If he stays leader, it'll be because no-one else wants to do the job.

Sorry, it appears I was mistaken. Johnson only has one illegitimate child.

Sorry for multiple posts

Lilybolero ….. you are avoiding the question, “the one year consolidation” to 2011 when the crash was from late 2007, was what, other than Labour’s economic ‘smoke and mirrors’, waiting for 'something to turn up'?

WHERE WAS THE ECONOMIC GROWTH PLAN for the government of the day, to put the economy on a balanced and sustainable footing – you cannot borrow and tax an economy to growth when the structure of the economy is wrong?

Look at the definitions of ‘growth’ below, any fool of a government can borrow MORE money to achieve fools growth (paying more interest on top), sustaining the Quangocracy ‘growth’, YES the government spending £167 billion (Darling’s figure) more than we earn BUYS Ballsian ‘growf’, but when there is sod all else, when the money runs out, so does the ‘growf’.

Gross Domestic Product – Basic Definition.
www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

Private Consumption/Spending + Government Spending + Business capital Spending + Net Exports (Exports – Imports).

That is why when Osbourne took a UK debt junkie off the Labour borrowing ‘fix’ (and Europe slowed further), our GDP stalled, a £167 billion deficit buys more ‘government’ and ‘private consumption’ that the £108 billion deficit now, especially having increased the Public Sector head count by over 1 million since 1997 – in the Labour growth Ponzi Scheme.
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-29/u-k-economic-growth-accelerates-to-0-8-as-recovery-broadens.html
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27177766

If a Labour government lose 1 million manufacturing jobs through a global boom (before the financial crash), when they’re spending hundreds of £million of ‘jobs for the apparatchiks’ government Quangocracies – how can you possibly think that they had a solution in a crisis, which would explain WHY WE NEVER SAW THEIR PLAN – which was to no doubt to excessively tax after 2010, as they did in 1997 when didn’t need to?
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

Labour without a plan, laughed at the Conservatives saying Osbourne's Plan A would lose 1 million jobs, whereas with a more vibrant private sector the opposite was true.

In answer to the original post, here is the definitive answer.

“David Cameron would quit as Prime Minister after general election if he could not deliver on in-out EU referendum pledge”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-would-quit-as-prime-minister-after-general-election-if-he-could-not-deliver-on-inout-eu-referendum-promise-9299472.html

“David Cameron pledged tonight to step down as Prime Minister after next year’s general election if he could not deliver on his promise to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.”

“His comments indicate that the pledge to stage the EU vote in 2017 would be a “red line” for the Conservatives in any post-election negotiations to form a Coalition government.”

So as Ukip CANNOT deliver on their promise to bring the UK out of the EU, and the Labour and Lib Dem's will not offer a referendum, if the Conservatives do not get a majority in 2015, we will be stuck in the EU for the next decade at least, waiting for the Conservatives to get a new leader and try again.

LilyBolero….On taxes, Labour changed from a 40% tax rate to 50% in the last months in power, if anything is brought in LESS tax revenue which wasn’t the point, and sent out the wrong 1970’s signal to inward investing wealth/jobs creators.

Please show us the salary band re the 73% tax you mentioned, as clearly the Miliband fight to win the middle classes, who would also benefit from the £10,500 start level of income tax.

Please explain why ‘in touch’ Brown took away the 10p start rate of income tax in 2008, to no doubt help the poor through the recession?

Please explain why Brown lowered the tax on speculation, the Capital Gains Tax, to 10% (the lower end of taper relief) early in his administration when “tea lady’s paid more tax” than Private Equity company owners , and still left it at a flat rate of 18% in 2010?

Cleg will bail out to a nice EU Commissioner post in Brussels as soon as he can.

He won't be able to take up a Commissioner post until 2019. Commissioners don't resign very often, the only resignations I can recall are the whole Santer Commission(!) in 1999 and the Maltese one in 2012. I've heard nothing about him going for the next Commission.

I expect we'll be seeing him here in Brussels before long though.

"Please show us the salary band re the 73% tax you mentioned, as clearly the Miliband fight to win the middle classes, who would also benefit from the £10,500 start level of income tax."

I'm not sure what your question is, as this sentence doesn't make sense.

The 73% hits families with children, salary range between 50k and 60k. And remember households on 100k may not have lost any child benefit.
There is a little benefit from the 10500 starting level, though the starting rate of HRT was also brought down so the first raising of the personal allowance would not benefit HRT payers. Subsequent rises have been passed on, but families are worse off if they are losing child benefit.

In terms of aspiration, it is not good for a so called low tax party to impose marginal rates this high - where is the motivation to work harder?

As I said downthread, I am not really condoning or criticising policy, the question was about how long it would take for Tories to ditch Cameron, and my answers are in response to that. Tory grass roots are VERY hacked off, even if you think the things they are hacked off by are small. The last thing they want is for Cameron to win, and them be stuck with him for another 5 years. Hence the move to UKIP - I don't think they care if Labour get in, as long as Cameron goes.

I don't think they care if Labour get in, as long as Cameron goes.

I think you're right Lily.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently - hence starting this thread. People join political parties because they have convictions, for example, exiting the EU (UKIP), proportional representation (LibDem), employment conditions (Labour).....

Tory party members traditionally believed in grammar schools, in strong defence, in criminal justice, in home ownership, low taxation.... These were the convictions that bound the members to the party. But the Tory party doesn't offer any of these policies nowadays.

So the party membership is feeling very disenfranchised because the party itself has been hijacked by a group of politicians who don't have any real political convictions and whose only objective is the seizure of power itself and who will tell the elecrorate whatever it wants to hear to gain that power. Politics is now a career with an established career path of Oxford, a PPE degree, political researcher, candidate for marginal seat, assurance of a safe seat......

People don't enter politics with convictions any more. They will change their politics to suit their party or (as Blair did) they will change their party to suit their politics.

And that applies equally to the Labour party. That party is very far removed from its roots in the TU movement.

I am totally convinced that the core Tory vote feels let down by Cameron, & feels he doesn't stand up for them, hence the surge to ukip. And 5 years of a labour govt is seen as a price worth paying to get rid of Cameron.

Who to replace him though? Boris? Gideon? Theresa May? None very exciting really.

Agree about the 'career politician' - when asked why he wanted to be PM, Cameron famously replied 'because I think I'd be rather good at it - how hard can it be?'.

'whose only objective is the seizure of power itself and who will tell the elecrorate whatever it wants to hear to gain that power'

I don't think that is it. They know what the people want but they are not allowed to say what the people want to hear. They are all politically correct, they are all progressive and they probably all read the Guardian. if they said what the people want to hear, then they would win, but they can't. The Tories will never say what the people want to hear, they can never say what UKIP says (which is now Britain's most popular party) because they are not allowed to.

UKIP is the Independence party, they are independent, but none of the other parties are independent, they are not allowed independence, they have to be "politically correct" whether they like it or not and that is why they have lost public approval and it will only get worse for them because they are not allowed to really change. They will spin around the edges to try and fool the public, but really saying what the public want to hear is off bounds for them. And they are all in the same boat and that is why their only strategy is to all join together , to be "all in it together" and try to attack UKIP together. They are all for one and one for all, they are not allowed to make the correct call.