Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Alex K Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And one of the most articulate and aggressive

> Conservatives is freed from ministerial work to

> carry battle into the Labour / Liberal / UKIP

> camps.


I'm not sure that's true.


The public dislike Gove based on opinion polling. Sending him to a role where there are no obvious media performance opportunities is a poison-pill and no mistake. He'll still have to compete with the party chair for the "Minister for the Today Programme" role when they just need to put someone up. With no high-profile portfolio to command this new role is a backwater for Gove.


It's not even that powerful or needed in the current government. This isn't Major in 1996 clinging on to a majority of 6. The whips are barely needed. It's a stark message from the PM and one that has the approval of Osborne all over it. Should the Tories lose the next election, it's now down to a two-horse race between him and Teresa May.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> It's not even that powerful or needed in the

> current government. This isn't Major in 1996

> clinging on to a majority of 6. The whips are

> barely needed. It's a stark message from the PM

> and one that has the approval of Osborne all over

> it. Should the Tories lose the next election, it's

> now down to a two-horse race between him and

> Teresa May.


Well argued, and likely true. Thank you.

DC line to Gove this morning might be - we respect what you are doing Michael, but you are not box office, in fact your approach, although effective is losing votes - take a break until after the election and once we win we will bring you back into front line politics with a meaty reward.


Temporary backwater.

That's a bloody big IF Mick. And one that Cameron might well not be in a position to offer.


If you were Osborne or May and the newly elected leader of the opposition would you bring back your biggest rival to a top job?


Even if Cameron does win, and stays on as PM, why would he then sack a cabinet team that has won him an election?

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's a bloody big IF Mick. And one that Cameron

> might well not be in a position to offer.

>

> If you were Osborne or May and the newly elected

> leader of the opposition would you bring back your

> biggest rival to a top job?

>

> Even if Cameron does win, and stays on as PM, why

> would he then sack a cabinet team that has won him

> an election?




I didn't say if, I said once. I'm assuming they will win and I wouldn't be surprised at all by a post election reshuffle.


Obviously if they lose the election, the whole reshuffle today has backfired and all sorts of leaderships options and uncertainties arise.

The next election is a dead heat as stands, shuffling Gove around and promoting females is opportunistic and in any normal parliament with a one party majority government wouldn't be attempted. This is not that. Cameron knows the party remains toxic to the swing voters, he couldn't even muster a small John Major majority comparable to 1992 at the last election. His options are limited.


Louisa.

Some saying Cameron doesn't care about the cabinet any longer


He's in electioneering mode - and Gove/Hague are meant to be campaigning.



david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's a bloody big IF Mick. And one that Cameron

> might well not be in a position to offer.

>

> If you were Osborne or May and the newly elected

> leader of the opposition would you bring back your

> biggest rival to a top job?

>

> Even if Cameron does win, and stays on as PM, why

> would he then sack a cabinet team that has won him

> an election?

Labour shows no sign of making the 'breakthrough', so with more voter-friendly women in the Cabinet for a year (without having to push through controversial legislation), plus the referedum promise (to neutralise UKIP, moost of whose Euro voters won't vote for them at the general election) and the economy not tanking between now and then - then the Tories have a good chance of the being the largest party again.


What's going to be fascinating in the case of a hung parliament (still favourite with the bookies) is the post-election horse-trading. The Lib Dems (and even UKIP) wll have learned a lot from the experience of the coalition and will not be pushovers. What odds a minority government struggling through, making ad hoc deals?

It all looks a bit odd - Gove is one of the best and certainly most radical of them IMO but not especially liked. I think that Mick is probably right on this DC, or at least it part explains. I think Gove is with Cameron's ship so he wants to help keep Cameron in which will require a GE Win whatever . Gove (and Hague) can do a lot more to aid this without significant portfolios....if they are not the next govt by majority or coalition then I think Cameron goes...I also think Osbourne will throw his hat in early. The only odd thing is that Gove isn't a posh boy and whilst that's got nothing to =do with him moving - it is a bit weird given the tories vulnerability on this.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a stark message from the PM and one that has the approval of Osborne all over it.


I didn't notice, but the Standard has pointed out that most of the beneficiaries of the reshuffle have come from Osbourne's treasury area. It's really strengthened his position. Which is a shame, as I think May would make a rather good PM - at least, compared to Osbourne, anyway.

I don't buy the "can do more without portfolios" stuff.


This isn't a government stuffing parliament with legislation. They essentially ran out of stuff to do a year ago (at least they did in my old dept). Neither Gove nor Hague would have been too run off their feet to help with electioneering.


Hague is useful in shoring up the northern, rural votes to protect from UKIP though.


Gove on the other hand is going to do what? Simply be a backroom brain coming up with election strategy? He's hardly the man to send out on the street winning hearts and minds is he? Hmmmm...I think there is more to this than is being let on.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's a stark message from the PM and one that

> has the approval of Osborne all over it.

>

> I didn't notice, but the Standard has pointed out

> that most of the beneficiaries of the reshuffle

> have come from Osbourne's treasury area. It's

> really strengthened his position. Which is a

> shame, as I think May would make a rather good PM

> - at least, compared to Osbourne, anyway.


Oh yes, the post-2015 GE musical chairs power-play has begun in earnest. May doesn't play the game as well as Osborne but the increase in women will help her somewhat - they may gravitate towards her despite being Osborne-ites.


And it's happening on the opposite bench too with teams forming ready to jump in if and when EdM loses the election. Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umuna will be the early runners but it might depend on whether a clean break from the Blair/Brown era is wanted.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact that many teachers seem to hate him was just

> a bonus as far as I was concerned.





I don't understand why you seem so openly hostile towards teachers. Don't get me wrong, they like a bloody moan, no doubt, but they don't have it easy, and if you think they do, you're crazy.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just saw on twitter

>

> @David_Cameron David Gauke is promoted to

> Financial Secretary to the treasury #reshuffle

>

> @frankieboyle @David_Cameron this is like transfer

> deadlne day for c***s



Haha, just had to share that.

Rejoice, rejoice Gove has gone. I believe that he is one of the most toxic education secretaries ever to hold the post. I genuinely don't understand why people think that they know better than trained professionals and are quite happy to constantly teacher bash. Why? I'm not a teacher but know of many committed, brilliant teachers that work ridiculous hours for OK pay who are being constantly underminded and belittled by politics in general and the greater public.


As for Gove himself, just familiarise yourselves with the utter debarcle of Sullivan school in Hammersmith and Fulham to find out what happens when you put educational idealism ahead of an actual interest in education. This is in addition to rubber stamping the sale of school playing fields, positively encouraging the setting up of taxfunded faith schools with very dubious creationist values, cancelling the "Building Schools for the Future Programme", scrapping the minimium requirement for physical education in schools and ensuring that local authorities have little or no control over the number of school places in their area. And other hundreds of little measures that have devalued and discredited the teaching profession. Utter knobhead.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...