Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2023 7:23:53 GMT
Pretty self-explanatory. In this scenario, Remain won 52-48. Cameron stuck by his pledge not to lead the Conservatives into the 2020 election.
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Sept 10, 2023 7:37:09 GMT
I don’t think Osborne saw himself as a future PM. He didn’t run for Tory leader in 2016. After Mrs May removed him from the Cabinet, he chose to stand down as an MP rather than attempt a comeback. He must have felt being Chancellor was as far as he wanted to go. He’s still only 52 now.
|
|
|
|
Post by willpower3 on Sept 10, 2023 8:11:58 GMT
I don’t think Osborne saw himself as a future PM. He didn’t run for Tory leader in 2016. After Mrs May removed him from the Cabinet, he chose to stand down as an MP rather than attempt a comeback. He must have felt being Chancellor was as far as he wanted to go. He’s still only 52 now. I don't agree with this. Osborne was IMO clearly being set up as Cameron's successor after the 2015 election. He was made First Secretary of State. After his catastrophic performance in the referendum campaign he didn't attempt a comeback for similar reasons as to why Ted Heath never attempted a comeback during the Thatcher years. If he had been a lower profile Chancellor then he could have perhaps continued his frontbench career. Jeremy Hunt (who comes from a similar wing of the party) has been able to stay around on the frontbench because he wasn't one of the two leading figures in the Remain campaign (and the discredited era of Cameronism that preceded it). |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,380 
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 10, 2023 8:34:59 GMT
I don’t think Osborne saw himself as a future PM. He didn’t run for Tory leader in 2016. After Mrs May removed him from the Cabinet, he chose to stand down as an MP rather than attempt a comeback. He must have felt being Chancellor was as far as he wanted to go. He’s still only 52 now. I’m not sure on that, I think losing the referendum just made it impossible. Yes Theresa May was a remainer as well but she didn’t go in as hard as Osborne did and he ended up being a leave hate figure. So him taking over to oversee Brexit would have had no credibility at all |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 10, 2023 8:42:54 GMT
Osborne was never that popular, the Tory "modernisation" project might not have succeeded without Cameron as the relatively acceptable and voter-friendly head.
Even at her lowest ebb, May never got booed by a big crowd as Gideon was at the 2012 Paralympics.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Sept 10, 2023 8:45:19 GMT
I don’t think Osborne saw himself as a future PM. He didn’t run for Tory leader in 2016. After Mrs May removed him from the Cabinet, he chose to stand down as an MP rather than attempt a comeback. He must have felt being Chancellor was as far as he wanted to go. He’s still only 52 now. I’m not sure on that, I think losing the referendum just made it impossible. Yes Theresa May was a remainer as well but she didn’t go in as hard as Osborne did and he ended up being a leave hate figure. So him taking over to oversee Brexit would have had no credibility at all Indeed. If anyone was the symbol of “Project Fear” it was he. As a result he would not just have been unpopular with key and freshly triumphant members of his party (even if they’d narrowly lost) but his thoughts, at least on the economy, would have lacked credibility. The presentation of the consequences of Leave were ridiculously exaggerated. The reality is certainly negative but an attempt was made to present the results of departing as akin to experiencing another finance collapse and one of enduring consequence. I always sensed a man rather uncomfortable within the party as it evolved and with other things he could do instead. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 10, 2023 9:03:30 GMT
After his catastrophic performance in the referendum campaign he didn't attempt a comeback for similar reasons as to why Ted Heath never attempted a comeback during the Thatcher years. Heath was awaiting another great national crisis that would disrupt the party system 1931 style and result in a grand coalition that should be led by a respected elder statesmen but in the absence of such he'd do it. This may seem delusional but in the 1970s there was a general crisis of confidence amongst the governing classes and a lot to suggest the party system would soon break down. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 10, 2023 9:06:06 GMT
If Remain had won the referendum then Cameron would likely have remained leader and Prime Minister until about 2019 (unless he wanted to set a further bold change by remaining PM until the election itself with his successor only getting Number 10 if the voters said yes) and seen off any confidence vote challenge so Osborne would have had time to rebuild his position for a leadership election at the end of the decade. However, as the heir apparent for so long he would have found his opponents had all the reasons to oppose him and his record as Chancellor overseeing austerity would invariably have been a major albatross.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
|
Post by iain on Sept 10, 2023 10:31:46 GMT
Osborne was never that popular, the Tory "modernisation" project might not have succeeded without Cameron as the relatively acceptable and voter-friendly head. Even at her lowest ebb, May never got booed by a big crowd as Gideon was at the 2012 Paralympics. I think May (as Home Secretary) was actually booed at a Paralympic medal ceremony too. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Sept 10, 2023 12:46:53 GMT
If a politician aspires to be PM they would be well advised to avoid the role of Chancellor as the position normally involves making decisions that are unpopular with the electorate. Of 28 post war chancellors only 5 have gone on to be PM and I don't think that Callaghan, Major, Brown and Sunak are widely regarded as success stories. Of the 5 only MacMillan could be said to have been a fairly successful PM and had only been Chancellor for little over a year and was of course very well known prior to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 10, 2023 13:33:56 GMT
If a politician aspires to be PM they would be well advised to avoid the role of Chancellor as the position normally involves making decisions that are unpopular with the electorate. Of 28 post war chancellors only 5 have gone on to be PM and I don't think that Callaghan, Major, Brown and Sunak are widely regarded as success stories. Of the 5 only MacMillan could be said to have been a fairly successful PM and had only been Chancellor for little over a year and was of course very well known prior to that. All of those had (or have) their problems as PM but I don't think those problems can be ascribed to having been CofE. Callaghan's stint was completed 9 years before he became PM and in that interval he'd been Home Sec and Foreign Sec. He was well respected and not personally unpopular but he inherited a weak position and was unable to turn it around. As for Major, he won a GE don't forget, and while he certainly had his problems, some of his own making, they didn't stem from his chancellorship; and I'd make similar comments about Brown (except that he never won a GE). On Sunak I suppose the jury is still out, although I'd agree that the signs aren't promising. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Sept 10, 2023 15:16:48 GMT
If a politician aspires to be PM they would be well advised to avoid the role of Chancellor as the position normally involves making decisions that are unpopular with the electorate. Of 28 post war chancellors only 5 have gone on to be PM and I don't think that Callaghan, Major, Brown and Sunak are widely regarded as success stories. Of the 5 only MacMillan could be said to have been a fairly successful PM and had only been Chancellor for little over a year and was of course very well known prior to that. All of those had (or have) their problems as PM but I don't think those problems can be ascribed to having been CofE. Callaghan's stint was completed 9 years before he became PM and in that interval he'd been Home Sec and Foreign Sec. He was well respected and not personally unpopular but he inherited a weak position and was unable to turn it around. As for Major, he won a GE don't forget, and while he certainly had his problems, some of his own making, they didn't stem from his chancellorship; and I'd make similar comments about Brown (except that he never won a GE). On Sunak I suppose the jury is still out, although I'd agree that the signs aren't promising. I agree with pretty much all of that but my primary point was that few chancellors actually go on to become Prime Minister, and that is despite many very high profile and ambitious politicians serving in that post. That most of the ones who have done have not been overly successful was was just an additional thought. And yes John Major won an election but his government was a bloody shambles. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 10, 2023 15:55:21 GMT
All of those had (or have) their problems as PM but I don't think those problems can be ascribed to having been CofE. Callaghan's stint was completed 9 years before he became PM and in that interval he'd been Home Sec and Foreign Sec. He was well respected and not personally unpopular but he inherited a weak position and was unable to turn it around. As for Major, he won a GE don't forget, and while he certainly had his problems, some of his own making, they didn't stem from his chancellorship; and I'd make similar comments about Brown (except that he never won a GE). On Sunak I suppose the jury is still out, although I'd agree that the signs aren't promising. I agree with pretty much all of that but my primary point was that few chancellors actually go on to become Prime Minister, and that is despite many very high profile and ambitious politicians serving in that post. That most of the ones who have done have not been overly successful was was just an additional thought. And yes John Major won an election but his government was a bloody shambles. Yes he did and this is no mean feat. I'd be much surprised (and deeply impressed) if Sunak were ever able to make the same claim.
And if you go further back -
Yes, Chamberlain failed as PM but this had nothing to do with his chancellorship. And you also have to take account of Churchill, Baldwin, Lloyd George and Asquith to say nothing of a couple of blokes called Gladstone and Disraeli.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Sept 10, 2023 16:06:29 GMT
I agree with pretty much all of that but my primary point was that few chancellors actually go on to become Prime Minister, and that is despite many very high profile and ambitious politicians serving in that post. That most of the ones who have done have not been overly successful was was just an additional thought. And yes John Major won an election but his government was a bloody shambles. Yes he did and this is no mean feat. I'd be much surprised (and deeply impressed) if Sunak were ever able to make the same claim.
And if you go further back -
Yes, Chamberlain failed as PM but this had nothing to do with his chancellorship. And you also have to take account of Churchill, Baldwin, Lloyd George and Asquith to say nothing of a couple of blokes called Gladstone and Disraeli.
Again I am not claiming that having been chancellor will make someone a bad PM, merely noting that does not seem to be the most opportune route to No10. I also don't think that those from earlier times that you mention has any great relevance to my point. They were in different times when the role of Chancellor is not as prominent as it is now and when coverage of politics was very different. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,380
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 10, 2023 18:08:47 GMT
If a politician aspires to be PM they would be well advised to avoid the role of Chancellor as the position normally involves making decisions that are unpopular with the electorate. Of 28 post war chancellors only 5 have gone on to be PM and I don't think that Callaghan, Major, Brown and Sunak are widely regarded as success stories. Of the 5 only MacMillan could be said to have been a fairly successful PM and had only been Chancellor for little over a year and was of course very well known prior to that. Although ironically Sunak was very popular as Chancellor initially thanks to the furlough scheme, albeit that was bound to never last |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2023 19:41:01 GMT
Ken Clarke didn’t fail to become leader for being Chancellor.
|
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Sept 10, 2023 20:47:56 GMT
I’m not sure on that, I think losing the referendum just made it impossible. Yes Theresa May was a remainer as well but she didn’t go in as hard as Osborne did and he ended up being a leave hate figure. So him taking over to oversee Brexit would have had no credibility at all Indeed. If anyone was the symbol of “Project Fear” it was he. As a result he would not just have been unpopular with key and freshly triumphant members of his party (even if they’d narrowly lost) but his thoughts, at least on the economy, would have lacked credibility. The presentation of the consequences of Leave were ridiculously exaggerated. The reality is certainly negative but an attempt was made to present the results of departing as akin to experiencing another finance collapse and one of enduring consequence. I always sensed a man rather uncomfortable within the party as it evolved and with other things he could do instead. I’m still waiting for his “Emergency Budget”. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Sept 11, 2023 16:05:16 GMT
If Remain had won the referendum then Cameron would likely have remained leader and Prime Minister until about 2019 (unless he wanted to set a further bold change by remaining PM until the election itself with his successor only getting Number 10 if the voters said yes) and seen off any confidence vote challenge so Osborne would have had time to rebuild his position for a leadership election at the end of the decade. However, as the heir apparent for so long he would have found his opponents had all the reasons to oppose him and his record as Chancellor overseeing austerity would invariably have been a major albatross.
Cameron's autobiography shed some light on this - he felt that two full terms was about the right length of time for a Prime Minister to serve, but that creates the logistical problem of how to go into the GE at the end of the second term. Do you have a leadership election or handover immediately before, potentially creating a lame duck PM that immediately gets voted out, or do you pledge to hand over after the election in the event that the party wins - in which case the public are potentially voting for a party with an unknown leader, unless you hold a leadership election before the GE, but they don't become PM (or LOTO) until afterwards.
It was during discussions of this nature with Osborne that he began to sense that it wasn't a formality and that George was perhaps cooling on the idea of being his successor anyway - the very real prospect of being that stop-gap PM that never got to do anything other than lose an election was likely a part of it.
The way events ultimately unfolded may have proved a bit of a relief for Osborne in the end, and he doesn't have to send a Christmas card to the Mays.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 11, 2023 16:10:36 GMT
I always thought May should have made Osborne Secretary of State for Transport. It would have been perfect for everyone:
Osborne would have got to wear hi-vis a lot.
The Northern Powerhouse and HS2 would have had a strong Cabinet Minister behind them.
The public could derive satisfaction from the thought of Osborne having to sit on rail replacement bus services.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,380
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 11, 2023 17:30:34 GMT
If Remain had won the referendum then Cameron would likely have remained leader and Prime Minister until about 2019 (unless he wanted to set a further bold change by remaining PM until the election itself with his successor only getting Number 10 if the voters said yes) and seen off any confidence vote challenge so Osborne would have had time to rebuild his position for a leadership election at the end of the decade. However, as the heir apparent for so long he would have found his opponents had all the reasons to oppose him and his record as Chancellor overseeing austerity would invariably have been a major albatross.
Cameron's autobiography shed some light on this - he felt that two full terms was about the right length of time for a Prime Minister to serve, but that creates the logistical problem of how to go into the GE at the end of the second term. Do you have a leadership election or handover immediately before, potentially creating a lame duck PM that immediately gets voted out, or do you pledge to hand over after the election in the event that the party wins - in which case the public are potentially voting for a party with an unknown leader, unless you hold a leadership election before the GE, but they don't become PM (or LOTO) until afterwards.
It was during discussions of this nature with Osborne that he began to sense that it wasn't a formality and that George was perhaps cooling on the idea of being his successor anyway - the very real prospect of being that stop-gap PM that never got to do anything other than lose an election was likely a part of it.
The way events ultimately unfolded may have proved a bit of a relief for Osborne in the end, and he doesn't have to send a Christmas card to the Mays.
It’s certainty an issue in a parliamentary system compared to a presidential system There is the option of someone remaining Prime Minister for the full term while handing over their party leadership in advance and allowing the new leader to deal with the campaigning for the next election, thats’s essentially what Angela Merkel did when it came to the German Chancellorship. Although I don’t know if that approach has ever been tried in any of the Westminster systems around the world |
|
