“I’m not interested in being an irreconcilable…the leadership question is settled.” Rees-Mogg accepts defeat – but reserves the right to differ over policy.
There has been a tendency to suppose that because Britain’s power has declined in relative terms they must have become totally useless.
A new study of the 2017 general election shows May failing to insist on a message and a manifesto which supported each other.
In all, there are 30 new entries in the whole list, one down on last year and two down on the 2016 record of 33.
The MPs, of course, pick the final two in a leadership race. Plus: the Westminster Transfer Window. And: my workaholic holiday.
The UK plus EFTA would have a greater GDP than Germany. As one, we would be the largest economy in Europe.
These concerns, however, often only add to the need for us to remain ethically and democratically engaged, particularly regarding the most emotive cases.
A response to Paul Goodman’s recent article arguing that opponents of Leave should accept that spending didn’t swing the referendum – since Remain spent more.
Sooner or later, it will hold a leadership contest in which its members will actually get to decide the winner – and perhaps our next Prime Minister.
If the Conservative Party is to remain successful, we must solve Britain’s productivity puzzle and deliver a tangible financial boost for voters.
This means not bullying people into voting for the Government, and not making grown men and women cry.
If the Conservatives had won 42 per cent from them too, our research projects that she would have won with a comfortable 42-seat majority.
Embracing this crude Marxist fiction has put the Conservative Party at risk of lasting electoral damage, particularly in London.
She points to the opportunities to imitate New Zealand agriculture, and to crack down on big businesses which evade tax.
The basic principles of limited government, economic and civil liberties, freedom and equality under the law are almost entirely absent from her programme.