Steve Baker or Suella Braverman for PM

Both intimated a leadership bid.

Heaven help us all we are doomed.

Suella saying she'd run was like seeing someone's nan say they're interested in becoming an MMA fighter. 

Surely no one is actually that lacking in self-awareness? (And if they are, they are inevitably disabused of their delusions during the leadership selection process.)

You have to assume that these (and no doubt numerous other chances) are, as stru says, simply using a potential leadership bid in order to position themselves as "heavyweights", boosting their profile when it comes to ministerial appointments.

The alternative just doesn't bear thinking about.

Dear God.  Thinking "I need to court Suella for all the votes she can bring."  Makes the trading at Appleby look like Tattersalls by comparison.

He's a patriot and a classical Liberal, though a bit too zealous a Free Marketeer for my liking. He'd be OK. 

Baker it's got to be.  Rip off the cuddly face of Toryism that Boris represented and let the deep blue conservatism so deeply craved for by many party members be embodied in its full throbbing glory by the cold-eyed hatchet-faced MP for High Wycombe. Let the public have the choice to vote for full-throated full-fat Toryism.  

(Rees-Mogg would be fine too.)  

I quite like Baker. He was very sound with all the lockdown stuff. You may not agree with his values and ideology and even think they are crazy but he actually has something he believes in beyond self advancement and he’s not as incompetent and vacuous as most of the other candidates. 
 

See also David Davis

You may not agree with his values and ideology and even think they are crazy but he actually has something he believes in beyond self advancement and he’s not as incompetent and vacuous as most of the other candidates. 

This makes him terrifying. He's a true believer and gets stuff done. Eek

"you may not agree with his values and ideology and even think they are crazy but he actually has something he believes in beyond self advancement"

You could have said the same about Hitler and Lenin

Guy, that is the sort of incredibly tenuous link that o'brien comes out with.  Please don't be like him, you are better than that 

Pie I am not comparing him or you to a Nazi or a communist I am simply illustrating  with extreme examples that being an idealogue motivated by more than personal gain is not necessarily a good thing and can be very dangerous - I believe Steve Baker, while no Hitler or Lenin falls into that category - his climate change denial for a start.

So anyone with a strong view that wants to contribute to 'the greater good' can reasonably be compared to Hitler or Lenin.

aaaallllllllllrighty then

No anyone how has strong views that are dangerous is not preferable to somebody who only believes in self advancement.  I consider climate change denial dangerous.  He also took a very hard line on covid lockdown which suggests if PM he would not listen to advice and put his own instincts first.  This is also very dangerous.

I suspect Guy you’d be a lot more comfortable with it if you agreed with his opinions - he would be “principled” and “passionate”. 
 

That is to say - you wouldn’t care so much that he operated on his instincts and didn’t bow to civil servant advice if you agreed with his instincts..

So anyone with a strong view that wants to contribute to 'the greater good' can reasonably be compared to Hitler or Lenin.

But what constitutes the "greater good" is arguably subjective, as Brexit has proven.

Hard line idealogues are potentially dangerous and it's apposite to recall the worst of them when there's one within sniffing distance of a leadership position.

I dont believe climate change is a matter of opinion stru.  He is wrong, simple as that and the fact he continues to believe that against all established evidence makes him dangerous.

 

O'Brien relentlessly does this Stru - it is so obvious to those that independent of mind.  I suspect you are like this, and Guy is not

But what constitutes the "greater good" is arguably subjective, as Brexit has proven.

Did anyone pushing for brexit really believe it was for the greater good? Surely they all knew it was a crock of shit and would only cause economic and cultural damage and they only wanted it for their own personal gain (eg Johnson, JRM) or personal prejudices (eg Farage) or they were so well off they were immune to the effects.  

heh at describing baker as competent

he’s a lunatic

u may love him cos ur a lunatic, but that doesn’t make him ne less dangerous 4 our country

on the positive, he would fook the tozzas totally

Did anyone pushing for brexit really believe it was for the greater good?

You might write them off as foolish, wilfully blind, naive, ill-informed optimistic or whatever but the answer is clearly YES.  As remainer, I can't understand YTF, some remainers just don't get this. 

You may not agree with his values and ideology and even think they are crazy but he actually has something he believes in beyond self advancement 

Yep - you could say the same about Jeremy Corbyn -and indeed there are quite a few who consider JC “principled” and “passionate”.  It'd be interesting to see Baker's ideology is as electable as JC's, or whether the nation will embrace small-state (massive cuts in services) and low-tax (massive cuts in services, no-tax for the rich), Toryism that so many party members bewail that the nation hasn't been able to choose, along with generous helpings of hard Brexit , returning to the gold standard and muscular Christianity.  

 

Baker and Rees-Mogg would be my dream ticket.  

snap pole shows only 1 per cent of tory membership would vote for Steve Baker so seems even that lot are not quite as nuts as some of the loonier roffers.