Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Henry Bolton is the new UKIP leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/henry-bolton-former-soldier-has-reputation-as-competent-technocrat

Henry Bolton?

He has previous experience of running for the role of Kent Police and Crime Commissioner. And that's it.

If memory serves, reds8n was a big fan of the police and crime commissioners, so maybe he knows something about this

At any rate, who knows how long he'll last for? UKIP seems pretty fractured these days.

And? So? Whats your point? UKIP is a 2nd rate party. Its hardly surprising it has 2nd rate leaders.

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

To anyone who keeps up to date with political, social, andd economic theory, they have extremely up-to-date solutions to very modern problems - they're the only major party in UK politics (both the English and Welsh Greens and Scottish Greens are onto it as well) who've even used phrases like internet of things or smart factories, never mind acknowledged that we need to coompletely reform our economies before everyone gets replaced by machines, whilst everyone else is wandering about thinking petrol cars are at the forefront of technology and economic systems from the 1900s are here forever. Hell, the Tories and Lib Dems slaughtered Corbyn when he mentioned the internet of things on the basis that he was using meaningless buzzwords - but it's Labour that are out of date?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats all they ever were and ever will be - a pressure group.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Though to be fair to Henry Bolton having read up on his career, he sounds like exactly the sort of Politician who should be leading our political parties. He's an ex-soldier and Policeman who was recognised for bravery. He's a completely different breed of politician to the usual cretins who lead British political parties.

Its a shame he's not leading the Conservative Party.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My point is that for a healthy democracy, a multi-party system is a good thing.

Sadly, British politics is in a dire state.

The non-Conservative Conservative party is literally a dying party. Membership is declining and the average age of it's members is 75

The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

And at any rate, Corbyn won't be able to fudge Brexit forever.

As for the rest, the Lib Dems are as feeble as always, the Greens a fringe party, the SNP have lost their way.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Except this is really making my point that you misunderstanding the outcomes of statistical analysis.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Ruth Davidson might be a decent replacement and better than May but I can't see it for two reasons. Firstly she is quite strongly pro-EU and secondly in the 2015 election there was a strong anti-Scotland controlling things message from the Tories.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

The British public’s support for #nationalisation of #water, #electricity, #gas and #trains is overwhelming

Table 1 shows some of the main measures of global trade in 2015, the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available. The EU either with or without the UK is the world’s second largest economy, and together the USA, EU27 (minus the UK), and China command 48% of the global economy, 42% of global trade in goods (not counting internal EU trade), and 43% of global trade in services. The UK outside the EU would be the fifth largest economy, but would only command 2.4% of global GDP, 2.1% of global trade in goods, and 4.3% of global trade in services. In short, the UK would not be in the “premier league” as a global trading power. This is not to say that the UK could not be a successful economy outside the EU, but does suggest that the UK is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining situation when negotiating free trade agreements, particularly with the world’s dominate trading powers: the US, the EU, and China.

To shed more light on the free trade prospects for the UK outside the EU, let us look at the situation from the point of view of South Korea, which will be a similarly-sized trading power to an ‘independent’ UK. South Korea is the world’s 9th largest economy (counting the EU as a single bloc), and in terms of global trade (not counting internal EU trade), South Korea’s combined trade volume (exports plus imports) in goods and services was larger than the UK’s in 2015, at €1,059bn compared to the UK’s €777bn.

South Korea already has an FTA with the EU, which hence currently covers the UK. So, South Korea is likely to be near the “front of the queue” for a new free trade agreement with the UK, as Liam Fox has suggested. Could this agreement be concluded quickly? What would the terms of such an agreement be? And would these terms be more or less beneficial for the UK than the current EU-South Korea FTA?

To answer these questions, let us look in more detail at the EU-South Korea FTA, which entered into force on 1 July 2011. Because the EU and South Korea had been working on a series of mutual assistance and trade agreements for some time, the EU-South Korea FTA was concluded relatively quickly. Negotiations started in May 2007 and were concluded in October 2009. It then took a further 2 years for the deal to be adopted and implemented. The European Parliament did not ratify the EU-South Korea FTA until February 2011, and only after South Korea had made several further concessions, including a new “safeguard” clause to protect European industry and a guarantee that new Korean car emissions limits would not be detrimental to European car manufacturers.

Two issues make the EU-South Korea agreement particularly interesting from a trade point of view. First, the agreement is the most ambitious of the 30 or so trade agreements that the EU has signed so far, in that it covers a larger volume of bilateral trade than any other agreement between the EU and a third country. For example, in 2015 EU-South Korea trade was €90bn, whereas EU-Canada trade was only €64bn. The EU trades more with the United States and China, but the EU does not yet have free trade agreements with either of these countries.

Second, the EU-South Korea agreement is interesting because it is the most comprehensive agreement the EU has implemented to date, and is one of the most comprehensive trade agreements signed between any two partners anywhere in the world. Import duties (tariffs) are eliminated on almost all products. The agreement also goes far beyond the liberalisation of services market that both parties have already implemented under their GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) commitments. For example, the treaty includes stronger intellectual property rights (including geographical indications), regulatory co-operation, sustainable development provisions, aims to open up public procurement, as well as specific commitments to reduce non-tariff barriers in many sectors, including cars, pharmaceuticals, and electronics. As a result, the EU-South Korea agreement is often seen as a model “second generation” trade agreement.

From the UK’s point of view, a comprehensive FTA with South Korea would also be attractive. As Table 2 shows, South Korea is the UK’s 11th largest trading partner (treating the EU27 as a single trade entity). In fact, South Korea is the third largest trading partner of the UK outside the EU with which the UK currently has a trade status as a member of the EU. Norway is in the single market via the European Economic Area (EEA), and Turkey is part of the EU’s Customs Union, so these two states would be covered by any FTA with the EU/EEA. The US, China, Hong Kong, Japan and India will be high on the UK’s priority list, but any negotiations with these states would need to start from scratch, whereas potential agreements with Switzerland, Canada and South Korea could start from the terms of the current EU (and hence UK) agreements with these three countries. Also, as the final column shows, the UK currently has a positive trade balance with South Korea.



Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, the volume of UK exports and imports between the UK and any of these states is tiny compared to the current volume of trade between the UK and the EU. Hence, the overwhelming top priority for the UK must be a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU. Theresa May has tried to claim that “no deal is better than a bad deal”. But, given the dependence of UK industry and UK consumers on trade with the EU, this claim must be treated with some scepticism. For example, even if the UK could sign quick agreements with the 10 other countries in Table 2 – and this is a big “if” – this would only cover 37% of the UK’s current exports and 33% of the UK’s current imports, compared to the current 44% of exports to and 53% of imports from the EU27.

Assuming the UK could do a deal with South Korea, what would it cover? Table 3 shows the main products traded between the UK and South Korea in 2015. As the data show, the removal of tariffs has led to a significant year-on-year increase in trade in several sectors. Producers in these sectors, and consumers of these products will be eager not to reintroduce tariffs once the UK leaves the EU, and hence the current EU-South Korea FTA.


At face value, a quick cut-and-paste of the terms of the EU-South Korea FTA into a new UK-South Korea FTA seems like the simplest, least disruptive, and quickest solution. However, this is not as simple as it sounds. The precise terms of the EU-South Korea FTA were the result of a delicate compromise between a very large and powerful economy, the EU, and an economy and trading power less than one-tenth of the size of the EU. As a result, the EU had a much stronger negotiation position than Korea, and, as discussed, Korea had to make even more concessions to secure an agreement in the European Parliament. In contrast, the South Korean economy is about half the size of the UK economy. Because of this, Seoul will be reluctant to simply replicate the terms of the EU-South Korea FTA in a new UK-South Korea FTA, as South Korea will expect a more equal ‘partnership’ with an independent UK.

In addition, in many specific areas the EU-South Korea agreement goes well beyond Korea’s GATS commitments. For example, in financial services, it allows EU firms the right to offer new financial services as they will develop. It also opens telecommunications markets by reducing local ownership requirements, as well as the legal services and accountant services markets. Markets for medical, education and audio-visual services were excluded on the request of the EU. The level of market liberalisation in this area was similar to that of the US-South Korea FTA.

In terms of services trade, it will not be easy for the UK to get better terms in a future UK-South Korea FTA than the current level of liberalisation. For example, in chapter 7 of the EU-South Korea FTA, on Trade in Services, Establishment and Electronic Commerce, each party is required to extend to the other any market liberalisation that it may grant in any future FTA that it signs with another third country. This implies that South Korea cannot agree any further services market access to the UK, in a future UK-South Korea agreement, without also extending it to the EU. In addition, if South Korea extends market access to the UK, the US may demand a similar level of access under its agreement with Korea. Ever since Korea negotiated the respective FTAs with the EU and the US in parallel, the US has tried to make sure that the US obtain a similar level of market access to Korea to that granted to the EU. As a result, it is unlikely that South Korea would be willing to offer better market access to the UK than that currently granted under the EU-South Korea FTA.

One aspect of the services market is legal services. The terms of the EU-South Korea agreement in this area were almost solely for UK interests, since all of the top 50 law firms in the world are either US or UK based. The agreement allows UK law firms to set up Foreign Legal Consultant offices in Korea. Under the agreement, lawyers licensed in the UK can provide advisory services regarding the jurisdiction in which they are licensed and public international law in Korea. It also provides for cooperation and joint ventures between UK and Korean law firms in order to deal with cases in which domestic and foreign legal issues are mixed. Five EU-based law firms have opened offices in Korea under the agreement, and all 5 of these are British. If the UK leaves the EU without a new agreement with South Korea, the interests of UK law firms, and the millions of Pounds of contracts they have signed will be put in jeopardy.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, even if the UK and South Korea could agree to apply the current terms of the EU-South Korea FTA, this would not be as beneficial for the UK once it leaves the EU. This might seem counter-intuitive, but the reason for this is because of the way “rules of origin” work in international trade. Under the EU-South Korea FTA, there are two main scenarios for a product to be considered as “originating” in the EU or South Korea. The first scenario is that it has been wholly produced in the EU or South Korea. The second is that it has been sufficiently processed in the EU or South Korea. The criteria for determining “sufficient processing” are described for each product in the product-specific rules in the text of the agreement.

For instance, for cars, base on value added, a car will be deemed to have “originated” in the EU if no more than 45% of the value of the inputs have been imported from outside South Korea or the EU to manufacture it. Under the current agreement, any product originating in the UK is counted as originating in the EU if the component parts are manufactured anywhere in the EU and South Korea (the EU and Korea mutually recognise each other’s origins when calculating rules of origin). But, once the UK leaves the EU, these components from the EU will be considered to be from outside the UK, which will mean that many UK products will not count as “originating” in the UK and so will not be covered by the terms of the deal. Currently, the percentage of UK components in British-built cars is 41% on average, which is short of meeting the required 55% of local contents under a UK-South Korea FTA that replicates the rules-of-origin in the current EU-South Korea FTA. This could mean, then, that cars manufactured in the UK would suddenly be subject to an 8% tariff when exported to Korea (which is the current WTO most-favoured-nation level), even if the UK and South Korea agree to continue to apply the current EU-South Korea agreement!

To summarise, viewed from Seoul, the prospects for a “Global Britain” can be summarised as follows:

1) The UK outside the EU will be a ‘second tier’ player when it comes to negotiating free trade agreements, considerably weaker than the ‘big three’, of the US, the EU, and China;

2) It will be easier for the UK to sign trade deals with the 53 countries with which the UK already has free trade agreements, via its current EU membership;

3) One of the countries high on this list will be South Korea, which has a very comprehensive FTA with the EU, covering services and non-tariff barriers, which has already reaped important benefits to both the UK and South Korea;

4) But, South Korea will be reluctant to replicate the terms of the EU-South Korea FTA for the UK, because it would expect a better deal with the UK than it managed to negotiate with the EU (because the EU has an economy 10 times larger than South Korea, whereas the UK economy is only twice the size of South Korea);

5) If the UK fails to reach an agreement with South Korea, this would lead to the re-imposition of tariffs on UK-South Korea trade, and would jeopardise the significant services trade that has developed between these two economies; and

6) Even if South Korea and the UK could agree to replicate the terms of the EU-South Korea agreement, the “rules of origin” in the deal could mean tariffs on many manufactured goods from the UK (such as cars) as a result of the large content of parts from elsewhere in the EU, which would count as made in a “third country” once the UK has left the EU.

In short, Global Britain does not look quite as attractive from Seoul as it might initially seem from London!

The Tories were unprepared for a snap election says Theresa May, who called the snap election
In a frank interview, the Prime Minister, who refused to do head to head debates complains there wasn't enough 'coming together for debates' in the campaign

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?

I am not, and have never been, an elected official.

I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.

I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.

There's nothing more I can do.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?

I am not, and have never been, an elected official.

I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.

I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.

There's nothing more I can do.

You can potentially become an elected official, that's an option available.

Also voting for Brexit knowing full well that bank managers, PR men, SPADS, spivs, and careerists are the ones currently in charge.

At least with the EU they're further away from us

The foreign secretary has been accused of “incredible insensitivity” after it emerged he recited part of a colonial-era Rudyard Kipling poem in front of local dignitaries while on an official visit to Myanmar in January.
Boris Johnson was inside the Shwedagon Pagoda, the most sacred Buddhist site in the capital Yangon, when he started uttering the opening verse to The Road to Mandalay, including the line: “The temple bells they say/ Come you back you English soldier.”
Kipling’s poem captures the nostalgia of a retired serviceman looking back on his colonial service and a Burmese girl he kissed. Britain colonised Myanmar from 1824 to 1948 and fought three wars in the 19th century, suppressing widespread resistance.

Johnson’s impromptu recital was so embarrassing that the UK ambassador to Myanmar, Andrew Patrick, was forced to stop him. The incident was captured by a film crew for Channel 4 and will form part of a documentary to be broadcast on Sunday about the fitness of the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip to become prime minister.
The previously unbroadcast footage shows the diplomat managing to halt Johnson before he could get to the line about a “Bloomin’ idol made o’ mud/ Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd” – a reference to the Buddha.
The gaffe came on the first visit to Myanmar by a British foreign secretary in five years. He had taken part in a ritual involving pouring water over a golden statue of what he described as “a very big guinea pig”, when he approached a 42-tonne bell, rang it with a wooden stick and spontaneously started reciting Kipling’s poem.
A visibly tense ambassador stood by as Johnson continued: “The wind is in the palm trees and the temple bells they say ...” Then Patrick reminded him: “You’re on mic,” adding: “Probably not a good idea...”
Advertisement

“What?” Johnson replied. “The Road to Mandalay?”
“No,” said the ambassador sternly. “Not appropriate.”
“No?” replied Johnson looking down at his mobile phone. “Good stuff.”
“It is stunning he would do this there,” said Mark Farmaner, director of the Burma Campaign UK. “There is a sensitivity about British colonialism and it is something that people in Burma are still resentful about. British colonial times were seen as a humiliation and an insult.
“It shows an incredible lack of understanding especially now we are seeing the impact of Buddhist nationalism, especially in Rakine state [where Rohingya muslims have been been the subject of violent persecution].”
Kipling hardly knew Myanmar at all and only travelled there for three days in his 20s, but his poems and short stories about the place helped forge the image of the country in the imagination of colonial Britain.
Rushanara Ali, the Labour MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy in Myanmar, said: “I can think of a long list of reasons why Boris Johnson isn’t fit to be prime minister. This can be added to that list.”
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office declined to comment.
Maung Bo Bo, a Burmese doctoral student in London whose family campaigned alongside Myanmar’s current leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, said offence could be taken because the poem talks about kissing a girl, something that would be frowned on in the context of a temple.
Later in the documentary, titled Blond Ambition, Jacob Rees-Mogg describes Johnson as “a colossus on the political stage” and former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell says he is “impossible to dislike”.
It captures multiple awkward moments in Johnson’s career at the Foreign Office. In Ankara in September 2016 it shows him being asked whether he would apologise for writing a crude limerick about the Turkish president which included the line that he had “sowed his wild oats with the help of a goat”. An initially shifty-looking Johnson rallied and replied with typical bluster that “nobody has seen fit to raise it”.
In London last year he stood alongside former US secretary of state John Kerry and was asked about describing Hillary Clinton as looking “like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital”.
It shows him insulting European leaders in the wake of Donald Trump’s election victory as he complained about the “winge-o-rama” that greeted Trump’s win, and shows how Downing Street had to disown his remarks on Saudi Arabia in Rome – that it was puppeteering and playing proxy wars in the region.
He is also seen comparing President Hollande of France to a wartime prison guard who wants to “administer punishment beatings to anybody who chooses to escape, in the manner of some world war two movie”.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The Labour party have 1970s solutions to 1970s problems, which is all very well and good...except it's 2017

Nice sound bite, oft repeated. But what does it mean in a world where things go in natural cycles? The politics of 2017 are not working in 2017, maybe a look at the past is what we need instead of people trying to pull nonsense out of their ass. Just because something mirrors that of decades ago does not make it worthless. Frankly what Corbyn says resonates with a lot of people who are tired of centre politics appeasing the right, so that corporations and greed are served by Labour and Tory governments alike.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shouldn't you have, you know, had that plan, or at least an embryo of it, BEFORE taking the plunge?

I am not, and have never been, an elected official.

I pay my taxes, obey the laws of the land, and fulfil my civic duty by voting at every election and attending court whenever I have been requested to sit on a jury.

I have fulfilled my part of the social contract between citizen and government.

There's nothing more I can do.

You can potentially become an elected official, that's an option available.

Also voting for Brexit knowing full well that bank managers, PR men, SPADS, spivs, and careerists are the ones currently in charge.

At least with the EU they're further away from us

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Just because the Tory party would struggle to find its rear with a map, compass, 3 SPADs, and a think tank assissting, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea.

The idea is very sound IMO, the execution is just gak poor.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Can I ask how old you are, having grown up in the 80s?

I'm disappointed with how the unions have been broken. There are deliberate efforts against unions, from the government and the media to undermine them. And the dumb public soak it up forgetting that many of their rights at work were won through union action. The pay and conditions we have now were not volunteered freely by government and business.

The attitude now is that we have it good at work now, so all unions do is create inconvenience for others. That's what it boils down to, I get the same as a teacher. If I strike, I read criticism from parents because their kids can't go to school for the day. They don't look beyond that to the funding and quality of education heir child gets, it's just that right now we're the enemy because we've inconvenienced them.

Or maybe it's jealously - the RMT are one of the more militant unions and lo and behold, railway drivers are well paid. People working in jobs with weak or no unions get taken advantage of. But instead of questioning why they don't have similar representation that gets results, they read sh-t in the papers and go on the attack, all unions are evil and greedy, they'll ruin the country, etc.

It's shows that the conspiracy between government and media works to oppress workers. It's not just Tories, Blair rolled out the red carpet for Murdoch and his ilk just as quickly.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Just because the Tory party would struggle to find its rear with a map, compass, 3 SPADs, and a think tank assissting, doesn't make Brexit a bad idea.

The idea is very sound IMO, the execution is just gak poor.

The idea only seems sound if you buy the Tory wishful thinking, half truths and straight up lies about how the EU works, how the process of leaving will develop and the future prospects of a EU-less UK.

Assemble a crack team of the best of the very best and they would still struggle to get anything with the hand the UK has been dealt by the Brexit vote.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd love someone who votes Tory to explain to me why the youth of today can't have the same perks and privileges Baby Boomers enjoyed.

How come we suddenly can't afford X,Y and Z when our economy is far larger than it was when Baby Boomers enjoyed free University?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I just don't but the Tory narrative.

Magic Money Trees seem to exist when it's ideologically convenient, such as bribing the DUP to cling on to power,, or to pay a private company more than is being saved to hoof people off benefits, and many unfairly so,

They're a national disgrace.

 Hollow wrote:
There is absolutely no financial reason for there to be university fees. It's purely ideological.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Except this is really making my point that you misunderstanding the outcomes of statistical analysis.

Actually, I've closely read what you've written here, and I think I understand what you're saying now. Namely that anything underneath a 2.3% variation in statistics is not 'significant', meaning that these results do pass muster for a general conclusion. But only just, there's a 1 in 20 chance of serious error, and they would therefore usually require further scrutiny/ study before drawing any more specific conclusions beyond those at the national level.

At the same time however, I still maintain that original point, which is more of an observation on the cumulative impact of wage depression across the extended period of time measured. Acknowledging that it may only have been an incremental depression on a year by year basis (and qualifying that I understand that we're generally excluding more detailed potential analysis involving minimum wage and economic impact), even knocking only a penny or two earned per hour every year still adds up to a significant impact upon the budget of a barely managing family in the bottom end of the labour market. Even if we go to the extreme and assume that my previous calculations are 66% out of whack due to the previously mentioned variations, that's still an extra ten quids worth of earning power per month lost to those at the bottom of the food chain by 2011.

And speaking as someone who grew up in a household so poor that their parents used to count out their coppers on the table to try and meet the electricity bill? I can see why if there's any chance that the figures are even remotely close to those more general calculations, people at the lower end of the economic strata would be against immigration.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Blimey, I agree with some of Whirlwind's points

I think you're wrong about Bojo, though. In last year's leadership election, he bottled his big opportunity. He had his chance and threw it away.

nfe wrote:


Plus, you know, she loves racists and bigots, wont expell them from the party, and supports them standing for election. That wont fly under UK-level press scrutiny.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You may ask my age, but I refuse to tell.

Let's just say I'm the wrong side of 40 and we'll leave it at that.

Boris Johnson believes Theresa May will be driven from Downing Street within a year and plans one last tilt at the Tory leadership.

In a move that will unleash civil war at the Conservative Party conference this weekend, allies of the foreign secretary warned that Tory donors were preparing to move their money offshore because the prime minister was “driving the party into the ground”.

One leading Eurosceptic said a coup to remove May could “take off fast” unless she got a grip.

In a further blow to May’s authority, it emerged that Johnson privately mocked the prime minister, joking that her former aides Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy held her in a state of “modern slavery”.

His jibes were revealed by Channel 4 after Johnson gave an interview laying out four “red lines” for Britain’s Brexit deal, which go further than the prime minister’s speech in Florence last month, and pressed her to increase public-sector pay.

Johnson’s move prompted one minister to call for May to fire the foreign secretary or stand down herself: “Either she sacks Boris or she goes. It’s that simple.”

MPs said that if the prime minister was too weak to maintain cabinet discipline, she should make way for someone who could.

A leading Eurosceptic who has been talking to Johnson said: “I detect a change of weather among MPs and donors. People who said to me in July that she must stay until 2019 are now saying: ‘I don’t think she’ll make it’ or ‘She shouldn’t make it.’

“A bunch of top donors are making preparations to move things offshore because they think May is running the whole party into the ground. If conference is a mess, it could all take off fast.”

The belief among some MPs that Johnson wants to be sacked was fuelled by claims that he recently told a friend that he was running out of money and could not afford to live on a cabinet minister’s salary — £141,505 — because of his extensive family responsibilities.

The eruption overshadowed May’s attempts to get her premiership back on track with an £11bn offer to young people to ease the pain of university tuition fees and help them onto the housing ladder.

May will promise to:

■ Freeze tuition fees at their current level

■ Raise the threshold at which graduates start paying off their debt from £21,000 to £25,000 — saving graduates £360 a year. This will cost taxpayers £1.2bn

■ Set up a commission to examine whether to slash existing debt and force universities to charge less than £9,000 for courses that give students less value for money.

In an effort to help young people onto the housing ladder, the government will:

■ Plough an extra £10bn into the Help to Buy scheme, allowing an extra 135,000 to get a low-cost loan to buy a first home

■ Ban letting fees, which cost the average tenant £327

■ Extend the code of practice that governs letting agents to private landlords

■ Devise tax incentives to encourage landlords to offer longer tenancies.

The Sunday Times has learnt May is also considering a radical plan to slash or axe stamp duty for first-time buyers, although that will not be unveiled at the conference. The proposal was considered by Timothy before the election but rejected because it would have been paid for by capital gains tax raids on the better off and second-home owners.

The claims about Johnson’s ambitions are sourced from Gary Gibbon, political editor of Channel 4 News, who has made a documentary on Johnson, which is broadcast today. “He thinks she’s got a year at most,” one friend of the foreign secretary said.

Gibbon reported: “Those close to Johnson say he thinks he probably has one more go at the top job in him and then it’s really over.”

The row enraged senior Eurosceptic backbenchers, who want May to survive in order to pursue a hard Brexit. “We would like the conference to go well and the government to pull together,” said one.

May denied there had been a breakdown in cabinet discipline and claimed that Johnson setting out his own policy “red lines” was not unique in government. She told The Sunday Telegraph: “If you look back in the records of newspapers you’ll see that cabinet ministers giving different views is not something that only has happened in the last year and a half, that it’s actually happened before.”

May pledged to fight the next general election, which has to take place by 2022, as Tory leader. She said: “I’m in it for the long term.”

A source close to Johnson said the interview in which he laid out his red lines had been authorised by No 10.

May will use Tuesday’s conference speech to outline plans to tackle the “burning injustices” in British society.