Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on June 30, 2016, 09:29:11 AM
-
I wonder what people thing of the possibility of having Eagle and May in charge of their respective parties? Could this see a further dramatic turn in British politics?
-
I wonder what people thing of the possibility of having Eagle and May in charge of their respective parties? Could this see a further dramatic turn in British politics?
All in all I thing that would be, if not actually the best, maybe the least bad result.
-
Having gone from a Salmon to a Sturgeon in Scotland, is it possible that a Crab will become a Tory leader and a fish Eagle a labour leader?
-
I see Gove is now going to seek election as party leader, after he apparently pledged his support for Boris the other day!!!!!!!!!!!! He did education no good at all when in charge of that department, so the UK would really be down the drain for good and all with him as PM, imo.
-
I see Gove is now going to seek election as party leader, after he apparently pledged his support for Boris the other day!!!!!!!!!!!! He did education no good at all when in charge of that department, so the UK would really be down the drain for good and all with him as PM, imo.
The only good thing about that seems to be that he is likely to take Boris votes.
-
The only good thing about that seems to be that he is likely to take Boris votes.
What if he takes so many that he wins?
-
What if he takes so many that he wins?
I can't see the loathsome Gove getting through, but if he could nobble Boris that would be a result.
-
I prefer Boris to Gove and that is really saying something!
-
I prefer Boris to Gove and that is really saying something!
I think Boris is more dangerous in as much as he has the 'popular appeal' that might give him the party vote. Better if he doesn't get that far.
-
I can't see the loathsome Gove getting through, but if he could nobble Boris that would be a result.
I couldn't see the loathsome Trump getting the Republican nomination, but it happened.
-
I couldn't see the loathsome Trump getting the Republican nomination, but it happened.
Gove is not popular with the public, he would be a liability as leader.
-
Did anyone really think he would stay in line behind Johnson? It was just a question of timing before kicking off the backstabbing.
-
I suspect he has spent more time and effort in building up support from other Conservative MPs than Boris has.
-
Gove is not popular with the public, he would be a liability as leader.
Trump is not popular with the American public, he would be a liability as a presidential candidate.
-
Dear Madness, Madness, they call it Madness,
Will Gove steal votes from May or Johnson, Theresa May, Maggie Two the Lady who is for Turning, it all seems like some third world country stuff, the world is watching and they are having a long hard guffaw.
Gonnagle.
-
Trump is not popular with the American public, he would be a liability as a presidential candidate.
Many senior Republicans don't want Trump as President.
-
Trump is not popular with the American public, he would be a liability as a presidential candidate.
He won through a democratic process, so is obviously popular with a significant number of the public, and lothe him or hate him, you have to admit he has a certain charisma. Gove has all the Charisma of a dead sheep.
-
Dear Madness, Madness, they call it Madness,
Will Gove steal votes from May or Johnson, Theresa May, Maggie Two the Lady who is for Turning, it all seems like some third world country stuff, the world is watching and they are having a long hard guffaw.
Gonnagle.
Actually looks like May is ahead at the moment:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19mKbV0UnIbX_lbiinKiquP0ghiFpsMl0owUO6_TJyzI/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true
-
He won through a democratic process,
Gove could win through a democratic process but of a much smaller proportion of the public.
-
Gove could win through a democratic process but of a much smaller proportion of the public.
The final vote is likely to be with party members and I can't see him winning that - he is not popular with anyone and not really an election winner (unless the alternative is Corbyn)
-
Boris has just said he won't stand - so no PM Boris - Hooray!
-
Gove the assassin, eh? The lady will be grinning from ear to ear (in secret).
-
Boris is no longer a contestant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Dear Lapsed,
That is a lovely spreadsheet, tells you a bit about me that I love excel, how did you come across it, very easy to understand and yes, where is Boris.
Gonnagle.
-
Boris is spending more time with his wife. Yeah, very likely.
There's be lots of quoting, 'he who wields the dagger, seldom wears the crown', in relation to Gove.
-
Disappointed that Boris isn't standing - at least he would have split the vote on that side of the debate. Have never heard of Andrea Leadsom - does anyone have any first hand knowledge about her, other than that she was a 'leave' supporter?
My preference would be Stephen Crabb, with May a close second and Fox and Gove a far distant =4th.
-
Gove has all the Charisma of a dead sheep.
That's being extremely rude to dead sheep, LA
-
Disappointed that Boris isn't standing - at least he would have split the vote on that side of the debate. Have never heard of Andrea Leadsom - does anyone have any first hand knowledge about her, other than that she was a 'leave' supporter?
My preference would be Stephen Crabb, with May a close second and Fox and Gove a far distant =4th.
Don't know too much about Crabb but my first choice would be May - with Fox and Gove somewhere behind Osama Bin Laden.
-
PM Crabb v FM Sturgeon?
-
That's being extremely rude to dead sheep, LA
I agree! :D
-
Don't know too much about Crabb but my first choice would be May - with Fox and Gove somewhere behind Osama Bin Laden.
I don't think Crabb has a enough experience. I agree about Fox and Gove; a very long way behind Bin Laden!
-
Have never heard of Andrea Leadsom - does anyone have any first hand knowledge about her, other than that she was a 'leave' supporter?
She was part of the debate team for leave - some Brexiters said she was good - I disagree, I thought she was unconvincing, wooden and came across as if it was a bit of a game, rather than the most important decision of a generation.
Clearly she is vain enough to believe the (misplaced) hyperbole. Sufficiently to think she should go directly from being a junior minister who no-one has ever heard of to becoming PM.
As you can see I'm not impressed. She, of course, won't win.
-
My preference would be Stephen Crabb
Why - because he's Welsh, or because he's an evangelical Christian who hates gays and voted against gay marriage?
-
Why - because he's Welsh, or because he's an evangelical Christian who hates gays and voted against gay marriage?
Neither. I just think that he'd be a new broom as opposed to several of the others who have been around for so long. He has also had to build internal coalitions as regards the issue of additional powers for the devolved Welsh government. As I said, don't know enough about Leadsom to make a sensible judgement.
-
Dear Prof,
or because he's an evangelical Christian who hates gays and voted against gay marriage?
He's the man, Russia will be our best pal, which is just as well because nobody else will.
Funny thing, a lot of people were looking for Irish citizenship on the Jeremy Vine show after the referendum, I think one of my granny's were Irish, do I wait for Independence or jump ship now. :o
Gonnagle.
-
Neither. I just think that he'd be a new broom as opposed to several of the others who have been around for so long. He has also had to build internal coalitions as regards the issue of additional powers for the devolved Welsh government. As I said, don't know enough about Leadsom to make a sensible judgement.
Hmm - let's not forget that the winner will be PM, not, as is usually the case leader of the opposition, with perhaps 5 years to gain experience and then only becoming PM if they are sufficiently credible (or not) to win an election. The latter being the case for Cameron, Miliband, IDS (although he never made it to lead the Tories into an election), Howard, Corbyn (see also comment on IDS - let's hope), Hague, Kinnock etc.
Do you really want a PM come September - in these most testing of times - who is woefully inexperienced, having only been an MP for 6 years and a member of the cabinet for 6 months.
Now is no time for inexperience - much as I cannot believe I am saying this, the only sensible choice is May.
-
As I said, don't know enough about Leadsom to make a sensible judgement.
Which is precisely why she won't win and shouldn't win. Most PMs have to win a general election to attain that office - is it really credible that someone that most people have never heard of should be leading our country in just a few weeks. And people went on about faceless people leading the EU without democratic mandate - that would take the biscuit.
-
Why - because he's Welsh, or because he's an evangelical Christian who hates gays and voted against gay marriage?
Oh, of course, that's where I've heard of him before - thumbs down for Crab then >:(
-
Why - because he's Welsh, or because he's an evangelical Christian who hates gays and voted against gay marriage?
If that is true, he is the last person we want as PM!
-
Boris is spending more time with his wife. Yeah, very likely.
. . .
Well, I expect it will be somebodies wife.
-
If that is true, he is the last person we want as PM!
Indeed it is. And of course the vast, vast majority of people in the UK won't get to say who our new PM is - that privilege will be restricted to about 150,000 Tory party members.
But remember folks, it's the EU that is undemocratic.
-
From the BBC live reporting stream -Michael Heseltine's take on Boris: and he's right on the button.
There will be a profound sense of dismay and frankly contempt. He's ripped the party apart. He's created the greatest constitutional crisis of modern times. He knocked billions off the value of the nation's savings. He's like a general who leads his army to the sound of guns and at the sight of the battlefield abandoned the field. I have never seen so contemptible and irresponsible a situation. He must live with the shame of what he has done."
-
Typical Bullingdon club, smash up the crockery, and scarper.
-
Indeed it is. And of course the vast, vast majority of people in the UK won't get to say who our new PM is - that privilege will be restricted to about 150,000 Tory party members.
But remember folks, it's the EU that is undemocratic.
Same for the Labour leader, if there is ever another Labour government.
-
Typical Bullingdon club, smash up the crockery, and scarper.
Though to be fair, I understand that they do pay generous compensation to the damaged establishment.
Wealthy as he is I don't think Boris could even begin to pay for the damage that he has done.
-
Same for the Labour leader, if there is ever another Labour government.
Not the case, except in a situation where a sitting PM stands down mid term.
So when Corbyn was elected leaded (by a few hundred thousand members and supporters) he became leader of the opposition. He would only become PM if he one a general election where everyone is entitled to vote.
That's the point, and the difference. And I'm not making a partisan party political point - what I am pointing out is that come September we will have a PM voted for by 150,000 people (actually the winning proportion of that) leading the UK and the UK government. Yet throughout the referendum debate we kept getting told that it was the EU that was undemocratic. Hmm.
-
Same for the Labour leader, if there is ever another Labour government.
Surely anyone can vote for the Labour leader, you just pay your three quite. It is widely believed that thousands of Tories voted for Corbyn.
-
Surely anyone can vote for the Labour leader, you just pay your three quite. It is widely believed that thousands of Tories voted for Corbyn.
Same is true (in theory) for the Tories - I guess you could join today - not quite sure what their rules say - whether you need to have been a member for a period of time to be eligible.
Doesn't affect the point - we will end up with a new PM who we hadn't elected via the normal channels (a general election).
Frankly I don't see how this can go on realistically without a general election in the Autumn once (hopefully) new leaders of both Labour and the Tories are installed. Problem is that the fixed term parliament act (another legacy of Cameron that we will live to regret) makes it pretty well impossible for one to happen in practice.
-
Same is true (in theory) for the Tories - I guess you could join today - not quite sure what their rules say - whether you need to have been a member for a period of time to be eligible.
. . .
I don't think they do the cut-price £3 special offer that Labour do. As far as I know only people who have been full party member for three months or more can vote.
-
I don't think they do the cut-price £3 special offer that Labour do. As far as I know only people who have been full party member for three months or more can vote.
You may well be right - certainly you are right that they don't have a £3 deal.
Interestingly years ago my parents were true blue party members and at the time there was no set membership subscription level - you simply paid what you wanted and became a member. Point being that most were pretty wealthy so their average member fee was actually way higher than that of the Labour party, who has a set fee. And of course there was also the 'soft' pressure - members being made to feel a touch uncomfortable by being told what other members were contributing, so that they coughed up far, far more than they needed to to become a member.
-
...
Frankly I don't see how this can go on realistically without a general election in the Autumn once (hopefully) new leaders of both Labour and the Tories are installed. Problem is that the fixed term parliament act (another legacy of Cameron that we will live to regret) makes it pretty well impossible for one to happen in practice.
May has already stated that she will rule out an early GE and will hold off triggering Article 50 until the end of the year, if she becomes leader/PM. Apparently some Conservative MPs are worried about losing their seats (not sure who to :( ).
-
May has already stated that she will rule out an early GE and will hold off triggering Article 50 until the end of the year, if she becomes leader/PM. Apparently some Conservative MPs are worried about losing their seats (not sure who to :( ).
Which is, of course, shrewd politics as this stage, given that the current stage involves being in the top 2 in the vote of tory MPs to get onto the ballot paper for members.
But I'm not talking about tory internal politics but what is in the interests of the country. The past week has been unprecedented - by September we may well have new PM and new leader of the opposition. Problem is that neither will have a mandate to lead the country and this is particularly critical as the PM will need to take the decision whether (or not) to trigger article 50 and if so to then negotiate with the EU over leaving. Whoever becomes PM in September will not have the mandate of the UK electorate to do that.
-
Of-course that is true, but unless an election is offered by the new PM as part of their pitch, I'm not sure that there will be sufficient pressure to force one even if it's patently undemocratic not to have one.
-
Of-course that is true, but unless an election is offered by the new PM as part of their pitch, I'm not sure that there will be sufficient pressure to force one even if it's patently undemocratic not to have one.
Agree, but I guess what someone says at this stage (when trying to garner MP support) may be different at stage 2 (trying to win sufficient member support) or at the final stage, once PM.
-
My preference would be Stephen Crabb, with May a close second and Fox and Gove a far distant =4th.
Who is your preference for 3rd? ;)
-
I thought the new primeminister was supposed to be selected from the leave campaigners?
That's what was said at one point by David Cameron.
I thought Ms May was a remain supporter.
-
She was part of the debate team for leave - some Brexiters said she was good - I disagree, I thought she was unconvincing, wooden and came across as if it was a bit of a game, rather than the most important decision of a generation.
Clearly she is vain enough to believe the (misplaced) hyperbole. Sufficiently to think she should go directly from being a junior minister who no-one has ever heard of to becoming PM.
As you can see I'm not impressed. She, of course, won't win.
She might.
She qualifies as a leave supporter and it is irrelevant if we don't know her, because we arn't voting.
As long as the voters know her and her track record.
-
She might.
She qualifies as a leave supporter and it is irrelevant if we don't know her, because we arn't voting.
As long as the voters know her and her track record.
I doubt many Tory members would have had a clue who she was until a few weeks ago, and most still won't. Unless you actually watched the debates (and most didn't) you'd still be none the wiser. And even if you had she was very much 3rd billing on the Brexit side, after the main attraction (Boris) and the oddity (Stuart - a Labour Brexiter).
The problem with going with a Leave supporter for the Tories is that they will 'own' all the problems and difficulties that we are currently facing and will face in the coming months and years, including almost certainly a recession. A Remainer can rise above that - 'no my fault, but I'll try to fix it while fulfilling the will of the people'.
-
Rose: She qualifies as a leave supporter and it is irrelevant if we don't know her, because we arn't voting.
I agree with you about the 'irrelevant' bit, we can't do anything about the new PM/Tory leader, but I understand she changed her mind and became a Remain voter. As did Baroness Warsi.
-
I doubt many Tory members would have had a clue who she was until a few weeks ago, and most still won't. Unless you actually watched the debates (and most didn't) you'd still be none the wiser. And even if you had she was very much 3rd billing on the Brexit side, after the main attraction (Boris) and the oddity (Stuart - a Labour Brexiter).
The problem with going with a Leave supporter for the Tories is that they will 'own' all the problems and difficulties that we are currently facing and will face in the coming months and years, including almost certainly a recession. A Remainer can rise above that - 'no my fault, but I'll try to fix it while fulfilling the will of the people'.
True.
-
Oh, of course, that's where I've heard of him before - thumbs down for Crab then >:(
You are suggesting that a Welsh person is unsuitable to be PM?
-
If that is true, he is the last person we want as PM!
So, you don't want a fellow Welshie to be PM?
-
but I understand she changed her mind and became a Remain voter. As did Baroness Warsi.
What Leadsom??! Switched from Leave to Remain?!? News to me.
-
You are suggesting that a Welsh person is unsuitable to be PM?
Nobody on here thinks in stereotypes boyo, we all like leeks, sheep and Max Boyce if he's still alive, not to mention Brains SA. ;)
-
Rose: She qualifies as a leave supporter and it is irrelevant if we don't know her, because we arn't voting.
I agree with you about the 'irrelevant' bit, we can't do anything about the new PM/Tory leader, but I understand she changed her mind and became a Remain voter. As did Baroness Warsi.
This is about Andrea Leadsom ... no way is she for Remain.
-
Oh bugger, I thought we were still on Teresa May. My bad, never mind I'll go and have a lie down.
-
Not the case, except in a situation where a sitting PM stands down mid term.
So when Corbyn was elected leaded (by a few hundred thousand members and supporters) he became leader of the opposition. He would only become PM if he one a general election where everyone is entitled to vote.
That's the point, and the difference. And I'm not making a partisan party political point - what I am pointing out is that come September we will have a PM voted for by 150,000 people (actually the winning proportion of that) leading the UK and the UK government. Yet throughout the referendum debate we kept getting told that it was the EU that was undemocratic. Hmm.
How many of the electorate actually vote - in a General Election - for a national leader, and how many for a party. I'd suggest very few. Let's take the recent Welsh Elections as an example. The valley in which the railway I volunteer for is staunchly Labour, but over the last 3 or 4 years, an increasing number of the population have been saying that Carwyn Jones and his Labour government has failed them badly - so, who do they vote for in the Assembly Election? Labour.
-
Problem is that neither will have a mandate to lead the country and this is particularly critical as the PM will need to take the decision whether (or not) to trigger article 50 and if so to then negotiate with the EU over leaving. Whoever becomes PM in September will not have the mandate of the UK electorate to do that.
I believe, PD, that legally, only a party has a mandate to rule, not an individual. There have been many occasions when both parties has changed their leader whilst in Government.
-
Of-course that is true, but unless an election is offered by the new PM as part of their pitch, I'm not sure that there will be sufficient pressure to force one even if it's patently undemocratic not to have one.
How many times have replacement Government party leaders and PMs instantly called a GE? Did Gordon Brown? Did John Major? Did Jim Callaghan? That takes us back to 1976 - 40 years ago.
-
How many of the electorate actually vote - in a General Election - for a national leader, and how many for a party.
Constitutionally, we vote for the candidate on the ballot paper who we think will be the best representative for our constituency.
The convention is that the monarch sends for the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons and asks him or her to form an administration. Only on acceptance of that request do we have a prime minister.
-
You are suggesting that a Welsh person is unsuitable to be PM?
Hi Hope, perish the though :)
Basically:
"In 2013, Mr Crabb voted against extending marriage equality to same-sex couples. He has also been linked to an organisation which has advocated that homosexuality and bisexuality can be “cured”."
Rightly or wrongly it means that there will always be a large group of electors with a grudge against him just when we need a figure to unite the country.
-
My conservative MP is openly gay.
they are all so different in their stance on things.
Probably just as well, it makes it more balanced.
Too much of any one POV is probably a bad thing.
-
Hi Hope, perish the though :)
Basically:
"In 2013, Mr Crabb voted against extending marriage equality to same-sex couples. He has also been linked to an organisation which has advocated that homosexuality and bisexuality can be “cured”."
Rightly or wrongly it means that there will always be a large group of electors with a grudge against him just when we need a figure to unite the country.
Yeh, Brexitters.
-
IMO Ms May has the gravitas to carry off the role of PM. She has an air of authority.
My only concern is she has a tendancy to want to pass laws that supposedly stop crime/terrorism but restrict us further.
I don't know or seen enough about the other applicants to judge.
Boris Johnson who is out of the picture always makes me think of a " big schoolboy" he didn't have the right image for a primeminister somehow.
The American link I put up elsewhere, says it all.
I think Boris it likeable though.
-
Ms May
On 30 June 2016, May formally announced her candidacy for party leader to replace Prime Minister David Cameron who had resigned after the Brexit referendum. May emphasized the need for unity within the party regardless of positions about leaving the EU. "The campaign was fought ... and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door and no second referendum. ... Brexit means Brexit," she said, adding that Article 50 (the formal notification of Britain's exit from the EU) should not be filed until the end of 2016. On the issue of immigration, she insisted that there was a need to regain more control of the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe. Under questioning she agreed that it would not be possible totally to eliminate immigration to the UK.
May described herself as a candidate who will unify the party after a divisive referendum.[13][14]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May
Also the wiki link shows how many roles she has held in parliament, which has to go in her favour.
-
Andrea Leadsom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Leadsom
She also has experience in parliamentary roles also with Barclays Bank
Haven't seen her in action though, so hard to tell how she comes across.
-
Michael Gove.
Another MP with lots of experience.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove
Seems to have supported some "creationist" schools.
Funny thing is his face appears to be a bit like Rowen Atkinson, as in images of him captured show him pulling some very odd faces.
Put in Gove in Google and look at images ::)
He has very expressive, features. Could I take him seriously?
Not sure, the ladies might have it.
:)
Look at the others later, work :(
-
Andrea Leadsom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Leadsom
She also has experience in parliamentary roles also with Barclays Bank
Haven't seen her in action though, so hard to tell how she comes across.
If Leadsom were to be successful, which would mean becoming PM on day 1, she would undoubtedly be the least experienced PM in living memory, probably for centuries although that's a bit hard to work through.
I cannot think of another PM who hadn't previously been leader of the opposition (and necessarily a successful leader of the opposition), nor held any position in either the cabinet or shadow cabinet.
You might argue that there are times when inexperience doesn't matter, when there aren't really important things to sort out straight away. This isn't one of those times, quite the reverse. The new PM will be pitched straight into the most important political negotiations and decision making in my lifetime. No time for a rookie I think.
-
If Leadsom were to be successful, which would mean becoming PM on . . . .
I cannot think of another PM who hadn't previously been leader of the opposition (and necessarily a successful leader of the opposition), nor held any position in either the cabinet or shadow cabinet.
. . .
Alec Douglas-Home and John Major spring to mind.
-
Not the case, except in a situation where a sitting PM stands down mid term.
How is that different to the current situation?
That's the point, and the difference. And I'm not making a partisan party political point - what I am pointing out is that come September we will have a PM voted for by 150,000 people (actually the winning proportion of that) leading the UK and the UK government. Yet throughout the referendum debate we kept getting told that it was the EU that was undemocratic. Hmm.
Yes it sucks, but it is what happened when Blair stood down, when Thatcher was ousted and when Wilson stood down.
I get the irony about democracy, but if you remember people, including you, were pointing out that our democracy is not the shining beacon the Leavers were pretending all through the campaign, but they weren't listening. Why would they start caring about democracy now?
-
Surely anyone can vote for the Labour leader, you just pay your three quite. It is widely believed that thousands of Tories voted for Corbyn.
You can vote for the Tory leader by joining the Tory party.
-
Michael Gove.
Another MP with lots of experience.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove
Seems to have supported some "creationist" schools.
Funny thing is his face appears to be a bit like Rowen Atkinson, as in images of him captured show him pulling some very odd faces.
Put in Gove in Google and look at images ::)
He has very expressive, features. Could I take him seriously?
Not sure, the ladies might have it.
:)
Look at the others later, work :(
Gove is a nasty backstabbing creep who would bring the UK down just as he scuppered the Education system!
-
Alec Douglas-Home and John Major spring to mind.
Nope:
Douglas-Home was Foreign Secretary from 1960-63 before he became PM
Major held both Foreign Secretary and Chancellor positions prior to becoming PM
Sad that I am, I've looked back as far as the Marquess of Salisbury (PM from 1895 to 1902), and ever single PM has been either a successful leader of the opposition, Foreign Secretary or Chencellor prior to becoming PM.
I got bored at the the Marquess of Salisbury so you can probably go even further back than that to find a PM who attained the position with such limited experience as would be the case if Leadsom won.
-
I got bored at the the Marquess of Salisbury so you can probably go even further back than that to find a PM who attained the position with such limited experience as would be the case if Leadsom won.
Boom found it:
The last PM to attain that position without previously been a successful leader of the opposition, nor having held one of the three great cabinet offices (Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary) was ...
The Duke of Wellington when he became PM in 1828. But he, of course, had teeny, tiny experiential advantage of having won the Battle of Waterloo and defeated Napoleon. ;)
Leadsom's prior experience outside of politics was as an investment banker!!
-
The Duke of Wellington when he became PM in 1828. But he, of course, had teeny, tiny experiential advantage of having won the Battle of Waterloo and defeated Napoleon. ;)
He was very much unelected.
-
You can vote for the Tory leader by joining the Tory party.
It will cost you a bit more than £3 though and I think it is too late now to vote in the coming election.
-
He was very much unelected.
As of course was the case regularly then.
The point was about experience not democratic mandate - that said whoever becomes PM in a few weeks time will probably do so on the votes of about 80,000 people.
-
Given past precedent and that we do not directly elect PMs, I don't feel that bothered about the next PM being chosen by the party in govt. I feel much more strongly that an election should be called because the party in govt has to do a volte face on Europe, and because I would like to see the proposals of other parties to this brave new world.
-
This is a couple of weeks old but no less valid for that in relation to the current farce
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/trump-boris-i-wouldn-t-write-thick-it-now-politics-already-feels-fictional
-
Yes :D.
-
Given past precedent and that we do not directly elect PMs, I don't feel that bothered about the next PM being chosen by the party in govt. I feel much more strongly that an election should be called because the party in govt has to do a volte face on Europe, and because I would like to see the proposals of other parties to this brave new world.
I agree - we don't as an electorate directly elect the PM, but the PM needs a mandate from the public. None of the candidates for the tory leadership has a mandate for anything and given that they might be deciding on radically differing flavours of Brexit (from EEA with free movement, though to no access to single market and massive restrictions on free movement) they need a mandate for that.
Arguably there is a mandate for Brexit - there is certainly no mandate for a specific kind of Brexit.
-
None of the candidates for the tory leadership has a mandate for anything and given that they might be deciding on radically differing flavours of Brexit (from EEA with free movement, though to no access to single market and massive restrictions on free movement) they need a mandate for that.
Arguably there is a mandate for Brexit - there is certainly no mandate for a specific kind of Brexit.
When you think about it, this is unbelievable. Everybody was so caught up in the question of "should we be in the EU?" that nobody, neither Leaver nor Remainer, seems to have asked the question "what should we do instead?" Looking back on it, the idea of having a vote on leaving the EU without a clear idea of what we are going to do next is utterly stupid.
Hindsight, I love it.
-
Brexit was like a Rorschach inkblot, it meant something different for everybody who looked at it. No wonder Boris quit.
-
When you think about it, this is unbelievable. Everybody was so caught up in the question of "should we be in the EU?" that nobody, neither Leaver nor Remainer, seems to have asked the question "what should we do instead?" Looking back on it, the idea of having a vote on leaving the EU without a clear idea of what we are going to do next is utterly stupid.
Hindsight, I love it.
I think a lot of people were asking 'what does Brexit actually look like' - but it isn't an easy question, it doesn't have an easy answer so the media narrative ignored it.
So the 48% remainers were clear what they were for (being in the EU) the 52% leavers were clear what they were against (being in the EU - kind of ish) but were a very, very broad church as to what they were for. Anything from like Norway so uber-isolationist xenophobia).
My preference would be as follows:
1. Check whether triggering article 50 can be reversed once it has been done. Probably given that it has to be triggered by the member state themselves and probably can by revoked prior to the point of formal exit.
2. If 1 is OK, then trigger article 50.
3. Negotiate with the EU on the basis of getting what the government perceives is the best deal.
4. Finalise those negotiations so that there is a very, very clear view on what Brexit actually is - so for example being a member of the EEA. Agree that deal formally in parliament as the settled view on the post-Brexit arrangement.
5. Hold a second referendum asking the public to chose between the negotiated Brexit deal or remaining a member.
6. If the vote is for the Brexit deal, accept that deal leave EU
7. If the public prefer to be in the EU rather than the actual Brexit deal, withdraw article 50 - remain in EU.
There would probably need to be a general election somewhere there too.
-
Dear Prof,
You will never make a politician, you are far to honest, sensible and intelligent for such a....................................... okay! okay!! there must be some honest, sensible, intelligent politicians, but where are they?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
You will never make a politician, you are far to honest, sensible and intelligent for such a....................................... okay! okay!! there must be some honest, sensible, intelligent politicians, but where are they?
Gonnagle.
Thanks - I did run for elected office once (well actually twice) for my local council. I lost both times!!
-
I think a lot of people were asking 'what does Brexit actually look like' - but it isn't an easy question, it doesn't have an easy answer so the media narrative ignored it.
So the 48% remainers were clear what they were for (being in the EU) the 52% leavers were clear what they were against (being in the EU - kind of ish) but were a very, very broad church as to what they were for. Anything from like Norway so uber-isolationist xenophobia).
My preference would be as follows:
1. Check whether triggering article 50 can be reversed once it has been done. Probably given that it has to be triggered by the member state themselves and probably can by revoked prior to the point of formal exit.
2. If 1 is OK, then trigger article 50.
3. Negotiate with the EU on the basis of getting what the government perceives is the best deal.
4. Finalise those negotiations so that there is a very, very clear view on what Brexit actually is - so for example being a member of the EEA. Agree that deal formally in parliament as the settled view on the post-Brexit arrangement.
5. Hold a second referendum asking the public to chose between the negotiated Brexit deal or remaining a member.
6. If the vote is for the Brexit deal, accept that deal leave EU
7. If the public prefer to be in the EU rather than the actual Brexit deal, withdraw article 50 - remain in EU.
There would probably need to be a general election somewhere there too.
I have a feeling that there is no turning back once we have triggered article 50, so we either just go for a second referendum (which virtually everyone says would be unacceptable) or dive-in with article 50 and start negotiation for a Norway deal.
-
Dear Prof,
You will never make a politician, you are far to honest, sensible and intelligent for such a....................................... okay! okay!! there must be some honest, sensible, intelligent politicians, but where are they?
Gonnagle.
Most of the ones in this country are.
-
Dear Sane,
Most of the ones in this country are.
Which country would that be??
Gonnagle.
-
I have a feeling that there is no turning back once we have triggered article 50, so we either just go for a second referendum (which virtually everyone says would be unacceptable) or dive-in with article 50 and start negotiation for a Norway deal.
Problem with that is that a Norway style deal would necessarily involve free movement. Now actually for remainers Norway style EEA membership is the best non-EU membership outcome. But it would have many, many brexiters spitting blood. To a brexiter driven by a desire to curb migration EEA Norway style is frankly no better than EU membership, arguably even worse as we'd be required to grant free movement to all new EU accession states but wouldn't have a veto over whether they could join.
So there would be no mandate from the public for EEA Norway style deal.
Hence my view will be that, probably in 2018 once negotiations are complete the government will need to put the actual Brexit deal to the electorate in a referendum (rather than previous referendum where there was nothing to indicate what Brexit actually meant).
And this is actually rather similar to the views I had on IndyRef - a two stage approach - first referendum to give a mandate to negotiate a deal for independence - a second referendum once the deal was agree to actually action it and become independent (or otherwise).
These decisions are frankly far too important to be a one-off event - there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that:
1. There is a clear and settled view from the public on the course of action and
2. That what the public are agreeing to is absolutely clear, in other words a binding deal.
-
so we either just go for a second referendum (which virtually everyone says would be unacceptable)
Not sure that's true.
4 million people who signed an official petition don't agree.
And in a poll released today I think about 40% wanted a second referendum.
Now I agree that isn't a majority - but it certainly isn't the 'virtually everyone says would be unacceptable'.
Actually I don't see the point in a second referendum now - last week's referendum provides a trigger and mandate for the government to negotiate a brexit deal with the EU - that deal (which won't be agreed probably for 2 years and wouldn't come into force until 2018 at the earliest) should then be put to a second and final referendum where we choose either the Brexit deal on offer or to remain.
-
:(
Dear Sane,
Which country would that be??
Gonnagle.
The country where people make enormous sacrifices and efforts to carry out public service as politicians. People who serve on councils across the land, many of the MPs, MSPs Welsh Assembly members, MEPs etc etc. We have what seems a dysfunctional political system in some ways at the top but even there while for example I dislike Teresa May's politics, she seems to meet your criteria.
Jo Cox was not someone who was atypical of politicians in this country. She was all too typical of someone working immensely hard to change the world for what she saw as better.
-
:(
The country where people make enormous sacrifices and efforts to carry out public service as politicians. People who serve on councils across the land, many of the MPs, MSPs Welsh Assembly members, MEPs etc etc. We have what seems a dysfunctional political system in some ways at the top but even there while for example I dislike Teresa May's politics, she seems to meet your criteria.
Jo Cox was not someone who was atypical of politicians in this country. She was all too typical of someone working immensely hard to change the world for what she saw as better.
I think that's right.
The way the media portrays politicians really is appalling. I met loads and although I might disagree on policies and political ideology the one thing that is almost always the case is that they are exceptionally hard working, diligent and also genuinely want to help people.
And that applies to every level - so the local councillors, MPs, MEPs and EU commission members that I know.
-
Problem with that is that a Norway style deal would necessarily involve free movement. Now actually for remainers Norway style EEA membership is the best non-EU membership outcome. But it would have many, many brexiters spitting blood. To a brexiter driven by a desire to curb migration EEA Norway style is frankly no better than EU membership, arguably even worse as we'd be required to grant free movement to all new EU accession states but wouldn't have a veto over whether they could join.
Yes, I was making those very points on this board before the vote.
So there would be no mandate from the public for EEA Norway style deal.
The referendum was to simply leave the EU, what happened after was left undefined.
Hence my view will be that, probably in 2018 once negotiations are complete the government will need to put the actual Brexit deal to the electorate in a referendum (rather than previous referendum where there was nothing to indicate what Brexit actually meant).
And this is actually rather similar to the views I had on IndyRef - a two stage approach - first referendum to give a mandate to negotiate a deal for independence - a second referendum once the deal was agree to actually action it and become independent (or otherwise).
These decisions are frankly far too important to be a one-off event - there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that:
1. There is a clear and settled view from the public on the course of action and
2. That what the public are agreeing to is absolutely clear, in other words a binding deal.
I honestly don't think we can just put the economy 'on hold' for two years then start with more referendums and public consultations. That would prolong the uncertainty massively and cause deep damage to the economy.
I'd say we have to go for the best Norway deal we can get and start rebuilding, and if we have to accept free movement of people - so be it! We need to get the show back on the road.
-
I think that's right.
The way the media portrays politicians really is appalling. I met loads and although I might disagree on policies and political ideology the one thing that is almost always the case is that they are exceptionally hard working, diligent and also genuinely want to help people.
And that applies to every level - so the local councillors, MPs, MEPs and EU commission members that I know.
Indeed, and I know of many people who have an interest in politics and would want to help people but who don't see it as worth the hassle and the abuse they would receive.
-
Dear Sane,
Jo Cox was not someone who was atypical of politicians in this country. She was all too typical of someone working immensely hard to change the world for what she saw as better.
Sorry :'(
Gonnagle.
-
I honestly don't think we can just put the economy 'on hold' for two years then start with more referendums and public consultations. That would prolong the uncertainty massively and cause deep damage to the economy.
But that is going to happen anyway - even if we triggered article 50 tomorrow it is going to take years to sort out the actual deal on the table. And in that period there will remain uncertainty.
Actually my approach probably allows the process to progress quicker, because it will make triggering article 50 less final. Problem is currently that I suspect no one will want to trigger article 50 and everything shifts further down the road even to the point where it never gets triggered and we remain 'by accident'.
-
Dear Sane,
Sorry :'(
Gonnagle.
I am reminded of the lyric from Dexy's Midnight Runners 'Alcoholics, child molesters,nervous wrecks,prima donnas, jilted lovers, office clerks, petty thieves,hard drug pursuers, lonely tramps, awkward misfit, any one of these' - politicians are not different. They have their saints and sinners, usually both in each one of them.
-
I think a lot of people were asking 'what does Brexit actually look like' - but it isn't an easy question, it doesn't have an easy answer so the media narrative ignored it.
So the 48% remainers were clear what they were for (being in the EU) the 52% leavers were clear what they were against (being in the EU - kind of ish) but were a very, very broad church as to what they were for. Anything from like Norway so uber-isolationist xenophobia).
My preference would be as follows:
1. Check whether triggering article 50 can be reversed once it has been done. Probably given that it has to be triggered by the member state themselves and probably can by revoked prior to the point of formal exit.
2. If 1 is OK, then trigger article 50.
3. Negotiate with the EU on the basis of getting what the government perceives is the best deal.
4. Finalise those negotiations so that there is a very, very clear view on what Brexit actually is - so for example being a member of the EEA. Agree that deal formally in parliament as the settled view on the post-Brexit arrangement.
5. Hold a second referendum asking the public to chose between the negotiated Brexit deal or remaining a member.
6. If the vote is for the Brexit deal, accept that deal leave EU
7. If the public prefer to be in the EU rather than the actual Brexit deal, withdraw article 50 - remain in EU.
There would probably need to be a general election somewhere there too.
I think that's a brilliant plan with only one small problem:
Having triggered article 50, there would have to be some horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it. I think we would lose our rebate, but that would be a small price to pay in my opinion.
-
I think that's a brilliant plan with only one small problem:
Having triggered article 50, there would have to be some horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it. I think we would lose our rebate, but that would be a small price to pay in my opinion.
That's the key point in number 1, to check.
Given that only a single member state can trigger article 50 (it can be done by other states to impose leaving) then quite possibly (again serious legal opinion needed) that the member state who triggered article 50 can then withdraw it up to the point when they actually leave and fold back into continuing as a member state as they were.
So I'm not sure we would have any need to do some 'horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it' but we'd need to check in advance of course.
-
That's the key point in number 1, to check.
Given that only a single member state can trigger article 50 (it can be done by other states to impose leaving) then quite possibly (again serious legal opinion needed) that the member state who triggered article 50 can then withdraw it up to the point when they actually leave and fold back into continuing as a member state as they were.
So I'm not sure we would have any need to do some 'horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it' but we'd need to check in advance of course.
This article on the matter is interesting:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/
They imply that it is ambiguous whether once a member state has triggered article 50 they can subsequently withdraw it.
In pragmatic terms it may be helpful to clarify this from the perspective of both the UK and the EU. And it is in the interests of both that it can be withdrawn.
Otherwise we are kind of in grid-lock - the EU cannot negotiate on exit terms without formal notification of intention to exit (triggering article 50) and the UK cannot really trigger article 50 without being confident that exit terms are in the UK's national interest. Result stalemate.
Were article 50 to be able to be withdrawn then it would allow triggering at the earliest stage without undue risk on either side.
-
Thank you very much for providing this.
A couple of thoughts about the whole affair.
1 In the British parliamentary life, there appears to be a planning horizon of five years. No government likes to consider to closely life after the next general election. Any Brexit management commission should surely be all-party to ensure that there is a single, progressive programme with identified objectives.
2 I think that we may have seen the last of "the referendum" as a decision making procedure. Referendums (? -da) do not sit comfortably in our model of representative democracy. About 63% of the electorate did not vote in favour of leaving the EU but it cannot be argued that people who took no part in the referendum do not deserve to be considered. There is a case for considering that any change of this importance should be supported by more than 50% of the total electorate before being actioned.
-
Thank you very much for providing this.
A couple of thoughts about the whole affair.
1 In the British parliamentary life, there appears to be a planning horizon of five years. No government likes to consider to closely life after the next general election. Any Brexit management commission should surely be all-party to ensure that there is a single, progressive programme with identified objectives.
2 I think that we may have seen the last of "the referendum" as a decision making procedure. Referendums (? -da) do not sit comfortably in our model of representative democracy. About 63% of the electorate did not vote in favour of leaving the EU but it cannot be argued that people who took no part in the referendum do not deserve to be considered. There is a case for considering that any change of this importance should be supported by more than 50% of the total electorate before being actioned.
I am really against the % of the total electorate line as it effectively gives a vote for whichever side isthe status quo to the dead and the dead lazy still on the register. I think a threshold of those who vote makes sense.
-
Thank you very much for providing this.
A couple of thoughts about the whole affair.
1 In the British parliamentary life, there appears to be a planning horizon of five years. No government likes to consider to closely life after the next general election. Any Brexit management commission should surely be all-party to ensure that there is a single, progressive programme with identified objectives.
Agree - see my post on this on the 'Red on Red, Labour implode' thread.
2 I think that we may have seen the last of "the referendum" as a decision making procedure. Referendums (? -da) do not sit comfortably in our model of representative democracy. About 63% of the electorate did not vote in favour of leaving the EU but it cannot be argued that people who took no part in the referendum do not deserve to be considered. There is a case for considering that any change of this importance should be supported by more than 50% of the total electorate before being actioned.
Again you are right, although not sure we've seen the last of referendums.
But this is where a decision needs, independently, to be approved by both parliament and also a referendum (if that is going to be used.
Parliament and MPs should not be bound by a referendum result (indeed in most cases they are advisory) - why because they have to take account of broader considerations, e.g. legality (most obviously) but also they have a duty to consider all people in the UK not just those who voted in the referendum, and certainly not just those who voted a particular way.
So an MPs constituents include everyone living there - so those who voted, those who were on the register but didn't vote, those who were ineligible (e.g. under 18s, non UK EU nationals permanently living here) etc etc.
So while 17 million voted in to leave and 16 million to remain, our population is 65 million, so that means that only 25% of the UK population have voted to leave. MPs need to consider the interests of all 65 million people not just the eligible to vote 46 million, nor the voting 33 million, or even just the leave voting 17 million.
-
Agree - see my post on this on the 'Red on Red, Labour implode' thread.
Forgive me. I had not seen your other - excellent - post.
-
I am really against the % of the total electorate line as it effectively gives a vote for whichever side isthe status quo to the dead and the dead lazy still on the register. I think a threshold of those who vote makes sense.
Most organisational constitutions required a 66% majority of those who vote for a situation of equivalent importance.
-
Most organisational constitutions required a 66% majority of those who vote for a situation of equivalent importance.
Not entirely sure why you putbthe bold on there. Part of the difference between such votes and referendums, such as the one just past, is the referendum is advisory.
-
Just saw this, looks as though Andrea is now second favourite:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-leadership-andrea-leadsom-emerges-to-rival-theresa-may-a7114916.html
-
Yes, I was very taken with Andrea Leadsom having seen her in a couple of debates. She appeared calm, down-to-earth (for want of a better term) and had a strength and stability to her conversation. Someone mentioned her being 'wooden' but I wondered if she was perhaps nervous in the first debate. Andrew Marr also interviewed her a couple of weeks before the referendum, where she seemed more relaxed.
Theresa May concerns me a little re becoming PM simply because she always seems to look exhausted.
-
That's not unusual Rose - sometimes people age ten years once they come into power too! I saw that with Messrs Blair and Obama. Once out they recover somewhat. Cameron seems to look as youthful as ever and presumably will be even more so come October. Ed Miliband, whom I saw on QT a few weeks ago, is a new man, he was quite witty too.
Boris will remain the same, I quite like Boris but am glad he isn't standing for PM; mayor is one thing, people like a 'character', but prime minister is quite another.
Anyway, back to Teresa May. She may be like Maggie T (not tooooo much please!), whose appearance improved dramatically as she was empowered.
I think Teresa May will win but, as recent events have shown, we never can tell. I'll have to learn a bit more about Andrea Leadsom.
-
Yes, I was very taken with Andrea Leadsom having seen her in a couple of debates.
Must have been watching a different debate to me - which is unlikely as there were only two.
I didn't see the first debate, I did see the second and I wasn't impressed with her at all, despite having heard loads of hype from the first debate. Yes it was me who said she looked wooden. To me she came across in a completely unnatural way, talking in soundbites rather than actually debating. Every answer she stared at the camera (obviously been trained, but it is supposed to look natural), chirped out 'take back control' and then do a little smirk as if she'd done what her handlers had told her. The audience even got restless and irritated, pretty well laughing at her when she spouted out the same phrase yet another time.
Nonetheless, apparently for reasons that elude me she impressed you. But, and this is the key point, her few minutes in front of camera in those two debates is the sum total of anything impressive she has done in politics. That is the only reason anyone is suggesting her as leader of the party.
So simply question is that debate sufficient (there isn't anything else and had she not been in the debate I doubt virtually anyone would have even heard of her) for her to become not just leader of the tories, but instantly PM.
As I said yesterday in these most challenging of times she would be the most inexperienced PM on attaining the position since Napoleonic times (or even further back, again I got bored).
And of course she wasn't even the most impressive Tory - that clearly was Ruth Davidson.
-
The problem with this Leadsom person is that she has barely done anything significant in politics. She has been a minor minister which, I guess, puts her ahead of Jeremy Corbyn, but she is pretty much an unknown quantity.
-
The problem with this Leadsom person is that she has barely done anything significant in politics. She has been a minor minister which, I guess, puts her ahead of Jeremy Corbyn, but she is pretty much an unknown quantity.
Her views on what Brexit should be are also very worrying - she seems disinterested in the single market, which most other people seem to consider to be essential to retain access to.
Her position on social issues is pretty unclear too - she was only one of 5 tory MPs to abstain on gay marriage - make of that what you will.
-
We need Plans from all the candidates to say how things would proceed and how Brexit dovetails into their manifesto for government. Being a brexiteers is not enough.
Then we have to ask Leadsom, Gove and Fox why this was not forthcoming during the Leave campaign.
-
We need Plans from all the candidates to say how things would proceed and how Brexit dovetails into their manifesto for government. Being a brexiteers is not enough.
Then we have to ask Leadsom, Gove and Fox why this was not forthcoming during the Leave campaign.
I think the answer is obvious: The Leave Campaign as a whole had no plan. Various individuals spouted out various spurious ideas as if they were fully though out options, and strangely the media never really probed too much, but the fact is NO ONE HAD A FUCKING CLUE!
. . .and they still don't!
-
I think the answer is obvious: The Leave Campaign as a whole had no plan. Various individuals spouted out various spurious ideas as if they were fully though out options, and strangely the media never really probed too much, but the fact is NO ONE HAD A FUCKING CLUE!
. . .and they still don't!
Exactly right, L.A.
-
I think the answer is obvious: The Leave Campaign as a whole had no plan. Various individuals spouted out various spurious ideas as if they were fully though out options, and strangely the media never really probed too much, but the fact is NO ONE HAD A FUCKING CLUE!
. . .and they still don't!
Leadbetter keeps talking about the opportunities of Brexit. What are they and who can avail themselves?
-
I see that the Sunday Times is suggesting that Corbyn is hanging in there until such time as he can accue Blair of war crimes.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/corbyn-digs-in-heels-until-he-can-crucify-blair-q3v7p6qwg
On the other side of the coin, the UN has agreed with a number of the UK's civil society groups that the Government's austerity package is in breach of the UK's human rights obligations.
http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/uk-in-breachhuman-rights/00287.html
Any thoughts?
-
Her position on social issues is pretty unclear too - she was only one of 5 tory MPs to abstain on gay marriage - make of that what you will.
I find it both sad and worrying that people here seem to use gay marriage (or other gay issues) as the benchmark for MPs' (and other people's) 'position on social issues'. What would one prefer; an MP who was voted against or abstained in a vote on gay rights but fought hard for the protection of a proper living wage, protection of abused men and women along with improved means of reducing that abuse; the provision of sufficient social and affordable housing to allow all to live in their own home - be that rented or owned; etc.: or an MP who was totally disinterested in those 4 (and many other issues) but was totally dedicated to the gay rights issue?
I get the feeling that some here would probably go with the latter.
-
I find it both sad and worrying that people here seem to use gay marriage (or other gay issues) as the benchmark for MPs' (and other people's) 'position on social issues'. What would one prefer; an MP who was voted against or abstained in a vote on gay rights but fought hard for the protection of a proper living wage, protection of abused men and women along with improved means of reducing that abuse; the provision of sufficient social and affordable housing to allow all to live in their own home - be that rented or owned; etc.: or an MP who was totally disinterested in those 4 (and many other issues) but was totally dedicated to the gay rights issue?
I get the feeling that some here would probably go with the latter.
Why is it an either/or issue Hope. I want to support MPs who agree with both.
Given that over 400 MPs voted in favour of equal marriage there are plenty who will be in favour of gay people being able to marry and strong advocates for the issues you mention.
But of course in this instance we are dealing with a bunch of Tories and none appear particularly interested in those issues you mentioned, indeed they all voted for benefits cuts for disabled people etc. So in part we are dealing with people who don't show particular interest in those social issues you mention. So in this case someone who is disinterested in those issues but at least supports equal marriage is preferably to someone disinterested in those issues who is also against extending equality through equal marriage.
-
Hope, on the other side, I have come across Christians who vote solely on whether or not a politician is 'Pro-Life', ie anti-abortion, as if that was the only criteria. I have said as much on more than one occasion and been told that it is the most important issue, it is fundamental, and there is no budging on their part. So it must be equally important to give some priority to gay rights though I think most people in this country do not vote on that, they are more concerned with other things such as housing and health; however they wouldn't vote for someone who was against gay rights. Not the same thing.
-
I find it both sad and worrying that people here seem to use gay marriage (or other gay issues) as the benchmark for MPs' (and other people's) 'position on social issues'. What would one prefer; an MP who was voted against or abstained in a vote on gay rights but fought hard for the protection of a proper living wage, protection of abused men and women along with improved means of reducing that abuse; the provision of sufficient social and affordable housing to allow all to live in their own home - be that rented or owned; etc.: or an MP who was totally disinterested in those 4 (and many other issues) but was totally dedicated to the gay rights issue?
I get the feeling that some here would probably go with the latter.
I don't see it quite a 'cut and dry' as that Hope. Crabb's apparent anti-Gay stance does not create a not a good image for a PM - therefore he would be a poor candidate.
Maybe he ought to 'be seen' on a Gay Pride march or something to repair his image ;)
-
I don't see it quite a 'cut and dry' as that Hope. Crabb's apparent anti-Gay stance does not create a not a good image for a PM - therefore he would be a poor candidate.
Maybe he ought to 'be seen' on a Gay Pride march or something to repair his image ;)
Not only did he vote against equal marriage but he has also been associated with groups advocating 'gay cures'.
-
Must have been watching a different debate to me - which is unlikely as there were only two.
I didn't see the first debate, I did see the second and I wasn't impressed with her at all, despite having heard loads of hype from the first debate. Yes it was me who said she looked wooden.
Ideal qualifications for a puppet prime minister.
-
Why is it an either/or issue Hope. I want to support MPs who agree with both.
Yet people only ever refer to gay issues in this context, as if this is their red line issue.
But of course in this instance we are dealing with a bunch of Tories and none appear particularly interested in those issues you mentioned, indeed they all voted for benefits cuts for disabled people etc. So in part we are dealing with people who don't show particular interest in those social issues you mention. So in this case someone who is disinterested in those issues but at least supports equal marriage is preferably to someone disinterested in those issues who is also against extending equality through equal marriage.
Interestingly, none voted for benefit cuts for disabled people. What many of them voted for was a serious review of the whole welfare and benefits system. There does appear to be a rather Romanesque attitude amongst some of the British population that they are too good to have to work and can assume that the rest of the populace will provide them with the means they need to live - the 'dole' in Latin.
The wole review of the disabled benefits system is part of that, and I know some disabled people who have benefited from that review - they are now able to claim when they weren't before, and I know some who have lost some (though not all ) of their benefits because the system has actually managed to find them a job that they can comfortably perform.
Yes, any review is going to benefit some and handicap others. Is that a good reason for leaving a welfare system that has long been a growing, and in some cases an 'unfit for purpose' issue untouched?
-
I don't see it quite a 'cut and dry' as that Hope. Crabb's apparent anti-Gay stance does not create a not a good image for a PM - therefore he would be a poor candidate.
Maybe he ought to 'be seen' on a Gay Pride march or something to repair his image ;)
What makes you suggest that his image has been damaged? I'd suggest that attending a Gay Pride march would have damaged it more than repaired it. Is there an ethical or moral reason why disagreeing with other people damages one's image?
-
What makes you suggest that his image has been damaged? I'd suggest that attending a Gay Pride march would have damaged it more than repaired it. Is there an ethical or moral reason why disagreeing with other people damages one's image?
According to Wiki
"He has links to Christian Action Research and Education, an advocacy group that some[42][43] say is opposed to full LGBT rights - CARE provided Crabb's office with interns in 2010, and during the 1990s Crabb himself was a parliamentary intern for the organisation"
He also voted against gay marriage.
To me, none of that makes him a bigot, but it does put him at a serious disadvantage when he is putting himself forward as a candidate for PM. My suggestion that he went on a Gay Pride march was not necessarily meant literally, but rather a suggestion that he needs to do something tangible to improve his standing with the Gay community.
-
To me, none of that makes him a bigot, but it does put him at a serious disadvantage when he is putting himself forward as a candidate for PM. My suggestion that he went on a Gay Pride march was not necessarily meant literally, but rather a suggestion that he needs to do something tangible to improve his standing with the Gay community.
Does a prospective Labour leader need 'to do something tangible to improve his standing with the Tory community'? Of course not, though I suspect that many issues that a party leader and/or Prime Minister deals with impacts every part of the community in both positive and negative ways. Crabb going on anything that supported something he is known to oppose would simply be seen as a tactic, and probably make him even less popular amongst that community. Take the Corbyn example during the recent referendum.
-
Does a prospective Labour leader need 'to do something tangible to improve his standing with the Tory community'? Of course not, though I suspect that many issues that a party leader and/or Prime Minister deals with impacts every part of the community in both positive and negative ways. Crabb going on anything that supported something he is known to oppose would simply be seen as a tactic, and probably make him even less popular amongst that community. Take the Corbyn example during the recent referendum.
Obviously the sad reality is that this Labour leader doesn't give a damn about his standing with anyone, but amongst serious politicians, having a high popularity rating with the general public is considered a good thing.
But more than that, the Gay population is spread across the political spectrum, so he is alienating himself from many of his own party members.
-
But more than that, the Gay population is spread across the political spectrum, so he is alienating himself from many of his own party members.
So are people who speed, or use mobile phones whilst driving or argue that climate change is just a media conspiracy. Does that mean that a prospective party leader should do something that supports such behaviours/beliefs?
-
So are people who speed, or use mobile phones whilst driving or argue that climate change is just a media conspiracy. Does that mean that a prospective party leader should do something that supports such behaviours/beliefs?
The problem with Crabb is that from his actions it seems he supports discrimination on the basis of sexuality - he (or any politician) doesn't have to personally approve or disapprove of SSM, which is no more than opinion, but by his actions it seems he was prepared to prevent the removal of legal discrimination on what is a civil matter.
-
So are people who speed, or use mobile phones whilst driving or argue that climate change is just a media conspiracy. Does that mean that a prospective party leader should do something that supports such behaviours/beliefs?
Obviously speeding and using mobile phones while driving are illegal, but while a leader wouldn't want to condone illegal activity, it would be rather stupid of him to specifically alienate himself from people who might have been guilty of such things- they still have votes.
Climate change is a political issue, so a politician could argue against climate change denial without attacking individuals.
But being Gay is not a crime, it's not even a choice, it's just a fact of life, so for a politician pointlessly to alienate them would be a stupid as insulting all Blacks or Asians.
-
Does a prospective Labour leader need 'to do something tangible to improve his standing with the Tory community'?
So presumably your inference being that gay people aren't part of the 'Tory community' and therefore why should a prospective Tory leader need to improve their standing with them.
Well perhaps you might want to wake up and smell the coffee Hope - sexuality and political ideology aren't intertwined. There are loads of tory supporting gay people. I know a number including one who irritates the hell out of me with his endless posting of tory 'propaganda' on Facebook. Staunch leave supporter too, and in May stood for the tories (unsuccessfully) in local council elections round here.
-
I see that the Sunday Times is suggesting that Corbyn is hanging in there until such time as he can accue Blair of war crimes.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/corbyn-digs-in-heels-until-he-can-crucify-blair-q3v7p6qwg
On the other side of the coin, the UN has agreed with a number of the UK's civil society groups that the Government's austerity package is in breach of the UK's human rights obligations.
http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/uk-in-breachhuman-rights/00287.html
Any thoughts?
Yes. Which human rights obligations is the UK in breach of? I've read the report and I would certainly not characterise it as damning.
-
Climate change is a political issue, so a politician could argue against climate change denial without attacking individuals.
Incorrect, its a scientific issue which has a massive degree of agreement within the scientific community.
But being Gay is not a crime, it's not even a choice, it's just a fact of life, so for a politician pointlessly to alienate them would be a stupid as insulting all Blacks or Asians.
Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a violent temper. What can be argued - in both cases - is allowing the 'tendency' to become action.
-
The important thing about a new leader is that they are prepared to bide by the will of the majority, even if it doesn't sit well with them on a personal level. If they cannot do that, they must not stand. Indeed some politicians have in the past given up political careers altogether over an issue that is important to them. David Alton is an example and respect to him for that regardless of how we feel about his views.
Most have a sense of proportion and are not overly concerned with one issue. Margaret Thatcher believed in capital punishment but accepted that it had been stopped many years before and did not seek to bring it back, even though she personally might have been glad for it to be restored.
We have to be able to trust our leaders not to impose their own agendas onto the electorate. Their only agenda should be to serve, be fair and try to make things better for everyone; they obviously won't please everyone but there is no need to unnecessarily alienate potential voters over one issue, when there are so many issues needing attention.
-
The important thing about a new leader is that they are prepared to bide by the will of the majority, even if it doesn't sit well with them on a personal level. If they cannot do that, they must not stand. Indeed some politicians have in the past given up political careers altogether over an issue that is important to them. David Alton is an example and respect to him for that regardless of how we feel about his views.
Most have a sense of proportion and are not overly concerned with one issue. Margaret Thatcher believed in capital punishment but accepted that it had been stopped many years before and did not seek to bring it back, even though she personally might have been glad for it to be restored.
We have to be able to trust our leaders not to impose their own agendas onto the electorate. Their only agenda should be to serve, be fair and try to make things better for everyone; they obviously won't please everyone but there is no need to unnecessarily alienate potential voters over one issue, when there are so many issues needing attention.
Yes I agree Brownie :)
-
Incorrect, its a scientific issue which has a massive degree of agreement within the scientific community.
Getting the data and formulating the models is certainly a scientific issue. When it comes to deciding what action we need to take the issue becomes political.
Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a violent temper. What can be argued - in both cases - is allowing the 'tendency' to become action.
I think there I would fundamentally disagree with you and more importantly, most of the electorate would disagree with you, which is bad news if you are trying to get elected.
-
Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a violent temper. What can be argued - in both cases - is allowing the 'tendency' to become action.
Equating being gay with something negative again, really?
-
He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature". The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...", it can be argued, and is argued frequently.
-
Incorrect, its a scientific issue which has a massive degree of agreement within the scientific community.
(((((Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a violent temper. What can be argued - in both cases - is allowing the 'tendency' to become action.)))))
What a disgusting thing to say Hope, and you have the temerity to call yourself a Christian!!!!
-
Read slowly and inwardly digest the meaning of a post before sounding off please floo.
This is what I said in my previous post and on this occasion I think it is worth repeating:
"He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature". The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...", it can be argued, and is argued frequently.
-
He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature". The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...", it can be argued, and is argued frequently.
Yes, he could have said that - but he didn't.
He chose to associate homosexuality with something 'bad'.
Hope has form in this area, so it's not really worth the effort in making excuses for him.
-
Read slowly and inwardly digest the meaning of a post before sounding off please floo.
This is what I said in my previous post and on this occasion I think it is worth repeating:
"He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature". The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...", it can be argued, and is argued frequently.
I read it and stand by what I said in view of his previous comments on homosexuality, which was those of a bigot.
-
Comment or comments? I make no excuses for anyone but I do think each post should be read on its own merits without reference to anything said or inferred maybe three months ago.
-
'Liam Fox also addressed the meeting'. Oooft
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_577aaacae4b0f7b55795b23f?edition=uk&icid=maing-grid7|uk-ttg|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D476422
-
He could have said "Being gay is no more or less a crime than having a shy, retiring nature". The meaning would have been the same and his next sentence would equally have applied. He said "What can be argued...", it can be argued, and is argued frequently.
I'm afraid you are missing the point Brownie.
It will only ever be put against a negative. That's the way that poster works. Years of experience believe me.
In the past gay people have been metioned in the same sentence as murderers, child molestors, thieves, - well I guess you get the point. But never in the same breath as law abiding citizen working in an ordinary job. Or indeed that excellent local parish priest who just happens to be a little bit lavendar.
No he'll always go for the negative.
The poster is full of hate not hope.
-
What a disgusting thing to say Hope, and you have the temerity to call yourself a Christian!!!!
I am fully aware that you will always regard anything with which you disagree as 'a disgusting thing' - which is why I'm not particularly bothered by what you say here. It is, from your fingers, a meaningless comment.
I have the temerity to say what I say because, as a Christian, I believe that is what is the case. We all have the potential to commit some form of wrong-doing (and generally, we aren't very good at avoiding that potential). However, the fact that we have that potential doesn't make us 'bad' people; what makes us 'bad' people is giving that potential free rein. That is why I've consistently said that temptation isn't a sin; sin is giving into that temptation. Again, you seem to disagree with that, whic is your prerogative - but I believe that most psychologists would agree with me even if they don't use the terminology that I have used.
-
I am fully aware that you will always regard anything with which you disagree as 'a disgusting thing' - which is why I'm not particularly bothered by what you say here. It is, from your fingers, a meaningless comment.
I have the temerity to say what I say because, as a Christian, I believe that is what is the case. We all have the potential to commit some form of wrong-doing (and generally, we aren't very good at avoiding that potential). However, the fact that we have that potential doesn't make us 'bad' people; what makes us 'bad' people is giving that potential free rein. That is why I've consistently said that temptation isn't a sin; sin is giving into that temptation. Again, you seem to disagree with that, whic is your prerogative - but I believe that most psychologists would agree with me even if they don't use the terminology that I have used.
I so nearly agreed with this but then you pulled out that lat bit which implies that most psychologists would think that any active homosexuality was giving into temptation. Citation or retract, I would suggest.
-
I'm afraid you are missing the point Brownie.
It will only ever be put against a negative. That's the way that poster works. Years of experience believe me.
In the past gay people have been metioned in the same sentence as murderers, child molestors, thieves, - well I guess you get the point. But never in the same breath as law abiding citizen working in an ordinary job. Or indeed that excellent local parish priest who just happens to be a little bit lavendar.
No he'll always go for the negative.
The poster is full of hate not hope.
Interestingly, Trent, since said poster believes the practice of a homosexual orientation to be wrong, it is very difficult for them to liken that action to something they believe to be positive and good. It has nothing to do with 'being filled with hate' - unless you are also 'filled with hate' in respect to your belief that murder is wrong, which I assume that you do.
-
Interestingly, Trent, since said poster believes the practice of a homosexual orientation to be wrong, it is very difficult for them to liken that action to something they believe to be positive and good. It has nothing to do with 'being filled with hate' - unless you are also 'filled with hate' in respect to your belief that murder is wrong, which I assume that you do.
So someone who didn't believe in the practice of miscegnation had no hate
-
Certainly that looks like May vs Leadsom at moment. Bye bye Liam.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36718196
-
It has nothing to do with 'being filled with hate' - unless you are also 'filled with hate' in respect to your belief that murder is wrong, which I assume that you do.
It is unbelievable and scary that you were ever allowed to teach.
How can you not tell the difference between actions involving consent and ones which do not is beyond me.
-
Interestingly, Trent, since said poster believes the practice of a homosexual orientation to be wrong, it is very difficult for them to liken that action to something they believe to be positive and good.
Pity then that said poster has failed abysmally to demonstrate the claim of wrongness.
-
Ah well, Andrea
http://reaction.life/was-andrea-leadsom-really-such-a-city-hotshot/
-
Pity then that said poster has failed abysmally to demonstrate the claim of wrongness.
The poster cannot demonstrate the claim of wrongness. I venture to say that it would be a good idea for the poster and others of like mind to at least try to think outside the box and entertain the idea that what was written in days gone by and accepted as the truth, may not be binding in light of what has been discovered in more recent years. It would be a start.
-
The poster cannot demonstrate the claim of wrongness. I venture to say that it would be a good idea for the poster and others of like mind to at least try to think outside the box and entertain the idea that what was written in days gone by and accepted as the truth, may not be binding in light of what has been discovered in more recent years. It would be a start.
Unfortunately some of the people that follow the idea are candidates for being PM
-
Also good bye to Hope's favourite - Stephen Crabb.
-
Also good bye to Hope's favourite - Stephen Crabb.
more time to spend with his family
-
Dear Sane,
http://reaction.life/was-andrea-leadsom-really-such-a-city-hotshot/
The Mission Impossible theme is playing in the background. ::)
Agent Sane, your Mission if you choose to accept it, find a suitable candidate to lead Grande Britannia out of this shit hole it is in.
This post will self destruct in 10 seconds.
Gonnagle.
-
The poster cannot demonstrate the claim of wrongness. I venture to say that it would be a good idea for the poster and others of like mind to at least try to think outside the box and entertain the idea that what was written in days gone by and accepted as the truth, may not be binding in light of what has been discovered in more recent years. It would be a start.
The problem is that what you call "what has been discovered in more recent years" is pretty inconclusive. I'm afraid that I don't see that 'what has been discovered' actually moves things on as much as some people here and in society would like us to believe. What 'has been discovered' is largely based on short-term research.
In a slightly different context, just because something has been legislated in favour of, it doesn't mean that that makes something ethically or morally acceptable. For instance, some UK legislation allows individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes and other such dues. Does that legislation make it morally acceptable? What about the whole issue over the Iraq War? Was that ethically correct, even though Parliament voted in favour?
-
Dear Sane,
http://reaction.life/was-andrea-leadsom-really-such-a-city-hotshot/
The Mission Impossible theme is playing in the background. ::)
Agent Sane, your Mission if you choose to accept it, find a suitable candidate to lead Grande Britannia out of this shit hole it is in.
This post will self destruct in 10 seconds.
Gonnagle.
Of those standing, Theresa May is the only one that seems remotely possible. As for anyone else, Hilary Benn comes to mind. Perhaps we really need to go back to the old-guard just for this period - or what about a National Unity Government?
-
The problem is that what you call "what has been discovered in more recent years" is pretty inconclusive.
Brownie is commenting in general terms here, but even then it is the case that knowledge regarding sexuality has progressed over time so that, for example, earlier approaches involving 'cures' for homosexuality are no longer regarded as appropriate (in that homosexuality isn't a medical condition).
I'm afraid that I don't see that 'what has been discovered' actually moves things on as much as some people here and in society would like us to believe.
That is because your particular approach to Christianity is distorting your ability to think clearly and is leading you into fallacious reasoning.
What 'has been discovered' is largely based on short-term research.
Since you have recently demonstrated on several occasions your utter ignorance of research methods I doubt that you can justify this comment - but have a go anyway.
In a slightly different context, just because something has been legislated in favour of, it doesn't mean that that makes something ethically or morally acceptable. For instance, some UK legislation allows individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes and other such dues. Does that legislation make it morally acceptable? What about the whole issue over the Iraq War? Was that ethically correct, even though Parliament voted in favour?
This is just spurious tu quoque.
-
Looks like Boris is supporting Andrea Leadsom.
-
Looks like Boris is supporting Andrea Leadsom.
That just goes to show that two wrongs make THE right.
-
That is because your particular approach to Christianity is distorting your ability to think clearly and is leading you into fallacious reasoning.
Yet most of my view has nothing to do with my faith nd a great deal to do with my reading of hundreds of pages of, predominantly, scientific material over the last 30+ years on the issue. Your constant harping on about my "particular approach to Christianity" seems to forget that my "particular approach to Christianity" believes that there are (to quote a particular book's title) No Perfect People Allowed in the church, that homosexuals ought not to be vilified and reviled on the basis of their orientation (in the same way that no other human being should be vilified and reviled on the basis of their particular 'orientation', be that sexual or not). Perhaps most importantly, I believe that we should love everyone - and here I'm not talking about an eros-type love - and that this kind of love does include discipline and correction.
Since you have recently demonstrated on several occasions your utter ignorance of research methods I doubt that you can justify this comment - but have a go anyway.
OK, until the late 90s, most research into this particular aspect of sexuality was pretty negative towards homosexuality. Some of the more famous pieces of research that were favourable, such as Kinsey, have been shown to be seriously flawed. Over the next 8-10 years, research began to swing the other way, with people suggesting that it has a genetic issue - something that was used very heavily during the early noughties debates in Parliament on the topic. Towards the end of the noughties that was shown to be doubtful. As a result, the majority of 'positive' research into the matter is probably no more than 10 to 15 years old, with a lot of that no more than 6-8 years old. That isn't a corpus of long-term research. As for research into the associated aspects of homosexuality - such as the fostering or adoption of children, much of that is necessarily short-term since, even in the States, the practice hasn't been in existence for much more than 20 - 25 years. A full understanding of the impact of the way children are brought up can take that and more time.
This is just spurious tu quoque.
No, it isn't spurious, in any way. Bearing in mind that the discussion on this thread has always been about more than just the 'H' topic, and the passage I quoted was in general terms (as you point out at the top of your post), I was also making a more general point. You chose to take it as a specific to the 'H' topic, whilst I was making a point that went beyond it. I accept that I might have done better to have created a separate post for that particular point, but then my mind was on a number of things when I was posting (not least a day of 'death by powerpoint' in regard to the safe use, transport and disposal of pesticides and the equipment used to apply them - day 1 of a 4-day course in the Safe use of Pesticides which will hopefully result in my having 3 certificates in using pesticides - including herbicides - to permit me to wage war on the Japanese Knotweed that is rampant in a number of places in South Wales - not least the Garw Valley, where the heritage railway we are working to establish, is.)
Perhaps most important is the fact that it was one or more posters who don't like Stephen Crabb who initiated the inclusion of the 'H' topic into this thread.
-
and that this kind of love does include discipline and correction.
Whatever turns you on sweetheart.
-
Yet most of my view has nothing to do with my faith nd a great deal to do with my reading of hundreds of pages of, predominantly, scientific material over the last 30+ years on the issue
Why - one has to question why?
You are obsessed and it is not healthy.
On the other hand you could just be making stuff up - in which case you are not obsessed, but you are bearing false witness.
'There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.' Proverbs. *
*You'll note that the usual abomination some are fond of quoting is missing from that list. I do wish there was a definitive list of abominations. ::)
-
Why - one has to question why?
Because I have lived, worked and relaxed in contexts where the issue was often under discussion. As someone who studies the Bible quite closely, I often have discussions with other people, believers and not, as to what is an appropriate translation and/or interpretation of a variety of Biblical passages. Homosexuality has been one such issue since the early 80's - though as one part of the larger issue of sexuality and gender as a whole.
You are obsessed and it is not healthy.
Generally, I respond to others when they start a topic, or sub-thread, on the issue - as has happened in this particular case.
'There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.' Proverbs. *
I'm glad that you know that much of the Bible ;)
*You'll note that the usual abomination some are fond of quoting is missing from that list. I do wish there was a definitive list of abominations. ::)
A definitive list - such as some of those in the NT - certainly does include the 'usual abomination some are fond of quoting'
-
Yet most of my view has nothing to do with my faith
As someone who studies the Bible quite closely, I often have discussions with other people, believers and not, as to what is an appropriate translation and/or interpretation of a variety of Biblical passages.
You really need some conflict resolution on this matter.
-
Anyone who is interested in who is going to be the new PM should read the wikipedia page on Andrea Leadsom.How she has any MPs supporting her raises questions over their judgement.
-
So we are to have another woman PM in September now Gove has been eliminated. I hope it is May.
-
Anyone who is interested in who is going to be the new PM should read the wikipedia page on Andrea Leadsom.How she has any MPs supporting her raises questions over their judgement.
The Wiki is a hatchet job. I have little time for her but what is currently there is written to embarrass her.
-
The Wiki is a hatchet job. I have little time for her but what is currently there is written to embarrass her.
Maybe but the suggestion of banning pessimists sounds like it could be followed up by a Happiness Patrol.
-
The Wiki is a hatchet job. I have little time for her but what is currently there is written to embarrass her.
I gathered that earlier this week there were edits to make it more favourable, emanating from her own constituency. So if it remains awful despite the doctoring that isn't good.
-
I gathered that earlier this week there were edits to make it more favourable, emanating from her own constituency. So if it remains awful despite the doctoring that isn't good.
There look to have been a lot of hatchet job edits in the last couple of days. I am not sure why you think that is significant as to whether someone is capable of the job. No prospective PM would be free of such things.
-
There look to have been a lot of hatchet job edits in the last couple of days. I am not sure why you think that is significant as to whether someone is capable of the job. No prospective PM would be free of such things.
Sorry I don't understand what you mean.
-
Sorry I don't understand what you mean.
Two things, 1 - that having people saying they were going to be 'correcting' it does not mean that others were not on continuing the hatchet job , and that a lot of the information added has been what has come out in the last couple of days.
And 2 - that people in this position will get people editing their wiki entry, I suspect looking at it that the normal controls have not been put in place so it's a flame war. Such things do not tell you anything about whether she is capable of the job or not. It's a wiki page.
-
Watching Leadsom being interviewed about the obvious inaccuracies on her CV, my only question is if that were exposed in a job interview whether you wait to the end and know you won't hire them, or cut short the interview and say it's not worth continuing.
-
I was listening to some of Question Time last night (on Five Live) and there was mention of 200,000 new members of the Labour Party, making a total of 600,000. Is this correct? And then the figure of 160,000 is quoted as being the number of Conservative Party members who can vote for Theresa May or that other woman with a dodgy CV and total lack of experience in dealing with international diplomacy. Why haven't we, i.e. the Conservative Party, got more members?!!! No, I'm not expecting an answer to that! :)
-
I was listening to some of Question Time last night (on Five Live) and there was mention of 200,000 new members of the Labour Party, making a total of 600,000. Is this correct? And then the figure of 160,000 is quoted as being the number of Conservative Party members who can vote for Theresa May or that other woman with a dodgy CV and total lack of experience in dealing with international diplomacy. Why haven't we, i.e. the Conservative Party, got more members?!!! No, I'm not expecting an answer to that! :)
Michael Crick said 128,000 on Channel 4 news, the 600,000 figure is probably correct. It is easier and much cheaper to join Labour with its £3 quid membership so that's one reason.
A
-
Michael Crick said 128,000 on Channel 4 news, the 600,000 figure is probably correct. It is easier and much cheaper to join Labour with its £3 quid membership so that's one reason.
A
Ah, yes, of course. Thank you.
-
Michael Crick said 128,000 on Channel 4 news, the 600,000 figure is probably correct. It is easier and much cheaper to join Labour with its £3 quid membership so that's one reason.
A
The £3 affiliates (supporters) aren't actually members, so I guess it depends on how they are counting - i.e. are they just counting proper fully paid up members, or a combination of those and the £3 supporters.
-
The £3 affiliates (supporters) aren't actually members, so I guess it depends on how they are counting - i.e. are they just counting proper fully paid up members, or a combination of those and the £3 supporters.
You are, of course, correct. Given the numbers I am presuming, perhaps incorrectly, that it is the second. Also when numbers were given previously at the time of the leadership election, the affiliates were counted as part of the total.
-
Dear United Kingdom, ( United Kingdom, Gonnagle you are such a sarcastic bar steward )
Two runners left, one remain, one for exit, the remain candidate looks like the favourite, Cameron was for remain.
Better the devil you know :o Just an observation.
Gonnagle.
-
You are, of course, correct. Given the numbers I am presuming, perhaps incorrectly, that it is the second. Also when numbers were given previously at the time of the leadership election, the affiliates were counted as part of the total.
Typically the 3 different groups were reported separately in terms of their voting, although ultimately the weighting was purely one member one vote (member in this case being member, registered supporter or affiliated supporter).
Hence we know that Corbyn didn't (quite) receive the majority of member's votes, but received a majority of the votes of the other two groups.
-
Leadson gives me the creeps!
-
Leadson gives me the creeps!
Likewise.
-
== charisma?
-
Dear Floo and ProfDavey,
The Tory party gives me the creeps!!
Gonnagle.
-
I see UKIP just introduced a rule saying you have to a member for 5 years to be leader. Otherwise known as the Fuck Carswell rule.
-
Take back control!
No, you take back control.
I am, I just knifed somebody in the back, that is taking back control.
I see that somebody just knifed you in the back, so they've taken back control.
No, they haven't, they've just resigned.
Well, I'm off for a spot of lunch, that is taking back control.
-
Dear Floo and ProfDavey,
The Tory party gives me the creeps!!
Gonnagle.
In which way are the SNP or the Labour parties any better?
-
Theresa May has no democratic mandate according to Theresa May
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/08/theresa-may-m-3.html
-
NS, a General Election gives a party a mandate, not an individual. Whilst there will, no doubt, be those who vote for a party depending on who is the party leader, I'd suggest that - until the arrival of Corbynism - the majority of people from whatever party would cast their vote based on three things: party, manifesto, and their view on a party's candidate in their constituency.
-
NS, a General Election gives a party a mandate, not an individual. Whilst there will, no doubt, be those who vote for a party depending on who is the party leader, I'd suggest that - until the arrival of Corbynism - the majority of people from whatever party would cast their vote based on three things: party, manifesto, and their view on a party's candidate in their constituency.
Take it up with Theresa May who thinks differently, or did.
-
Take it up with Theresa May who thinks differently, or did.
I've read the article you linked to, and I got the impression she was writing about the Labour Party, even though she uses the 'short-hand' Gordon Brown. Remember that in both cases, the electorate knew ahead of the respective elections that the then leader would be standing down at some point in the following parliament were their party to win the election.
-
I've read the article you linked to, and I got the impression she was writing about the Labour Party, even though she uses the 'short-hand' Gordon Brown. Remember that in both cases, the electorate knew ahead of the respective elections that the then leader would be standing down at some point in the following parliament were their party to win the election.
Again take it up with her, she thinks or thought that in such circumstances the PM doesn't , or didn't have a democratic mandate.
-
It struck me this morning that, in olden days when the leader of the incumbent party (and hence the prime minister) was selected by the MPs, the system was more democratic than it is now. Currently we have the situation that the PM is elected by a few hundred thousand people with no democratic mandate, whereas the MPs were at least elected by the general public.
-
What Hope says is correct.
In this country what is elected is a Parliament not a President. There is no reason why there cannot be a new prime minister every year. The electorate - constitutionally - have no part in the decision as to who is the prime minister.
I suspect that people confuse "head of state" with "head of government". The prime minister is the head of government, the monarch is the head of state - who is also not elected.
-
It struck me this morning that, in olden days when the leader of the incumbent party (and hence the prime minister) was selected by the MPs, the system was more democratic than it is now. Currently we have the situation that the PM is elected by a few hundred thousand people with no democratic mandate, whereas the MPs were at least elected by the general public.
It has nothing to do with "olden days" it is the British Constitution.
The people elect a Parliament. Parliament consists of MPs who commit to a particular programme as outlined in a manifesto. The monarch asks the leader of the party which has the largest number of MPs to form an administration. How that party appoint its own leader is its own affair.
Stop looking at what happens in countries such as France and the USA, which elect an executive president. Why not consider the situation in Germany, where there is a ceremonial president and where the process to appoint a chancellor is more like that in the UK?
-
It has nothing to do with "olden days" it is the British Constitution.
The people elect a Parliament. Parliament consists of MPs who commit to a particular programme as outlined in a manifesto. The monarch asks the leader of the party which has the largest number of MPs to form an administration. How that party appoint its own leader is its own affair.
Stop looking at what happens in countries such as France and the USA, which elect an executive president. Why not consider the situation in Germany, where there is a ceremonial president and where the process is more like that in the UK?
Yes we get it. But that isn't the point.
The various machinations of the constitution and party rules combine to give us a leader who is elected by members of their political party who have obtained the right to be involved by paying a membership fee.
In olden days before the political parties changed their selection rules, the various machinations of the constitution and party rules combined to give us a leader who was elected by the MPs from their party who had obtained the right to be involved by being elected to their post by their constituencies.
This is more democratic than the current systems.
-
If you set up the Make JeremyP Dictator for Life Party you are entirely free to determine how that party's leader shall be appointed.
Political parties are independent and totally free organisations. They are at liberty to determine their own rules and their own constitutions. The state plays no part in that.
All parties enter the parliamentary electoral marketplace free to behave how they wish providing they do so legally. The electorate knows this.
Were you so concerned when Margaret Thatcher was forced out and replaced with John Major?
-
What Hope says is correct.
In this country what is elected is a Parliament not a President. There is no reason why there cannot be a new prime minister every year. The electorate - constitutionally - have no part in the decision as to who is the prime minister.
I suspect that people confuse "head of state" with "head of government". The prime minister is the head of government, the monarch is the head of state - who is also not elected.
yep,i know, however why is it relevant to the point that in a similar situation, Brown becoming PM had no democratic mandate, but her not saying that now?
-
The graphic at the bottom of this BBC page shows that TM will be the 12th PM in the last century to assume the office without there being a General Election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36769898
-
yep,i know, however why is it relevant to the point that in a similar situation, Brown becoming PM had no democratic mandate, but her not saying that now?
You are referring to something that was written in 2007 - nearly a decade ago.
-
You are referring to something that was written in 2007 - nearly a decade ago.
And? Surely this is a simple matter of principle? I agree people can change their minds. Do you think that is what happened to the PM to be?
-
Whether we have a GE or not when a new PM is put forward by a party obviously depends on many factors, not a single constitutional point.
After 10 years of TB as PM and with the way the leadership was handed over it seemed reasonable to many that a GE should have been called. In the current situation, where May is taking over soon after an election and with the Brexit referendum providing a clear direction for the rest of the term it seems reasonable to continue without one. ie. She thinks that she has enough of mandate but thought GB did not.
Separately, it's not as if its likely that a GE would give us a different result.
-
Whether we have a GE or not when a new PM is put forward by a party obviously depends on many factors, not a single constitutional point.
After 10 years of TB as PM and with the way the leadership was handed over it seemed reasonable to many that a GE should have been called. In the current situation, where May is taking over soon after an election and with the Brexit referendum providing a clear direction for the rest of the term it seems reasonable to continue without one. ie. She thinks that she has enough of mandate but thought GB did not.
Separately, it's not as if its likely that a GE would give us a different result.
How does Brexit provide a clear objective given the there is no policy covering it in the manifeato, other than holding the referndum, as opposed to someone taking over and following the manifesto?
-
Just to note I don't think there should be a GE because of the new PM - but I think that political parties on both sides should stop with the meretricious 'do as we say not as we do'. There is a case to be made both for holding a GE soon, and a case agaisnt it - but none of either case gets much, if any, support from there being a new PM
-
Dear Hope,
In which way are the SNP or the Labour parties any better?
Unsure about what the SNP are standing up for, right now all I hear about is Indyref2, regards the Labour party, I see a fight between Torylite/Blairite MP's and Jeremy Corbyns so called hard left politics.
I am at present trying to find out if here on this forum the accusation of hard left is justified, I am also trying to figure out why Corbyns detractors don't think he is capable of leading the Labour party.
In answer to your question why the Labour party ( Corbyn and his supporters, not the other lot ) do not give me the creeps, is I see Jeremy Corbyn standing up for the poor in our society.
So far I see no reason to brand Corbyn as hard left, to me that is old school speak, something that we should step away from.
Regarding his Leadership skills, it seems to me that his detractors are basing this on his conduct over the EU referendum, which I think he fought honestly, he was not a big fan of the EU but his mast was firmly affixed to the remain campaign "remain and reform".
I do think there is some mileage in what Vlad was chuntering on about, a BBC bias against Corbyn, I receive most of my info from the BBC web site and I had to dig deeply to find any reference to Corbyn during the EU debate, even though the man traveled the breadth of this country asking voters to remain.
Right now I am looking through Mr Corbyns official web site,
http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/
And so far all I can see is a man standing up to Tory austerity, standing up to a party that gave us brexit, standing up to a Tory party that cares not a jot about our NHS, standing up to a party that allows big companies to avoid tax and standing up to a party that looks like it is in a race to the bottom over corporation tax.
So to end old son, no the SNP do not give me the creeps, they are doing what is in their job description and the Labour party do not give me the creeps, they are fighting the most unbritish unChristian political party I have ever seen.
Gonnagle.
-
If you set up the Make JeremyP Dictator for Life Party you are entirely free to determine how that party's leader shall be appointed.
Political parties are independent and totally free organisations. They are at liberty to determine their own rules and their own constitutions. The state plays no part in that.
All parties enter the parliamentary electoral marketplace free to behave how they wish providing they do so legally. The electorate knows this.
Of course they are but some systems are more democratic than others.
Were you so concerned when Margaret Thatcher was forced out and replaced with John Major?
I'm sorry, where did I ever give the impression that I was concerned? I merely made an observation and I do note the irony that "reclaiming democracy" has resulted in a new PM appointed by Tory MPs, which is precisely the same way as the "unelected" EU leaders are appointed.
-
And so far all I can see is a man standing up to Tory austerity, standing up to a party that gave us brexit, standing up to a Tory party that cares not a jot about our NHS, standing up to a party that allows big companies to avoid tax and standing up to a party that looks like it is in a race to the bottom over corporation tax.
So far so mainstream - what you have said about Corbyn could equally be said about Yvette Cooper or Chuka Unamma, or Liz Kendal on the centrist wing of the party.
The issue isn't these glib statements, but how effective he is at first holding the government to account and secondly creating a compelling alternative agenda that is deliverable and sufficiently compelling that people in enough numbers might vote for it in a general election so that Labour in power, not the tories. And in those important points he has been a disaster. He is completely unable to speak to the wider public beyond the narrow echo chamber of his fellow ideologists.
And no this isn't just about his appalling performance during the brexit campaign where he was simply absent - no that was, for some merely the straw that broke the camel's back, but just one of a catalogue of errors where he completely failed to do his job as an opposition leader, and that is, of course because he cannot lead.
And it isn't surprising because his is (despite his age) critically inexperienced and that speaks volumes. If you are in any way competent as a leader and you've been in front line politics for 40 years you will have been pulled in to lead initiatives left right and centre, whatever your political views. Yet in all that time prior to becoming leader of the party last year his most significant leadership roles have been Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands and a friend of mine who is a relative of Labour 'royalty' believes he was also briefly in charge of the planning department at Haringey Council.
That lack of experience is excusable if you are 35 and have been in front line politics for 5 years, not if you are 66 and have been in front line politics for 40 years.
And that isn't actually just a reflection of his hard left views. Take someone else with similarly hard left views - also in front line politics for a similar length of time, Ken Livingston. He has been in countless leadership positions throughout his career - like or loath his politics, he is able to lead and to win elections, Corbyn isn't.
-
How does Brexit provide a clear objective given the there is no policy covering it in the manifeato, other than holding the referndum, as opposed to someone taking over and following the manifesto?
The direction is to "leave" - we have to negotiate a Brexit deal. Possibly a choice on options, if any, will need to be put to a public vote through a GE or further referendum later (eg. if the government fails to carry their preferred option).
-
The direction is to "leave" - we have to negotiate a Brexit deal. Possibly a choice on options, if any, will need to be put to a public vote through a GE or further referendum later (eg. if the government fails to carry their preferred option).
And again how is that clear as what happens over the next three years, given that it is only one thing and no actions on it are based on a manifesto, as opposed to following a manifesto?
-
Just to note I don't think there should be a GE because of the new PM - but I think that political parties on both sides should stop with the meretricious 'do as we say not as we do'. There is a case to be made both for holding a GE soon, and a case agaisnt it - but none of either case gets much, if any, support from there being a new PM
Sure. As there are no fixed rules on this, each side will always make a case for or against, but it is mostly rhetoric as no PM with a sufficient majority to continue will call a GE unless it's obviously to their benefit or have reached the end of their term
And again how is that clear as what happens over the next three years, given that it is only one thing and no actions on it are based on a manifesto, as opposed to following a manifesto?
I see what you're saying - the rest of the 2015 manifesto in invalidated by the Brexit vote. This can't be resolved without clarification on Brexit. I guess they will have to muddle along until then.
Does anyone else have a plan?
-
The direction is to "leave" - we have to negotiate a Brexit deal. Possibly a choice on options, if any, will need to be put to a public vote through a GE or further referendum later (eg. if the government fails to carry their preferred option).
The EU isn't going to provide a menu of options that can be offered to the British people on brexit - the government will only be able to negotiate one deal, which is unlikely to be ideal (as it will likely need to trade off access to the free market against restrictions on free movement, we won't be able to have both) from the perspective of most people.
So once a deal is agreed then it can be put to the british people on a take it or leave it basis against remaining in the EU - then we would have a clear mandate for our future relationship, which we don't have currently - it may be that were the exit deal to be WTO (no access to the single market) but with ability to restrict migration that a majority of people would prefer to be in the EU rather than that rather extreme brexit option.
I suspect the most likely outcome (and most consistent with the narrow referendum result) would be to formally leave the EU (thereby respecting the vote to leave) but to make the changes as limited as possible, therefore recognising that there was no overwhelming mandate for radical change. And, of course, that outcome would be EEA with access to the single market with perhaps some limited restrictions on migration - probably requiring a job offer to come to the UK.
-
Sure. As there are no fixed rules on this, each side will always make a case for or against, but it is mostly rhetoric as no PM with a sufficient majority to continue will call a GE unless it's obviously to their benefit or have reached the end of their term
I see what you're saying - the rest of the 2015 manifesto in invalidated by the Brexit vote. This can't be resolved without clarification on Brexit. I guess they will have to muddle along until then.
Does anyone else have a plan?
We give politicians way to much slack on this, and I speak as someone who will defend the species more than most, it isn't rhetoric, it's hypocrisy.
-
Corbynistas continue to besmirch Angela
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36771205
-
Corbyn and other Labour MPs have had death threats. Angela Eagle had a brick thrown through her office window! I hope they catch the evil perpetrators and send them down for a good long time!
-
If you set up the Make JeremyP Dictator for Life Party you are entirely free to determine how that party's leader shall be appointed.
Political parties are independent and totally free organisations. They are at liberty to determine their own rules and their own constitutions. The state plays no part in that.
All parties enter the parliamentary electoral marketplace free to behave how they wish providing they do so legally. The electorate knows this.
Were you so concerned when Margaret Thatcher was forced out and replaced with John Major?
It might be worth revisiting this given the current Labour leadership farce? Both major parties seem to have convoluted rules and elections to determine their respective party leaders. However, as Jeremy suggested, each has ended up with a system that is arguably less democratic than having a leader selected by MP votes.
-
It might be worth revisiting this given the current Labour leadership farce? Both major parties seem to have convoluted rules and elections to determine their respective party leaders. However, as Jeremy suggested, each has ended up with a system that is arguably less democratic than having a leader selected by MP votes.
Labour excelled themselves with their wonderful system were anyone with three quid to spair can have a go. I always think it is very touching of Jeremy to doggedly hang on in a show on 'loyalty' to all those Tories who put him there, but really, it's past a joke now.
-
Labour excelled themselves with their wonderful system were anyone with three quid to spair can have a go. I always think it is very touching of Jeremy to doggedly hang on in a show on 'loyalty' to all those Tories who put him there, but really, it's past a joke now.
Whatever you think of the £3 supporters scheme it wasn't determinative in getting Corbyn elected. He'd have been elected with just the other two groups, full party members and the registered members of unions and other affiliated organisations.
And while it is true that tories (or anyone) could have become a £3 supporter, and certainly some did - I doubt this was a particularly large group.
-
Whatever you think of the £3 supporters scheme it wasn't determinative in getting Corbyn elected. He'd have been elected with just the other two groups, full party members and the registered members of unions and other affiliated organisations.
And while it is true that tories (or anyone) could have become a £3 supporter, and certainly some did - I doubt this was a particularly large group.
If I remember correctly, the membership doubled with the advent of the £3ers. That doesn't sound like a small group.
-
Dear Hope,
The important part, what our resident Tory supporter is trying to suggest ( God Bless Him ) is that it was great swathes of Tory supporters who helped Corbyn win, I doubt very much that this is the case.
Gonnagle.
-
Corbynistas continue to besmirch Angela
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-36771205
Right-wing crypto-tories continue to besmirch, plot against, and undermine Jeremy. I rejoined Labour when he became leader, but if he's ousted I'll be off back to the Greens like a shot.
-
If I remember correctly, the membership doubled with the advent of the £3ers. That doesn't sound like a small group.
And if it hadn't he would still have got in and most of the doubling was not Tories trying to stitch up the Labour Party.
-
And if it hadn't he would still have got in and most of the doubling was not Tories trying to stitch up the Labour Party.
No, but they weren't necessarily Corbynites, either. They may have been folk who wanted to stop him.
-
No, but they weren't necessarily Corbynites, either. They may have been folk who wanted to stop him.
So what is the point you are trying to make then?
-
Right-wing crypto-tories continue to besmirch, plot against, and undermine Jeremy. I rejoined Labour when he became leader, but if he's ousted I'll be off back to the Greens like a shot.
My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, see link
-
So what is the point you are trying to make then?
That they might have been ex-Labour party members rejoining, or people who chose to join on the express purpose of stopping him.
-
If I remember correctly, the membership doubled with the advent of the £3ers. That doesn't sound like a small group.
The membership and the £3ers are different categories.
In the 2015 election, 245,520 members voted, 105,598 of the £3ers (registered supporters) voted and 71,546 of affiliated supporters (those in unions and other affiliated organisations that had register to be able to vote).
Corbyns first round % in each of the categories was 49.59%, 83.76% and 57.61%
He would have won in the first round even if the registered supporter category didn't exist.
-
Whatever you think of the £3 supporters scheme it wasn't determinative in getting Corbyn elected. He'd have been elected with just the other two groups, full party members and the registered members of unions and other affiliated organisations.
And while it is true that tories (or anyone) could have become a £3 supporter, and certainly some did - I doubt this was a particularly large group.
Last time I saw the figures it looked as if he 'three quid votes' might have given it to Corbyn on the first ballot and, Tory or far Left, it seems likely that a great number of those voters did not have the best interests of the Labour Party at heart.
It looks like Labour Right are trying to use that strategy to their advantage now. There has been a large increase in £3 registrations in recent weeks and a number of my Labour friends have asked me to register and vote - obviously for anyone but Corbyn.
-
it seems likely that a great number of those voters did not have the best interests of the Labour Party at heart.
I don't know if there's any evidence to support that point of view. I mean yes, some people who wanted to screw over the Labour Party did register but I doubt if it was enough to make a big difference. My own personal experience is that most of the people I know who registered for the £3 thing wanted a proper socialist in charge (but remember, anecdotes are not data).
-
Last time I saw the figures it looked as if he 'three quid votes' might have given it to Corbyn on the first ballot ...
That is wrong.
I've already given the actual results of last year's election - Corbyn would have won on the first ballot without the £3 supporters. He had over 50% of the combined total of the other two groups, the members and the affiliated supporters.
-
rather than start a different topic, I think I'll just mention the nuclear deterrent question here. There was someone on the radio last night saying that the nuclear deterrent was 'out-dated'. 'Out-dated'??? What on earth was that person talking about? Has someone invented something which would make it redundant? Something more powerful? I didn't catch who the speaker was, but that person should think a bit more before saying that the nuclear deterrent is 'out-dated'. Thank goodness the vote is mostlikely to be in favour of retaining ours.
-
rather than start a different topic, I think I'll just mention the nuclear deterrent question here. There was someone on the radio last night saying that the nuclear deterrent was 'out-dated'. 'Out-dated'??? What on earth was that person talking about? Has someone invented something which would make it redundant? Something more powerful? I didn't catch who the speaker was, but that person should think a bit more before saying that the nuclear deterrent is 'out-dated'. Thank goodness the vote is mostlikely to be in favour of retaining ours.
They probably meant that most of the threats to our society seem to come from terrorist groups these days and terrorist groups are not deterred by nuclear weapons.
-
rather than start a different topic, I think I'll just mention the nuclear deterrent question here. There was someone on the radio last night saying that the nuclear deterrent was 'out-dated'. 'Out-dated'??? What on earth was that person talking about? Has someone invented something which would make it redundant? Something more powerful? I didn't catch who the speaker was, but that person should think a bit more before saying that the nuclear deterrent is 'out-dated'. Thank goodness the vote is mostlikely to be in favour of retaining ours.
Surely this is a different topic, and worthy of one on its own?
-
Surely this is a different topic, and worthy of one on its own?
You're probably right NS, but actually I don't think I personally have much more to say on the subject. I am absolutely clear that we should maintain our nuclear capability along with the submarines to go with it.
-
You're probably right NS, but actually I don't think I personally have much more to say on the subject. I am absolutely clear that we should maintain our nuclear capability along with the submarines to go with it.
Same here.
-
That is wrong.
I've already given the actual results of last year's election - Corbyn would have won on the first ballot without the £3 supporters. He had over 50% of the combined total of the other two groups, the members and the affiliated supporters.
I certainly recall seeing some provisional figures that would have suggested otherwise, but as I an in France at the moment with rather sporadic internet access I can't really check.
-
I certainly recall seeing some provisional figures that would have suggested otherwise, but as I an in France at the moment with rather sporadic internet access I can't really check.
FFS LA, you don't need to go looking for them, I've already given the complete results in reply 241.
And then point that out again when you continued to make an assertion that Corbyn needed the £3 supporters to have won on the first ballot.
He didn't:
Please actually read what I posted.
-
Owen Smith is now standing for Labour leadership, Angela has stepped down and is backing him against Jeremy Corbyn.
Smith voted to Remain. He used to be in the CND, has always spoken out against Trident......now he believes we should keep Trident >:( !
By now, we should be used to not knowing where we stand with politicians.
I have a funny feeling he will win though.
-
Owen Smith is now standing for Labour leadership, Angela has stepped down and is backing him against Jeremy Corbyn.
Smith voted to Remain. He used to be in the CND, has always spoken out against Trident......now he believes we should keep Trident >:( !
By now, we should be used to not knowing where we stand with politicians.
I have a funny feeling he will win though.
Odd that out of those 80% of Labour mps who opposed Corbyn, no person of real stature seems to have stepped forward - though no doubt A.E. and O.S are committed, articulate and trustworthy people. Where's Hilary Benn in all this?
As for trustworthiness, the Thangam Debbonaire* debacle certainly doesn't put Corbyn in a very good light, especially for the offhand way she was treated while she was hospitalised for cancer. If Corbyn is such an out-of-touch ditherer as this episode reveals, then his possible re-election will ensure Labour stays out of power for another half-century (something Ms Debbonaire has deep fears about, in her scathing critique of Corbyn)
*M.P. for Bristol West.
-
I've heard tons of people say that, including lefties, that if an authentic alternative candidate came forward, they might well attract votes from members. Angela Eagle had all the charisma of a wet flannel, the new guy seems a bit identikit to me. I suppose that there are people lurking who may emerge at a later date, and don't want to get their suits dirty, or something, right now, in the hurly-burly. I mean, they may estimate that Labour are going to lose next time, Corbyn will fall (assuming he wins this time), and that's the time for the new Blair to emerge. <makes sign of cross, hurls garlic and samphire round the room, oh Lord preserve us from that>