Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on November 13, 2023, 09:36:11 AM
-
At last!
As for Cameron returning - a possibility, as he's been seen arriving at No. 10, and could return to the cabinet via a peerage - he might be a moderating influence, being centre-right rather than hard-right, and socially liberal (and pro-EU).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/13/suella-braverman-rishi-sunak-cabinet-reshuffle-conservatives-uk-politics-latest
-
The new Home Sec. is James Cleverly, who embodies the opposite of nominative determinism, but can't be worse than Cruella.
-
At last!
As for Cameron returning - a possibility, as he's been seen arriving at No. 10, and could return to the cabinet via a peerage - he might be a moderating influence, being centre-right rather than hard-right, and socially liberal (and pro-EU).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/13/suella-braverman-rishi-sunak-cabinet-reshuffle-conservatives-uk-politics-latest
What does 'pro EU' mean anymore? Given the current cabinet, I can't dislike the idea of Cameron being brought back but the undemocratic farcical method that would be necessary outweighs the window dressing for a year.
-
What does 'pro EU' mean anymore? Given the current cabinet, I can't dislike the idea of Cameron being brought back but the undemocratic farcical method that would be necessary outweighs the window dressing for a year.
I agree - the whole idea of the H of L is undemocratic. It should be scrapped.
-
The new Home Sec. is James Cleverly, who embodies the opposite of nominative determinism, but can't be worse than Cruella.
Was watching Trevor Phillips on Sky yesterday abd he put up the approval ratings of cabinet ministers amongst Tory voters. The top 3 by some distance were
Cleverly at 72%
Badenoch at 67%
and Braverman at 43%
The rest were nowhere
-
What does 'pro EU' mean anymore? Given the current cabinet, I can't dislike the idea of Cameron being brought back but the undemocratic farcical method that would be necessary outweighs the window dressing for a year.
So a PM without a mandate appoints a foreign secretary who isn't currently in parliament as either an MP or a peer. Yet more of the elite public school chum-ocracy.
Desperate stuff.
-
Some rumblings alrerady according to the BBC that Tory MP's are unimpressed by the return of Cameron.
The annoyance being that there are 350 sitting MP's. Presumably not one of them is good enough to fill the post.
-
So a PM without a mandate appoints a foreign secretary who isn't currently in parliament as either an MP or a peer. Yet more of the elite public school chum-ocracy.
Desperate stuff.
The 'or a peer' there seems pointless. Had Cameron already accepted a peerage, it wouldn't seem to me to be any better.
-
The 'or a peer' there seems pointless. Had Cameron already accepted a peerage, it wouldn't seem to me to be any better.
I think it does make a difference - there are plenty of ministers who are members of the Lords, but presumably were before they were appointed as a minister. To rush through a peerage in order to ensure you can confirm someone as a minister seems different to me.
-
Some rumblings alrerady according to the BBC that Tory MP's are unimpressed by the return of Cameron.
The annoyance being that there are 350 sitting MP's. Presumably not one of them is good enough to fill the post.
Yes - it really does suggest a paucity of talent.
And there is a democratic deficit here. Typically ministers in the Lords are there to do government business in the Lords, which seems reasonable to me as an MP cannot represent the government in the second chamber. But this is entirely different - in recent history I don't think we've had a peer hold any of the great offices of state. I may be wrong but the last was probably Lord Carrington.
-
I think it does make a difference - there are plenty of ministers who are members of the Lords, but presumably were before they were appointed as a minister. To rush through a peerage in order to ensure you can confirm someone as a minister seems different to me.
Why? The thing is still an antidemocratic farce even had he been charging for his attendance up till now.
-
So a PM without a mandate...
Assuming you mean that he wasn't elected as PM, that is true of all PMs: We, the public, only directly elect MPs; The PM is the leader of the largest party,, which forms the government. How they become leader is a matter for the party: nowadays, all the parties elect them by a vote of the membership, though the details differ from party to party. Therefore, Risky has as much (or as little) of a mandate as any PM, from any party.
-
Assuming you mean that he wasn't elected as PM, that is true of all PMs: We, the public, only directly elect MPs; The PM is the leader of the largest party,, which forms the government. How they become leader is a matter for the party: nowadays, all the parties elect them by a vote of the membership, though the details differ from party to party. Therefore, Risky has as much (or as little) of a mandate as any PM, from any party.
He has neither a mandate from the electorate, which in our parliamentary process means being the leader of a party that wins a general election on the basis of that person being the leader (and therefore PM-apparent) and also a manifesto.
But he also has no proper mandate within his party which has a process by which two candidates are put to a final vote of the membership - this didn't happen when he became PM and indeed when it did happen a couple of months earlier he lost.
-
He has neither a mandate from the electorate, which in our parliamentary process means being the leader of a party that wins a general election on the basis of that person being the leader (and therefore PM-apparent) and also a manifesto.
But he also has no proper mandate within his party which has a process by which two candidates are put to a final vote of the membership - this didn't happen when he became PM and indeed when it did happen a couple of months earlier he lost.
Can I just ask if yoh said the same when Gordon Brown became PM?And of course had Peter Mandelson as a cabinet minister while Mandelson was in the HoL.
-
Why? The thing is still an antidemocratic farce even had he been charging for his attendance up till now.
As I suggested in my post to Aruntraveller the issues of how members in a second chamber are selected is a distinct matter to whether it is reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber.
It is, of course, reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber - otherwise how would the government be able to present legislation etc to that second chamber and conduct government work in the second chamber.
But that is an entirely different matter to appointing someone to the Lords in order to give them a major office of state. There is also a big issue with this as you normally expect ministers in those offices of state to be accountable to the commons - in other words to be expected to be called to give statements etc to MPs. Cameron isn't going to be able to do that as he isn't a member of the commons.
-
As I suggested in my post to Aruntraveller the issues of how members in a second chamber are selected is a distinct matter to whether it is reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber.
It is, of course, reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber - otherwise how would the government be able to present legislation etc to that second chamber and conduct government work in the second chamber.
But that is an entirely different matter to appointing someone to the Lords in order to give them a major office of state. There is also a big issue with this as you normally expect ministers in those offices of state to be accountable to the commons - in other words to be expected to be called to give statements etc to MPs. Cameron isn't going to be able to do that as he isn't a member of the commons.
So your objection isn't that he wasn't a peer, it's that even as a peer he shouldn't be cabinet minister. Thank you for clarifying your original statement.
-
Can I just ask if yoh said the same when Gordon Brown became PM?
The difference is that when Brown became PM he was elected on the basis of rules that had been in place for a considerable period of time. Nor had he just been defeated in a contest using those established rule.
In the case of Sunak the 1922 committee simply made up a completely new set of rule to allow the election to be "completed within the next week" (Brady's words). Sunak had, of course, been defeated in a contest using the established rule (that had been used for all leadership Tory elections since IDS). Brady's "completed within the next week" rule will, of course, never be seen again.
And of course had Peter Mandelson as a cabinet minister while Mandelson was in the HoL.
Didn't agree with that either, but he wasn't in on of the great offices of state, but in a much more junior ministerial position.
-
So your objection isn't that he wasn't a peer, it's that even as a peer he shouldn't be cabinet minister. Thank you for clarifying your original statement.
Nope - you are misinterpreting my comments.
-
The difference is that when Brown became PM he was elected on the basis of rules that had been in place for a considerable period of time. Nor had he just been defeated in a contest using those established rule.
In the case of Sunak the 1922 committee simply made up a completely new set of rule to allow the election to be "completed within the next week" (Brady's words). Sunak had, of course, been defeated in a contest using the established rule (that had been used for all leadership Tory elections since IDS). Brady's "completed within the next week" rule will, of course, never be seen again.
Didn't agree with that either, but he wasn't in on of the great offices of state, but in a much more junior ministerial position.
of course, dear.
-
Nope - you are misinterpreting my comments.
Am I? How? Your issue, rightly, seems to me to be having a cabinet position in the HoL.
-
In terms of what seems to be an inflation reduced mini reshuffle, not really sure I get what Sunak is aiming for. Braverman getting sacked is fair enough - after the article was published ignoring most of the changes requested, he haf no real choice. No action looked weak, and gave Braverman a free pass for the future, while any later restriction on her, she could resign over, win her safe seat and look to be the next leader of the opposition.
Moving Cleverly who seems popular with Tory voters then works as a sop.
Bringing in Cameron has any number of risks, not least that in comparison Sunak looks inexperienced, while annoying a section of Tory voters. It's at least a novelty which might work as a distraction for the year.
It leaves the question of what Sunak's vision is as murky as before.
-
Oh more excitement, Coffey gone. She managed to hit the wet spot and annoy virtually everyone. It's ok to be Environment Secretary and not really care that much about it but pymping shite into the water doesn't win over anyone.
-
So a PM without a mandate appoints a foreign secretary who isn't currently in parliament as either an MP or a peer. Yet more of the elite public school chum-ocracy.
Desperate stuff.
The prime minister does have a mandate, from Tory party members and, to a lesser extent from the Tory MPs, but under our current electoral system no British prime minister has ever had a mandate from the people - on a technical level.
Cameron is not the first minister to be elevated to the HoL just so he could be in the government. All governments do it some extent. Personally, I welcome somebody half way competent coming in to this government in the short period before we kick them out, no matter how they get here.
-
Oh more excitement, Coffey gone. She managed to hit the wet spot and annoy virtually everyone. It's ok to be Environment Secretary and not really care that much about it but pymping shite into the water doesn't win over anyone.
Should that be "pimping shite" or "pumping shite"? I think either works.
-
The prime minister does have a mandate, from Tory party members ...
But when Sunak was put to the membership as one of two options in summer 2022 the membership rejected him. The process in Oct 22 that appointed him as leader (and de facto as PM) did not have any membership involvement. So, no, he doesn't have a mandate from conservative party members.
-
As I suggested in my post to Aruntraveller the issues of how members in a second chamber are selected is a distinct matter to whether it is reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber.
It is, of course, reasonable for there to be ministers in the second chamber - otherwise how would the government be able to present legislation etc to that second chamber and conduct government work in the second chamber.
But that is an entirely different matter to appointing someone to the Lords in order to give them a major office of state. There is also a big issue with this as you normally expect ministers in those offices of state to be accountable to the commons - in other words to be expected to be called to give statements etc to MPs. Cameron isn't going to be able to do that as he isn't a member of the commons.
It's intriguing to me as to why the cabinet needs to be selected from the legislature at all. It's not the case in a number of other countries. In fact, in France, it seems to be specifically prohibited.
-
Personally, I welcome somebody half way competent ...
Cameron, competent?!? :o
-
But when Sunak was put to the membership as one of two options in summer 2022 the membership rejected him. The process in Oct 22 that appointed him as leader (and de facto as PM) did not have any membership involvement. So, no, he doesn't have a mandate from conservative party members.
Good point. Sunak only has a mandate from the parliamentary party and even then, he was unopposed, as was Gordon Brown.
-
Cameron, competent?!? :o
You may not like what he did but he did it competently.
-
Good point. Sunak only has a mandate from the parliamentary party and even then, he was unopposed, as was Gordon Brown.
He wasn't unopposed - Mourdant (and possibly Johnson stood against him). Brady and his 1922 committee chums created a one-off system that created a bar so high (nigh on one third of MPs) that made it pretty well impossible that more than one candidate would be nominated. The previous rules required just 5% of MPs to get on the ballot paper - under those rules Sunak would definitely have been facing a challenger. When Brown was elected the threshold was 12.5% - again had that been the threshold in Oct last year Sunak would have faced a challenger (or two).
-
You may not like what he did but he did it competently.
What holding an unnecessary referendum when you didn't want to change the status quo and then losing it resulting in years of political turmoil and harm to the UK ... hmm yup that shows real competence.
I know he's got some real rivals from the past few years but in my view Cameron is probably the worst PM in my living memory in terms of the harm he bestowed on the UK.
-
You may not like what he did but he did it competently.
Fpr example the EU referendum?
-
What holding an unnecessary referendum when you didn't want to change the status quo and then losing it resulting in years of political turmoil and harm to the UK ... hmm yup that shows real competence.
I know he's got some real rivals from the past few years but in my view Cameron is probably the worst PM in my living memory in terms of the harm he bestowed on the UK.
Surely that was the electorate?
-
Surely that was the electorate?
Had Cameron not gambled the future of the UK on an unnecessary referendum (the clue is that you don't need a mandate if you don't want to change something) then the turmoil would have been avoided. And if you are going to gamble then you'd better win - gambling unnecessarily and then losing seems to be the height of incompetence. Ok if the issue is pretty irrelevant, but not when it was as fundamental as membership of the EU.
-
Am I? How? Your issue, rightly, seems to me to be having a cabinet position in the HoL.
Where have I ever said that members of the Lords shouldn't be in the cabinet - I never did. And actually there should always be at least one cabinet member from the Lords as the Leader of the Lords is a member of the cabinet.
The point is about holders of the great offices of state being in the Lords as this prevents them from being properly scrutinised by the elected members and also the principle that you should select your cabinet members from the pool of existing members of parliament, not announce someone has been appointed when they aren't actually a member of parliament.
-
Where have I ever said that members of the Lords shouldn't be in the cabinet - I never did. And actually there should always be at least one cabinet member from the Lords as the Leader of the Lords is a member of the cabinet.
The point is about holders of the great offices of state being in the Lords as this prevents them from being properly scrutinised by the elected members and also the principle that you should select your cabinet members from the pool of existing members of parliament, not announce someone has been appointed when they aren't actually a member of parliament.
What's the difference in principle between a 'great office of state' and any other cabinet post where the person holding it being in the Lords would 'prevent them from being properly scrutinised' such as Mandelson as business secretary?
As to the 'principle' that you should appoint those who arw already members of parliament, I 'm a bit confused if you are saying you think that should apply because it usually does, or because you believe it is the right thing?
-
Had Cameron not gambled the future of the UK on an unnecessary referendum (the clue is that you don't need a mandate if you don't want to change something) then the turmoil would have been avoided. And if you are going to gamble then you'd better win - gambling unnecessarily and then losing seems to be the height of incompetence. Ok if the issue is pretty irrelevant, but not when it was as fundamental as membership of the EU.
And yet the electorate are the ones that chose to vote for leave.
-
And yet the electorate are the ones that chose to vote for leave.
Only because Cameron decided to hold a referendum when he didn't want to change the status quo and therefore there was no possible justification for a referendum - that was due to his incompetence.
-
What's the difference in principle between a 'great office of state' and any other cabinet post where the person holding it being in the Lords would 'prevent them from being properly scrutinised' such as Mandelson as business secretary?
The great offices of state are PM, CofE, Home Sec and Foreign Sec.
And I've said I didn't agree with the Mandelson case either. The point is that if you are in change of a government department (that would then include Secs of State not just the great offices) then you should be expected to have to account for your department to elected members. If you are a more junior minister this doesn't matter so much as you will have a departmental boss (the Sec of State) who can do it on your behalf.
In the current case Cameron will only be able to deliver from the despatch box in the Lords - does that mean he'll need some commons mouthpiece, but even if that happens he cannot be held accountable directly by the commons. Does it mean that Labour will have to appoint a peer as shadow FS, as that would be the only way that the normal process of government minister being questioned by their shadow could happen.
-
You may not like what he did but he did it competently.
Well, apart from calling a completely unnecessary referendum on EU membership to try to wrong-foot UKIP, which resulted in Brexit: he is a pro-European, so that went disastrously wrong from his own point of view.
-
He wasn't unopposed - Mourdant (and possibly Johnson stood against him).
But both withdrew, so unopposed.
-
What holding an unnecessary referendum when you didn't want to change the status quo and then losing it resulting in years of political turmoil and harm to the UK ... hmm yup that shows real competence.
He said we'd have a referendum and we did. It was a political disaster for him and for the UK, but you can't say he did it incompetently.
I know he's got some real rivals from the past few years but in my view Cameron is probably the worst PM in my living memory in terms of the harm he bestowed on the UK.
Johnson was worse. Truss didn't have time to reach Johnson's depths but she made a pretty good stab at it in the time she did have. Sunk would be considered worse too apart from one catastrophic mistake that Cameron made.
-
He said we'd have a referendum and we did. It was a political disaster for him and for the UK, but you can't say he did it incompetently.
I certainly can.
He didn't think it through. He should have insisted on a super majority, already knowing that it was a close vote, for any chance of uniting the country and carrying through the change. You need to carry a lot more than 50% of the votes. He should have raised the bar to 60% and I personally am not sure that would have been enough.
That was incompetence. Combined with his trademark complacency.
-
The great offices of state are PM, CofE, Home Sec and Foreign Sec.
And I've said I didn't agree with the Mandelson case either. The point is that if you are in change of a government department (that would then include Secs of State not just the great offices) then you should be expected to have to account for your department to elected members. If you are a more junior minister this doesn't matter so much as you will have a departmental boss (the Sec of State) who can do it on your behalf.
In the current case Cameron will only be able to deliver from the despatch box in the Lords - does that mean he'll need some commons mouthpiece, but even if that happens he cannot be held accountable directly by the commons. Does it mean that Labour will have to appoint a peer as shadow FS, as that would be the only way that the normal process of government minister being questioned by their shadow could happen.
Sorry, I'm not getting why there is any difference between the principle of a 'great office of the state' being a member of the HoL as opposed to a being a cabinet message of other offices of state?
-
Only because Cameron decided to hold a referendum when he didn't want to change the status quo and therefore there was no possible justification for a referendum - that was due to his incompetence.
Why, if the electorate voted for a change to the status quo, would one say that there is no 'possible justification for a referendum'?
-
Details of recent ministerial appts from HoL
'In December 2019, Nicky Morgan was appointed from the House of Lords to the post of Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Under Labour, Lord Mandelson served as Business Secretary and Lord Adonis at the Department for Transport.'
-
Some rumblings alrerady according to the BBC that Tory MP's are unimpressed by the return of Cameron.
DC, failed to get a decent negotiation with the EU, then failed to win the referendum he invented, then failed to keep his personal incentives secret.
I though there Tories wouldn't support failure after failure after failure, but it looks like I'm wrong.
(Or maybe he's already nicked enough tents...?)
-
Cameron, [half] competent?!? :o
Apparently, he's trying to move from being 1/2 competent to 1/3 competent.
(PD's post edited to clarify use of half competent.)
-
I certainly can.
He didn't think it through. He should have insisted on a super majority, already knowing that it was a close vote, for any chance of uniting the country and carrying through the change. You need to carry a lot more than 50% of the votes. He should have raised the bar to 60% and I personally am not sure that would have been enough.
That was incompetence. Combined with his trademark complacency.
Agree with that and also squeakyvoice's points.
Another element of incompetence was the decision over the referendum 'electorate' - typically this reflects the nature of the question. So this should have been the electoral roll used for EU elections, which of course includes EU citizens with residency in the UK. But they chose to use the general election roll thereby disenfranchising those most likely to be impacted and also more likely to vote remain. Incompetence on the part of Cameron and his government.
Aruntraveller is correct - not just incompetent, but complacent. But when you are part of an elite which will always be fine whatever way political decisions go then complacency is likely to be baked in.
-
Agree with that and also squeakyvoice's points.
Another element of incompetence was the decision over the referendum 'electorate' - typically this reflects the nature of the question. So this should have been the electoral roll used for EU elections, which of course includes EU citizens with residency in the UK. But they chose to use the general election roll thereby disenfranchising those most likely to be impacted and also more likely to vote remain. Incompetence on the part of Cameron and his government.
Aruntraveller is correct - not just incompetent, but complacent. But when you are part of an elite which will always be fine whatever way political decisions go then complacency is likely to be baked in.
You mean he was incompetent for not choosing the electoral roll that would make it more likely that his 'side' would win? So you think gerrymandering is a good thing.
-
You mean he was incompetent for not choosing the electoral roll that would make it more likely that his 'side' would win? So you think gerrymandering is a good thing.
It wouldn't have been gerrymandering - it would have been choosing the most appropriate electorate for the question being posed - which was about EU membership and guess what, we already had an electoral roll for elections about the EU, the one used for EU elections.
Not to choose that electoral roll demonstrated stupidity and incompetence given that it was both the most appropriate electoral roll and also the one more likely to generate a remain win. So he reverse-gerrymandered, manipulated the electoral roll to make losing more likely.
-
It wouldn't have been gerrymandering - it would have been choosing the most appropriate electorate for the question being posed - which was about EU membership and guess what, we already had an electoral roll for elections about the EU, the one used for EU elections.
Not to choose that electoral roll demonstrated stupidity and incompetence given that it was both the most appropriate electoral roll and also the one more likely to generate a remain win. So he reverse-gerrymandered, manipulated the electoral roll to make losing more likely.
So the 'most appropriate' is you expressing your opinion, and not relevant to whether Cameron was incompetent. The 'most likely to win' is then just gerrymandering.
-
So the 'most appropriate' is you expressing your opinion, and not relevant to whether Cameron was incompetent. The 'most likely to win' is then just gerrymandering.
How on earth can you argue other than the electorate that is used for EU elections isn't the most appropriate for a referendum about ... err ... the EU.
Just as the general election electoral roll was the most appropriate to use for a referendum about ... err ... how we vote at general elections.
He made a decision to use a different electoral roll to the one that aligned with the question being asked and in doing so made it more difficult for him to win - reverse gerrymandering incompetence.
-
How on earth can you argue other than the electorate that is used for EU elections isn't the most appropriate for a referendum about ... err ... the EU.
Just as the general election electoral roll was the most appropriate to use for a referendum about ... err ... how we vote at general elections.
He made a decision to use a different electoral roll to the one that aligned with the question being asked and in doing so made it more difficult for him to win - reverse gerrymandering incompetence.
The argument would be that it's about what happens with UK citizens, not EU ones. I can see the arguments for either. And that you think it was incomoetencw underlines you're desire to win by chosing the one that made it more likely, i.e. gerrymandering.
-
Oh ffs!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rishis-new-minister-for-common-sense-pm-brings-esther-mcvey-back-to-cabinet-and-tasks-her-with-a-mission-to-combat-wokery-as-he-offers-an-olive-branch-to-tory-right/ar-AA1jRIHH
-
Of course we should remember this about Cameron
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/13/greensill-scandal-david-cameron-cabinet
-
The argument would be that it's about what happens with UK citizens, not EU ones.
Which would be the equivalent of not allowing English people living in Scotland from voting in the IndyRef - that was, quite reasonably rejected in favour of the electorate that votes in scottish parliament elections. So why was the equivalent rejected in the EU referendum? Incompetence and complacency as others seem to agree.
-
Which would be the equivalent of not allowing English people living in Scotland from voting in the IndyRef - that was, quite reasonably rejected in favour of the electorate that votes in scottish parliament elections. So why was the equivalent rejected in the EU referendum? Incompetence and complacency as others seem to agree.
Except that there is no such electoral roll as that so it's not equivalent. That others agree with you here is simply you trying to use an ad populum.
-
Thinking about my opinion of Cameron, perhaps Prof D and I are not that far apart but are hung up on the effect of words.
Incompetence to me seems to reflect a pattern of behaviour. Johnson to me is the most consistently incompetent PM of my time. His reverse Midas touch being 100% effective but he did win an election with an unfortunately fecund majority.
I am not sure of the right word for Truss, as a distilled intense month of crap, perhaps to paraphrase Percy from the 2nd series of Blackadder, she 'had discovered purest shite'.
Cameron, on the other hsnd, had won 2 elections, an unusual enough achievement, his second victory an indication of some success in his first term, given a majority. He managed being PM through a period of coalition, and his first term was not the serial farce of Johnson.
He had used referendums to first pacify his coalition partners, and then 'rebellious Scots to crush.' And therein lay the decision which I think there might be more agreement on was the most costly to the UK of PMs of my lifetime.
The third referendum happened, not I would suggest, because of incompetence, but rather a hubris similar to that which befell Thatcher and Blair as they won elections. The chance to forever heal the generations long divide in the Tory Party. The chance to remove the wailing chancre that was Farage, and by using his favourite sword of democracy the referendum.
And he would choose the battlefield of the bumpier electoral roll, not out of complacency brought on by his upbringing, but that very hubris that his success in power had brought about. He would do it for what were to him the purest of reasons as it would silence any doubters, if they seemed to choose the field, not him. The dragon would be slain, and none could cavil that the fight was unfair.
Even as the skirmishes started, he didn't want any accusation that it wasn't a fair fight so the Remain campaign happened with him cheerleading more than vanquishing. As the battle heightened, he saw the need to get more involved but found it had shifted away, yet still the entrails examined by the haruspices of William Hill and Bet Fair seemed to side with him.
But, as so often, the gods used the fool to betray him. His thrice democratic campaign fell from the first in the vadts of Sunderland in a land now sundered, where Nigel blew(his own trumpet) and UKIP chundered. Despite his once doughty foes, the Scots sacrificing themselves in numbers that seemed already mythical, the heat of the sun god melted the wings of the man who would be the son king of both the Blessed Margaret and the Titan Tony.
He fell, he fell through air and time, holding once onto a passing green sill but somehow believing, knowing that like another lost general he would return, like another sacrificed son king, his demise was not permanent.
-
Coomon sense:
I have done no research into this matter and I do not possess any qualification for arriving at my decision ...
-
Agree with that and also squeakyvoice's points.
Another element of incompetence was the decision over the referendum 'electorate' - typically this reflects the nature of the question. So this should have been the electoral roll used for EU elections, which of course includes EU citizens with residency in the UK. But they chose to use the general election roll thereby disenfranchising those most likely to be impacted and also more likely to vote remain. Incompetence on the part of Cameron and his government.
Aruntraveller is correct - not just incompetent, but complacent. But when you are part of an elite which will always be fine whatever way political decisions go then complacency is likely to be baked in.
I'll give you complacent. He was complacent.
-
It wouldn't have been gerrymandering - it would have been choosing the most appropriate electorate for the question being posed - which was about EU membership and guess what, we already had an electoral roll for elections about the EU, the one used for EU elections.
Not to choose that electoral roll demonstrated stupidity and incompetence given that it was both the most appropriate electoral roll and also the one more likely to generate a remain win. So he reverse-gerrymandered, manipulated the electoral roll to make losing more likely.
It wasn't an EU election, it was an election about staying in the EU. I too would have preferred an electoral roll that would be more likely to get a Remain victory. I too would have preferred a set of rules that would have given a Remain victory, but you forget that Cameron's motivation was to shut up the anti-EU wing of his party and destroy the likes of UKIP who were leaching Tory votes. Any sign of bias towards Remain would negatively impact his goal. And, of course, he thought he would win anyway.
-
The full new cabinet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63376560
-
The full new cabinet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63376560
That does feel more centrist than the current set of MPs, or the party currently. Obviously there are a few 'who?s' but even those feel quite low for the turmoil over recent years.
-
It wasn't an EU election, it was an election about staying in the EU.
The AV referendum wasn't a general election, but it was about how we vote in general elections - hence they used the general election roll.
The indyref wasn't a scottish parliament election, but was about Scotland's future - hence they used the electoral roll that is used for scottish parliament elections.
The EU referendum wasn't a European parliament election but was about the relationship with the EU - hence they used the electoral roll that is used for EU elections. Oh, wait, they didn't - they used an electoral roll that is about UK general elections which had never been used for democratic processes directly linked to the EU.
Even if you argue that either/or would have been an appropriate choice then you come back to the competence question - why on earth choose one of two reasonable options (not that I think they were equivalent - see above) that is more likely to make you lose.
-
... but you forget that Cameron's motivation was to shut up the anti-EU wing of his party and destroy the likes of UKIP who were leaching Tory votes.
But again that demonstrates the incompetence of the Cameron government in thinking that promising a referendum was consequence free and would shut up the extremes once and for all.
Throwing red meat to the extremes doesn't shut them up, it emboldens them and makes them demand more. Cameron stupidly thought that promising an in/out referendum as part of the Tories 2015 manifesto would put UKIP back in their box. But it didn't, quite the reverse - rather than seeing UKIP % votes dwindle as the anti-EU mob folded back into the Tory camp we saw by far the highest vote share UKIP, compared to previous elections when the main parties weren't promising an EU referendum.
As we have seen since, you simply cannot placate the extremes by tracking in their direction, as they will alway demand more and there will always be a marginal parties and groups within mainstream parties within further to the extreme shouting that they are the only 'true believers'.
-
This is the sort of broad church where the heretics get burned at the stake.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67420331
-
This is the sort of broad church where the heretics get burned at the stake.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67420331
Wow - it would be funny if it weren't for the fact that this group of fuckwits are supposed to be running the country: instead they are too busy fighting with each other.
-
Wow - it would be funny if it weren't for the fact that this group of fuckwits are supposed to be running the country: instead they are too busy fighting with each other.
Don't worry! They have McVey as Minister outwith Common Sense.
-
It pisses me off when to the this 'priorities of the British people' crap - a priority for some of us 'British people' would be to get rid of the Tories at the earliest opportunity, and we hang our heads in despair at the misery the have inflicted on us such as with their Brexit madness.
The best 'Brexit benefit' we could have would be the demise of the Tory party in its current form because those elements of the electorate who believed the lies paid them back via the ballot box, and no doubt they will hang on until the bitter end before we get that chance.
-
I see Farage is 8th favourite to take over from Sunak as Tory leader (Braverman is 4th, Cameron 5th), and 4th to win I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here - insert any joke about kangaroo anuses in any order and it works.
-
I see Farage is 8th favourite to take over from Sunak as Tory leader (Braverman is 4th, Cameron 5th), and 4th to win I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here - insert any joke about kangaroo anuses in any order and it works.
I've looked at this again, and there is a magical economy to it. You don't have to have a joke in any order. You just read the first half of the sentence, and then shout kangaroo anuses and it works.
-
The AV referendum wasn't a general election, but it was about how we vote in general elections - hence they used the general election roll.
The indyref wasn't a scottish parliament election, but was about Scotland's future - hence they used the electoral roll that is used for scottish parliament elections.
The EU referendum wasn't a European parliament election but was about the relationship with the EU - hence they used the electoral roll that is used for EU elections. Oh, wait, they didn't - they used an electoral roll that is about UK general elections which had never been used for democratic processes directly linked to the EU.
You are right, it wasn't an EU election, it was about Britain's ongoing relationship with the EU. There's no reason, therefore, to use the EU electoral roll.
Even if you argue that either/or would have been an appropriate choice then you come back to the competence question - why on earth choose one of two reasonable options (not that I think they were equivalent - see above) that is more likely to make you lose.
I told you: Cameron's objective was to nullify several anti-EU groups. Using an electoral roll that included a lot of continental Europeans would have opened him to accusations of rigging the poll and he thought he was going to win without having to do that.
-
I see Farage is 8th favourite to take over from Sunak as Tory leader (Braverman is 4th, Cameron 5th), and 4th to win I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here - insert any joke about kangaroo anuses in any order and it works.
The only one you list who has any kind of chance of being the next Tory leader is Braverman. None of the others are MPs and will probably remain not MPs after the next election.
-
The only one you list who has any kind of chance of being the next Tory leader is Braverman. None of the others are MPs and will probably remain not MPs after the next election.
Kangaroo Anuses!!!
-
I've changed the thread title, because the discussion has broadened somewhat.
-
I've changed the thread title, because the discussion has broadened somewhat.
Moderator: If someone wants to change the title of a thread that has had replies to it, then send a report to the mods, and we'll do it by moving the thread and moving it back, and changing the title in the move. This will change tge title for all entries, not just the OP, and replies to it (the OP) after it's been changed.
Note, I've done the move and renaming for this.
-
OK, noted for the future.
-
Well now that the Rwanda plan has collapsed, it's time to fire the Home Secretary, who is the responsible minister.
-
..