New Party leaders

[Udayana]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Hope]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[L.A.]

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 

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Hope]

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?

[Hope]

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?

[L.A.]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[L.A.]

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.

[Hope]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

   

[L.A.]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[Bubbles]

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 

[L.A.]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Brownie]

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.