Still unclear why Cameron had to go............and even more so why Corben thinks he has the right to stay. He was as much 'remain' as Cameron and yet he stays. I don't get politics.
Still unclear why Cameron had to go............and even more so why Corben thinks he has the right to stay. He was as much 'remain' as Cameron and yet he stays. I don't get politics.
The agenda was set by the Tories and their supposed negotiated deal (what concessions did Dave win?). Labour shouldn't be fighting elections/referendums on agendas set by the opposition. The last election was fought on immigration (which 5 years of Tory rule failed to address) and national debt where they ignored the global financial crisis which Brown largely rescued us from. Labour should have gone to battle on increased gap between rich and poor, public service cuts, tax avoidance, lack of commercial competition and not got drawn into Tory hangups.
Jeeza dislikes many things about Europe but wanted his government to change EU from the inside. Stats say that 2/3 of labour voters were In despite many labour communities voting out due to pressure on their infrastructure from incomers.
Neither Corbyn or Labour would have sanctioned a referendum, so get off the bandwagon of criticising everything he does or doesn't do.
Unclear why Cameron had to go? Pretty unanimous on this thread.
The referendum wasn't in the Labour manifesto, and Corbyn didn't set the date of it. Cameron's resignation over this result is more appropriate than Corbyn's.
People slagged Milliband off, but he would have been at the forefront of the referendum debate - Corbyn hid in the shadows. He can blame the press, but why didn't he put himself forward for one of the the live debates? I think part of the answer to that is he would have been rubbish and done more harm than good to the campaign, and the fact he didn't push himself forwards meant to me he must have known it. It is entirely right what is happening in the Labour party at the moment. What is the point of it if it is just going to be an unelectable Abbot and Cos....sorry Corbyn show. If they get the chance, they have to choose Corbyn's replacement carefully - Eagle would be a terrible choice as she doesn't project well on the TV.
The next leader of the Tories will be May. Over the past few months she has been altered sartorially and voice coached. The changes have been gradual to become . . . Thatch2. I hope she picks her cabinet wisely. The could be known as The Nuts Of May . . . I'll get me coat!
Surely this has been pre ordained? More than a whiff of management about all this.
The conservatives realized Boris and Gove were unelectable now and everything since has been stage managed in advance.
Tory central office; Gove you knock Boris out (surely if Boris had not thrown the towel in he would be in a two horse race with May?),then drop out, ladies, give an impression there's a contest then one of you drop out.
Promise to all the casualties that they will be first in line next time.
So you agree that Callum and Jack actually had no point at all, right?
Probably, however that didn't stop an awful lot of Tories and their supporters bleating on about the same thing when Brown was parachuted in as PM did it. Right?
So two wrongs make a right these days?
Macmillan replaced Eden in office in 1957 - midway between the 1955 and 1959 elections; Douglas-Home then took over from Macmillan a year before the 1964 election; Callaghan succeeded Wilson in 1976 and served three years before losing in 1979; Major replaced Thatcher in late 1990 and delayed the subsequent until May 1992; Brown replaced Blair as above.
Churchill and Lloyd George replaced Chamberlain and Asquith in wartime without an election; Chamberlain had himself replaced Baldwin in 1937 without an election. Asquith had replaced Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, the latter having died - he'd replaced Arthur Balfour in 1905 without an election (one was held in 1906).
It's custom and practice in the British system and has been for centuries. If it's "wrong" it's not even arguably a question of "two" wrongs making anything!
What's unusual is that the sitting PM isn't standing down/kicked out several years into as term, but only a year after being elected. It's extraordinary for someone to lead their party to victory and cock it up so quickly afterwards.
I know, what an absolute turkey. Was calling a referendum a mistake? No. Was calling it without having any kind of a plan to win it a mistake? Abso-fucking-lutely. Destroyed any hope of having a legacy worth mentioning.
I'm no fan of Dave it the Tories, but marriage equality for homosexual couples is very much a legacy worth mentioning.
So you agree that Callum and Jack actually had no point at all, right?
Probably, however that didn't stop an awful lot of Tories and their supporters bleating on about the same thing when Brown was parachuted in as PM did it. Right?
So two wrongs make a right these days?
Macmillan replaced Eden in office in 1957 - midway between the 1955 and 1959 elections; Douglas-Home then took over from Macmillan a year before the 1964 election; Callaghan succeeded Wilson in 1976 and served three years before losing in 1979; Major replaced Thatcher in late 1990 and delayed the subsequent until May 1992; Brown replaced Blair as above.
Churchill and Lloyd George replaced Chamberlain and Asquith in wartime without an election; Chamberlain had himself replaced Baldwin in 1937 without an election. Asquith had replaced Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, the latter having died - he'd replaced Arthur Balfour in 1905 without an election (one was held in 1906).
It's custom and practice in the British system and has been for centuries. If it's "wrong" it's not even arguably a question of "two" wrongs making anything!
What's unusual is that the sitting PM isn't standing down/kicked out several years into as term, but only a year after being elected. It's extraordinary for someone to lead their party to victory and cock it up so quickly afterwards.
I know, what an absolute turkey. Was calling a referendum a mistake? No. Was calling it without having any kind of a plan to win it a mistake? Abso-fucking-lutely. Destroyed any hope of having a legacy worth mentioning.
I'm no fan of Dave it the Tories, but marriage equality for homosexual couples is very much a legacy worth mentioning.
I did say as much on another thread (unfortunately with all the Brexit nonsense there were about 12 political threads for pretty much the same chain of events) more or less around the time Cameron resigned. The point is for all the improvements Tony Blair made (and before anyone starts laughing he did manage to achieve something positive in office) his legacy is and always will be the illegal invasion of Iraq. Likewise for all of Cameron's achievements, including the laudable marriage equality legislation, he will always be remembered as the turkey who took us out of the EU (even if Brexit doesn't actually happen, the chaos that ensured will always be on Cameron's head). A capable Prime Minister and a reasonably nice guy by all accounts but not really much he can be praised for after this debacle.
The Tories will call a general election in the autumn, in my opinion, reversing their own 2010 legislation to do it, and especially if Jeremy Corbyn is still Labour leader. Corbyn is not a leader and the party would get hammered, so whether or not the membership like it the parliamentary party have a duty to challenge him now. Labour needs to give the Tories pause for thought over calling an election by electing a different leader who can credibly say that he would take forward Brexit negotiations. It's a tall order, but not impossible. The country doesn't need or want a general election but the Tories will have one for party advantage if they can.
I don't think that will happen. The Boundary Commission report is due in 2018 and we already know that the number of MPs is to reduce and that the intention is to in some way address the built-in Labour bias caused by smaller inner city constituencies. Here's what has already been proposed by the Boundary Commission for England by region (existing constituencies first):
Eastern 58 reduced to 57 East Midlands 46 reduced to 44 London 73 reduced to 68 North East 29 reduced to 25 North West 75 reduced to 68 South East 83 reduced to 81 South West 55 reduced to 53 West Midlands 59 reduced to 53 Yorkshire and the Humber 54 reduced to 50 Total 532 reduced to 499
It's of note that the heavy losers in terms of numbers are London, The North West, West Midlands and The North East.
I'm guessing here but I would not be surprised if it was mainly Labour held seats that are being flushed down the toilet.
Whatever happens with Corbyn, what with the Scottish position of the Labour Party, prospects look potentially more forlorn for them after the 2018 changes. While we all know a week is a long time in politics, on the surface it would appear to be in the Conservative Party's interests to hang on in.
(The Isle of Wight is excluded from the above figures but is likely to get two seats rather than the current one.)
May won't call an election. I'm sure she would win it if it were called but why take a chance. She wants to be the top banana and won't endanger that for anyone or anything.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
So you would like to restrict peoples choice of candidates to fix the result, sounds very democratic.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Considering that Labour hold 1 (one) seat in Scotland, the SNP might be willing to agree to this.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Would be better if the Labour Party came to their senses and appointed a leader that had a chance of winning an election without some sort of ridiculous, un-democratic, stitch up.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Would be better if the Labour Party came to their senses and appointed a leader that had a chance of winning an election without some sort of ridiculous, un-democratic, stitch up.
How is it un-democratic or a stitch-up? It is just recognition that first past the post voting systems are undemocratic if you have more than 2 credible choices.
If the Labour and Lib-Dems were to formally merge before the next election would that be un-democratic?
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Lib Dems have continued to contest seats even though they keep losing their deposits because they are a national party. Labour's position as one of the big two parties is already in peril and if they chose to not run candidates in any seat then it would signal that they are unable or unwilling to appeal as a national party.
It also goes against Labour's MO completely. They have a 'party before country' mentality where constituencies need to kowtow to the Labour Party at a national level. This is exemplified in their disastrous talks with the LibDems where they refused to concede any ground in coalition talks i.e. the LibDems had to unquestionably support all Labour policies without any input from LibDems on national policy, or there could be no coalition. Likewise, Labour believe that they are the only 'correct' party from a moral perspective and all other parties are just different stripes of Tories e.g. LibDems are yellow Tories, SNP are Scottish Tories, PC are Welsh Tories etc. I simply cannot see Labour ever entering into electoral pacts whilst this mindset exists and whilst they are still in the position of the second party.
Now the Tories have a new leader relatively quickly and without too much bloodshed (ignoring Gove, Leadsom and Boris, boohoo), Labour now have serious incentive to get their act together; their one hope was a long and bloody Tory civil war, but May has plenty of support within her party to get on with the job. Therefore Corbyn either needs to put this coup to bed, call a snap leadership election, or the rebels needs to either get on with the coup or split and form their own party. Until then this country has no effective opposition and Labour's credibility will continue to slide. Not what we want with the mess the Tories have already made with the EU.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Labour lost the last election. So if labour only contest seats they already hold, the best they can do is get the same amount of seats & lose again ?
Am I missing your point, or does your point make no sense ?
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Lib Dems have continued to contest seats even though they keep losing their deposits because they are a national party. Labour's position as one of the big two parties is already in peril and if they chose to not run candidates in any seat then it would signal that they are unable or unwilling to appeal as a national party.
It also goes against Labour's MO completely. They have a 'party before country' mentality where constituencies need to kowtow to the Labour Party at a national level. This is exemplified in their disastrous talks with the LibDems where they refused to concede any ground in coalition talks i.e. the LibDems had to unquestionably support all Labour policies without any input from LibDems on national policy, or there could be no coalition. Likewise, Labour believe that they are the only 'correct' party from a moral perspective and all other parties are just different stripes of Tories e.g. LibDems are yellow Tories, SNP are Scottish Tories, PC are Welsh Tories etc. I simply cannot see Labour ever entering into electoral pacts whilst this mindset exists and whilst they are still in the position of the second party.
Now the Tories have a new leader relatively quickly and without too much bloodshed (ignoring Gove, Leadsom and Boris, boohoo), Labour now have serious incentive to get their act together; their one hope was a long and bloody Tory civil war, but May has plenty of support within her party to get on with the job. Therefore Corbyn either needs to put this coup to bed, call a snap leadership election, or the rebels needs to either get on with the coup or split and form their own party. Until then this country has no effective opposition and Labour's credibility will continue to slide. Not what we want with the mess the Tories have already made with the EU.
Lots in this post to agree with, especially the need for a credible opposition. You say that the Tories have a new leader without too much bloodshed. If it wasn't for the country being split in two and Scotland angrily alienated, that may be true.
My only hope is that senior people in the Labour Party, SNP and the Lib Dems come to their senses and not put up candidates against each other in the next election. That means Labour only contesting seats they already hold and the Lib Dems and SNP agreeing to not contest those seats.
Lib Dems have continued to contest seats even though they keep losing their deposits because they are a national party. Labour's position as one of the big two parties is already in peril and if they chose to not run candidates in any seat then it would signal that they are unable or unwilling to appeal as a national party.
It also goes against Labour's MO completely. They have a 'party before country' mentality where constituencies need to kowtow to the Labour Party at a national level. This is exemplified in their disastrous talks with the LibDems where they refused to concede any ground in coalition talks i.e. the LibDems had to unquestionably support all Labour policies without any input from LibDems on national policy, or there could be no coalition. Likewise, Labour believe that they are the only 'correct' party from a moral perspective and all other parties are just different stripes of Tories e.g. LibDems are yellow Tories, SNP are Scottish Tories, PC are Welsh Tories etc. I simply cannot see Labour ever entering into electoral pacts whilst this mindset exists and whilst they are still in the position of the second party.
Now the Tories have a new leader relatively quickly and without too much bloodshed (ignoring Gove, Leadsom and Boris, boohoo), Labour now have serious incentive to get their act together; their one hope was a long and bloody Tory civil war, but May has plenty of support within her party to get on with the job. Therefore Corbyn either needs to put this coup to bed, call a snap leadership election, or the rebels needs to either get on with the coup or split and form their own party. Until then this country has no effective opposition and Labour's credibility will continue to slide. Not what we want with the mess the Tories have already made with the EU.
Lots in this post to agree with, especially the need for a credible opposition. You say that the Tories have a new leader without too much bloodshed. If it wasn't for the country being split in two and Scotland angrily alienated, that may be true.
Well I meant the Tories have managed to avoid the internal civil war within the party that Labour were hoping for. Apart from the catfighting from May and Leadsom it was relatively straightforward. I'm not sure how alienated Scots are feeling - I have a few Nats in my family who have little appetite for a second independence referendum anytime soon, regardless of how the Brexit talks go. Sturgeon talks big but from what I have read and heard she may be overplaying her hand somewhat. She has certainly gone quiet ever since the EU told her to shut up and stop being a little gobby terrier.
I see the Scotland thing in a wider context than only the referendum. Angus Robertson in the House of Commons was pretty blunt and angry after the referendum as was the Scottish Euro MP. Now it may be true that Sturgeon has no authority with regard to the EU as things stand, however as circumstances are, with the Scottish independence vote, followed by the virtual takeover by the SNP, followed by the referendum, it is hardly a sign that Scotland are comfortably reconciled to the United Kingdom. I remember Cameron going on about how the Queen (god bless you ma'am) was 'purring' after the independence result, I would like to know how Theresa May will get the Queen (god bless you ma'am) to purr again with regard to Scotland.
Comments
Jeeza dislikes many things about Europe but wanted his government to change EU from the inside. Stats say that 2/3 of labour voters were In despite many labour communities voting out due to pressure on their infrastructure from incomers.
Neither Corbyn or Labour would have sanctioned a referendum, so get off the bandwagon of criticising everything he does or doesn't do.
Unclear why Cameron had to go? Pretty unanimous on this thread.
Call me Mystic Rufus...
hardly Leicester city odds.
Odds on at 4/5 on the 24th June but many of us have lost money on Filles
who have trouble with their shoes when coming in to the final furlong.
Plus the other fille in the race ended up with foot in the mouth.
But now if I may make a more daring prediction... Charlton will finish in the top half of League 1 next season
I like her.
I hope this is a start of the end - the political disconnect between the public.
The conservatives realized Boris and Gove were unelectable now and everything since has been stage managed in advance.
Tory central office;
Gove you knock Boris out (surely if Boris had not thrown the towel in he would be in a two horse race with May?),then drop out, ladies, give an impression there's a contest then one of you drop out.
Promise to all the casualties that they will be first in line next time.
Sorted.
Eastern 58 reduced to 57
East Midlands 46 reduced to 44
London 73 reduced to 68
North East 29 reduced to 25
North West 75 reduced to 68
South East 83 reduced to 81
South West 55 reduced to 53
West Midlands 59 reduced to 53
Yorkshire and the Humber 54 reduced to 50
Total 532 reduced to 499
It's of note that the heavy losers in terms of numbers are London, The North West, West Midlands and The North East.
I'm guessing here but I would not be surprised if it was mainly Labour held seats that are being flushed down the toilet.
Whatever happens with Corbyn, what with the Scottish position of the Labour Party, prospects look potentially more forlorn for them after the 2018 changes. While we all know a week is a long time in politics, on the surface it would appear to be in the Conservative Party's interests to hang on in.
(The Isle of Wight is excluded from the above figures but is likely to get two seats rather than the current one.)
His main legacy was changing the Conservative party, so that it became electable again, and winning (ish) two elections.
If the Labour and Lib-Dems were to formally merge before the next election would that be un-democratic?
It also goes against Labour's MO completely. They have a 'party before country' mentality where constituencies need to kowtow to the Labour Party at a national level. This is exemplified in their disastrous talks with the LibDems where they refused to concede any ground in coalition talks i.e. the LibDems had to unquestionably support all Labour policies without any input from LibDems on national policy, or there could be no coalition. Likewise, Labour believe that they are the only 'correct' party from a moral perspective and all other parties are just different stripes of Tories e.g. LibDems are yellow Tories, SNP are Scottish Tories, PC are Welsh Tories etc. I simply cannot see Labour ever entering into electoral pacts whilst this mindset exists and whilst they are still in the position of the second party.
Now the Tories have a new leader relatively quickly and without too much bloodshed (ignoring Gove, Leadsom and Boris, boohoo), Labour now have serious incentive to get their act together; their one hope was a long and bloody Tory civil war, but May has plenty of support within her party to get on with the job. Therefore Corbyn either needs to put this coup to bed, call a snap leadership election, or the rebels needs to either get on with the coup or split and form their own party. Until then this country has no effective opposition and Labour's credibility will continue to slide. Not what we want with the mess the Tories have already made with the EU.
Am I missing your point, or does your point make no sense ?
You say that the Tories have a new leader without too much bloodshed. If it wasn't for the country being split in two and Scotland angrily alienated, that may be true.
Angus Robertson in the House of Commons was pretty blunt and angry after the referendum as was the Scottish Euro MP.
Now it may be true that Sturgeon has no authority with regard to the EU as things stand, however as circumstances are, with the Scottish independence vote, followed by the virtual takeover by the SNP, followed by the referendum, it is hardly a sign that Scotland are comfortably reconciled to the United Kingdom.
I remember Cameron going on about how the Queen (god bless you ma'am) was 'purring' after the independence result, I would like to know how Theresa May will get the Queen (god bless you ma'am) to purr again with regard to Scotland.