View previous topic | View next topic

The race for Number 10

Page 2 of 27
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 25, 26, 27  Next

tetsabb
1323954.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:21 am Reply with quote

An article has been rediscovered from when Blair handed over to Brown. The journalist berated Labour for being sneaky and not offering the electorate the opportunity to choose PM via a general election. It makes some valid points about democracy in this country.


The author? Oh, some chap called Johnson, initial B.https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/without-mandate-british-people-how-boris-johnson-described-gordon-brown-2007

 
GuyBarry
1323964.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:43 am Reply with quote

Oh, well spotted that man! Here's the original Telegraph article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3640768/Browns-looking-for-a-Scottish-ally.html

It's worth reading the whole thing, but here's part of it:

Quote:
They voted for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair to serve as their leader. They were at no stage invited to vote on whether Gordon Brown should be PM.

I must have knocked on hundreds of doors during that campaign, and heard all sorts of opinions of Mr Blair, not all of them favourable. But I do not recall a single member of the public saying that he or she was yearning for Gordon Brown to take over. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember any Labour spokesman revealing that they planned to do a big switcheroo after only two years.


If Boris Johnson ever deigns to take part in a media interview during this campaign (which he's studiously avoided so far) then he needs to have that quoted back to his face.

 
PDR
1323968.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:16 am Reply with quote

The difference is, of course, that unlike Gordon Boris very much DOES have a popular following who would want to see him as PM. It may just be further evidence for the Greg House COnjecture, but as long as we perssist with this piurile "Democracy" malarky we can't ignore it.

PDR

 
GuyBarry
1323970.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:28 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
The difference is, of course, that unlike Gordon Boris very much DOES have a popular following who would want to see him as PM.


In that case he has nothing to fear from calling a general election.

Quote:
It may just be further evidence for the Greg House COnjecture


Didn't know what that phrase meant, so I googled it. Four hits, all posts on internet forums, all apparently from you. Only one of them explained it ("People are idiots").

Bit obscure isn't it?

 
PDR
1323971.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:32 am Reply with quote

Oh for <deity>'s sake! It's a term we use around here from time to time. I may have coined it (I honestly can't remember), but please get off my fucking back and stop picking up on everything I say. Please stop destroying yet another fucking thread with your OCD controlling shit. Get a life.

PDR

 
GuyBarry
1323972.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:36 am Reply with quote

Please don't be so rude. I didn't understand what it meant, so I looked it up, and discovered that you were apparently the only person who'd used it.

I don't know how you expect people to follow what you're saying if you use phrases that aren't generally understood. They may be "good natured banter" to you but they just leave some of us scratching our heads.

EDIT: I have now searched for the phrase on this forum. With three exceptions, all the uses are by you. Two of the others are people asking "what is this please?" It appears to be a phrase entirely of your own invention that almost no one else understands.

 
crissdee
1323984.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:24 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
crissdee wrote:
Contestant for the "Missing the Point" trophy in today's paper.


Seems an entirely reasonable point to me. Why should the Tories be able to tear up the manifesto they were elected on because they've elected a new leader?


AFAIK, we are not electing a new PM, the Tories are electing a new leader, who will by default become the PM by dint of being leader of the party of Government.

AFAIK, Mrs May is not stepping down as MP, therefore no bye election has to be called.

AFAIK, any candidate for party leader has to be a sitting MP, therefore they are as "elected" as anyone else in Parliament, therefore we will not, nor have we ever had, an "unelected" PM.

If I have missed anything, I apologise, but my knowledge/concern about politics is slight at best.

 
barbados
1323986.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:45 am Reply with quote

The problem with Boris is he is very much the marmite of politics
(For the benefit of GuyBarry, that means you either love him(platonically) or you hate him)

 
GuyBarry
1324002.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:49 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:

AFAIK, we are not electing a new PM, the Tories are electing a new leader, who will by default become the PM by dint of being leader of the party of Government.


True.

Quote:
AFAIK, Mrs May is not stepping down as MP, therefore no bye election has to be called.


True.

Quote:
AFAIK, any candidate for party leader has to be a sitting MP, therefore they are as "elected" as anyone else in Parliament, therefore we will not, nor have we ever had, an "unelected" PM.


True.

Quote:
If I have missed anything, I apologise, but my knowledge/concern about politics is slight at best.


No, you haven't missed anything at all.

But I repeat: why should the Tories be able to tear up the manifesto they were elected on because they've elected a new leader? If a party is allowed to completely abandon its election manifesto because of an internal leadership election, then the whole concept of an "electoral mandate" for a given policy goes out of the window. The Tory party might as well not bother issuing election manifestos, because apparently they're no longer valid when the leader changes. Anyone can come up with any policy they want if they think it will appeal to the membership.

At least Labour party policy is decided by the party conference and can't be arbitrarily changed by the leader. Tory leaders are apparently allowed to make up any policy they want without reference to anyone but themselves.

 
GuyBarry
1324003.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:50 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
The problem with Boris is he is very much the marmite of politics
(For the benefit of GuyBarry, that means you either love him(platonically) or you hate him)


What makes you think I don't understand that phrase?

 
barbados
1324010.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:09 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:

But I repeat: why should the Tories be able to tear up the manifesto they were elected on because they've elected a new leader? If a party is allowed to completely abandon its election manifesto because of an internal leadership election, then the whole concept of an "electoral mandate" for a given policy goes out of the window. The Tory party might as well not bother issuing election manifestos, because apparently they're no longer valid when the leader changes. Anyone can come up with any policy they want if they think it will appeal to the membership.

At least Labour party policy is decided by the party conference and can't be arbitrarily changed by the leader. Tory leaders are apparently allowed to make up any policy they want without reference to anyone but themselves.

Firstly, which of the candidates is proposing they tear up the manifesto?
Secondly, if the Labour Party policy is set at the conference, and can't be arbitrarily changed by the leader, how do you explain the policy on a second referendum that has jumped from not going to happen at the conference to being supported , then back again on a number of occasions - sometimes flipped between the two a number of time on the same day?

 
barbados
1324011.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:09 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
barbados wrote:
The problem with Boris is he is very much the marmite of politics
(For the benefit of GuyBarry, that means you either love him(platonically) or you hate him)


What makes you think I don't understand that phrase?


Just a hunch.

 
GuyBarry
1324013.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:34 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:

Firstly, which of the candidates is proposing they tear up the manifesto?


All of them, with the possible exception of Rory Stewart - I think he supports leaving the EU on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement. The rest can't wait to get rid of it.

Of course you can argue that the manifesto is null and void anyway, because it committed the Tories to leaving within two years, and they haven't done so. So really any new leader is under an obligation to call a fresh election to get a new mandate.

Quote:
Secondly, if the Labour Party policy is set at the conference, and can't be arbitrarily changed by the leader, how do you explain the policy on a second referendum that has jumped from not going to happen at the conference to being supported , then back again on a number of occasions - sometimes flipped between the two a number of time on the same day?


The policy hasn't changed - the party conference drafted it in such a fashion that it could be interpreted in different ways by different members of the Shadow Cabinet. I'm not claiming that the Labour party has the moral high ground on this, but I think they're slightly more principled than the Tories - in particular they have an unequivocal position on a no-deal Brexit, which is to oppose it by any means possible.

 
suze
1324014.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:52 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
And if three Tory MPs resign the whip, then (at least in theory) the Tories no longer have a majority even with the support of the DUP. It's quite possible that either of these things may happen when a new leader is elected, in which case the new Tory leader will not have the confidence of the House, and so (arguably) should not be appointed as Prime Minister.


No Labour MP immediately resigned the whip when Jeremy Corbyn was elected as leader, much as his positions were anathema to many among their number. Would any Conservative MP be as violently opposed to whoever the new leader may be as (say) Frank Field was to Mr Corbyn? Even so, Mr Field waited three years before resigning the whip. Incidentally, and as evidence for something I mentioned yesterday, Mr Field was one of the signatures on Mr Corbyn's nomination paper even though he didn't support him.

GuyBarry wrote:
I think that would be seen as unacceptable for an unelected head of state. But what could happen is that Mrs May could recommend someone other than the newly elected Tory leader as the new PM. Would the Queen then be obliged to take her advice?


If a Royal firing of the PM hadn't happened at all since 1834 then I'd be minded to agree that it's a reserve power that will never actually be used. But the very fact that the Queen fired the PM of Australia as recently as 1975 says to me that this particular power has not fallen into desuetude. (FWIW, that firing happened because the PM refused to call an early general election at a time when Parliament was deadlocked. If you won't, I'll appoint a PM who will, was the gist of it.)

If Mrs May did do that thing that you suggest, she would be immediately expelled from the Conservative Party. Wouldn't that thought alone prevent her doing it?


It's a longstanding tradition that if the party in power changes its leader, the Opposition calls for an immediate general election. As far as I can see, it has happened every time that there has been a change of PM while in government since the 60s. Both parties appear to believe that the other lot ought to be made to call an election in these circumstances, but that for some magical reason they absolutely don't have to, so all in all it's rather silly and perhaps time that this tradition ceased.


Meanwhile, Mr Gove has had a dig at Mr Johnson. The gist of that was "I may be a cokehead, but at least I don't go knocking up other women while being married". All rather unbecoming, but the Conservative Party membership are - well - conservative, and these sorts of things matter to them.

The Sun has not as yet backed a candidate explicitly, but would appear to favour Mr Johnson. Today's edition of that organ finds it appropriate to run a 96 point headline on Mr Gove's little dig, that headline being "Michael Gove takes crack".

 
GuyBarry
1324017.  Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:27 pm Reply with quote

I didn't know whether to post this in the Brexit thread or this one. Rory Stewart has just said this at his campaign launch event:

Quote:
A proposal is now being brought forward through legislation to try to take no-deal off the table, and I believe prorogation off the table.

The first thing is, I am entirely against no-deal and entirely against prorogation. I havenít read the details of this. My instinct is I would be wholly supportive of a move that tried to do that. Why? Because no-deal is not a credible threat. Nobody can get no-deal through parliament because we, including me, will stop no-deal going through parliament.


So one of the Tory leadership candidates might vote against his own party whip the day before the first vote in the leadership contest!

EDIT: He's clearly doing something very clever and I can't work out what it is. Do you think he's pitching to become Prime Minister in an emergency government of national unity to be put together after the next Tory leader fails?

 

Page 2 of 27
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 25, 26, 27  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group