New Tory Leader

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, Wings of a Sparrow said:

Here we are again. Both candidates vilifying migrants in an attempt to woo 150,000 Tory members to vote for them.

Yep! Same old Tories. Not a single idea between them concerning how they can deal with the multiple crises the country faces. So as usual, engender hate campaigns to deflect from the truth that both of these individuals have been central to facilitating the most corrupt and incompetent government in UK history. Indeed, so bereft are they of any ideas that all they have to sway the gammons populating the constituencies is a battle to see who can be more Thatcher than the other.

[horsefly 4,310]

Sunak and Truss have just released their pre-debate publicity photos:

 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,425]

17 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Sunak and Truss have just released their pre-debate publicity photos:

 

You're not Fatima Whitbread or Jen from the IT Crowd, you're rubbish.

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

If all party apparatchiks have are vacuous soundbytes about "other" people, instead of solid policy that aims to resolve the problems the populace currently faces, that's THE sign that they have nothing to offer. 

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

Yep! Same old Tories. Not a single idea between them concerning how they can deal with the multiple crises the country faces. So as usual, engender hate campaigns to deflect from the truth that both of these individuals have been central to facilitating the most corrupt and incompetent government in UK history. Indeed, so bereft are they of any ideas that all they have to sway the gammons populating the constituencies is a battle to see who can be more Thatcher than the other.

This ^.

Its nothing more than a race to the bottom - strange really, I thought we were already at the bottom but these two muppets seem desperate to convince us (or more accurately the handful  of voters that are Tory Party members nowadays) that things can still get worse.

We don't really need any more demonstrations of how totally dysfunctional our electoral system/democracy is, but even so the fact that for the third time in 6 years our Prime Minister is going to be chosen by 0.2% of the electorate is a pretty stark illumination of just how far away from any real democracy this country is.

[sonyc 5,541]

6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

This ^.

Its nothing more than a race to the bottom - strange really, I thought we were already at the bottom but these two muppets seem desperate to convince us (or more accurately the handful  of voters that are Tory Party members nowadays) that things can still get worse.

We don't really need any more demonstrations of how totally dysfunctional our electoral system/democracy is, but even so the fact that for the third time in 6 years our Prime Minister is going to be chosen by 0.2% of the electorate is a pretty stark illumination of just how far away from any real democracy this country is.

Indeed...."far away from any real democracy"... I am going to post a link here from (shock horror) the Express (forgive me please) but in a way it says something that such a paper reports this...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1638227/Queen-Elizabeth-II-Boris-johnson-honours-list-peerages-House-of-Lords-size

Listening to the opinions of some lords today (Conservative) and constitutional experts on R4 they are deeply worried about Johnson's plans (a) it makes the other chamber lopsided (b) it devalues and lowers the quality of debate or challenge. I mean, Nadine Dorries and that egg head Ian Botham??

I have reflected a bit more on Johnson overnight. This is a dangerous man who is deliberately changing the country's reputation of one as having honour. An old- fashioned term. It affects us internationally. It affects trust. We see this kind of behaviour in other countries and we think of fascism. He has also corrupted his own party.

"Race to the bottom". Yeh, spot on. Maybe time to consider living elsewhere if you happen to be someone who cares about such things!

[A Load of Squit 5,215]

I expect Johnson is taking those trips to Ukraine so that he can give himself the Victoria Cross.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-complains-that-he-couldnt-give-himself-the-congressional-medal-of-honor-they-wouldnt-let-me-do-it/

“In fact,” Trump went on, “as president, I wanted to give myself the Congressional Medal of Honor but they wouldn’t let me do it. I’ve always wanted that, but they wouldn’t let me do it. They said that would be inappropriate.”

The Medal of Honor is awarded to servicemen in the armed forces who distinguish themselves by going beyond the call of duty and risking their own lives to advance America’s military operations.

 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,192]

 Stewart Lee

"Johnson leaves behind him a Conservative party stripped of talent, containing only psychopaths, compliant yes-people loyal to an egomaniac, and those too tarnished and damaged to seek gainful employment elsewhere. It is like the worst lineup of the Fall ever."

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

I'm still curious about why the Labour Party only ever manages to appoint middle class white men as their party leaders, are they still stuck in the 19th century.

The next Prime Minister will either be a female or from an ethnic minority and the child of immigrants, and it's thanks to the Tory's again. I wonder how many female voters they lose to the Greens as a result of this painfully obvious gender issue with the membership.

Edited July 25, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

Again, over half of Labour's MPs are women. It's under 30% for the Tories. On top of that, Labour had three deputy leaders of the party as women. Harman didn't go for the main job when it was available and when she was a caretaker leader. Corbyn won the next one by a landslide and seemed to bring a lot of new, more traditionally left-wing members with him. Then he had a leadership challenge and won handsomely.

(Oh, and there were two women out of the four in that battle, namely Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper).

Then, when Starmer handsomely won the position after Corbyn resigned, four out of the five in there were women (Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips, and Emily Thornberry).

The notion that Labour has a gender issue, considering the proportion of lady MPs in their ranks, looks off to put it mildly.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

16 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

This ^.

Its nothing more than a race to the bottom - strange really, I thought we were already at the bottom but these two muppets seem desperate to convince us (or more accurately the handful  of voters that are Tory Party members nowadays) that things can still get worse.

We don't really need any more demonstrations of how totally dysfunctional our electoral system/democracy is, but even so the fact that for the third time in 6 years our Prime Minister is going to be chosen by 0.2% of the electorate is a pretty stark illumination of just how far away from any real democracy this country is.

Them's the rules. Parliament is elected by the public and the elected representatives choose the PM as the leader of the party that leads the government, be it a majority government, coalition government, or minority government, that can get the support of more than half of parliament.

A PM is not directly elected by the public. I certainly don't remember this complaint being made very vocally when Blair handed over to Brown in 2007 and finished the full cycle before an election. 

Brown was punished in the polls for being seen to be scared of the judgement of the electorate though, and I'm sure the same will be the case for whoever is the next PM if the opposition play it right. 

And, it has to be said, none of these problems would exist if the Blair Labour government hadn't lied about its commitment to reform to a proportional system after the 1997 election as promised in the 1997 Labour manifesto; Brexit likely wouldn't have happened either, because the Conservatives could never have got the parliamentary majority to call a referendum under a system of PR. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Harman didn't go for the main job when it was available and when she was a caretaker leader. 

Yeah because David Cameron is her cousin, which is why he went easy on her at the dispatch box. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

16 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

This ^.

Its nothing more than a race to the bottom - strange really, I thought we were already at the bottom but these two muppets seem desperate to convince us (or more accurately the handful  of voters that are Tory Party members nowadays) that things can still get worse.

We don't really need any more demonstrations of how totally dysfunctional our electoral system/democracy is, but even so the fact that for the third time in 6 years our Prime Minister is going to be chosen by 0.2% of the electorate is a pretty stark illumination of just how far away from any real democracy this country is.

Hmmm, I mean the worst example of this was the THREE YEARS that Gordon Brown was Prime Minister after being annointed by the Labour Party then not having the balls to face the general public in an election. 

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

22 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Yeah because David Cameron is her cousin, which is why he went easy on her at the dispatch box. 

Nope, she said she didn't think she could do it. In fact, she resigned as deputy too.

[horsefly 4,310]

41 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Brexit likely wouldn't have happened either, because the Conservatives could never have got the parliamentary majority to call a referendum under a system of PR. 

If my memory serves me, I think you will find that it was the LibDems who first called for an EU referendum circa 2007/8 (out of the three main parties), and repeated that commitment in all their subsequent manifestos. So it would have been unlikely that PR would have prevented a referendum; indeed, more likely it would have increased the chances as the LibDems would have had more seats to bargain for their manifesto pledge.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

If my memory serves me, I think you will find that it was the LibDems who first called for an EU referendum circa 2007/8 (out of the three main parties), and repeated that commitment in all their subsequent manifestos. So it would have been unlikely that PR would have prevented a referendum; indeed, more likely it would have increased the chances as the LibDems would have had more seats to bargain for their manifesto pledge.

The Lib Dems were a minority party and not in a position to deliver anything like that. The political landscape in 2007/2008 was very different. The 2008 crash hadn't yet happened and the Lisbon Treaty hadn't yet happened either so it's very unlikely that leave could have obtained the narrow win it achieved in 2016. 

Subsequent to that, the Lib Dems opposed a referendum between 2010 and 2015 while in coalition; the referendum only happened when the Conservatives had a parliamentary majority after 2015, which they would never have obtained under PR if Labour had delivered it as it had promised in 1997. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Lib Dems were a minority party and not in a position to deliver anything like that. The political landscape in 2007/2008 was very different. The 2008 crash hadn't yet happened and the Lisbon Treaty hadn't yet happened either so it's very unlikely that leave could have obtained the narrow win it achieved in 2016. 

Subsequent to that, the Lib Dems opposed a referendum between 2010 and 2015 while in coalition; the referendum only happened when the Conservatives had a parliamentary majority after 2015, which they would never have obtained under PR if Labour had delivered it as it had promised in 1997. 

But your point was that PR would have likely stopped a referendum. The party most likely to have formed a coalition partner if PR had been the method of election would have been the LibDems. A major policy of every LibDem manifesto since 2007 was an EU "in/out" referendum. Ergo, PR would have increased the likelihood of a referendum not decreased it, given that neither of the two main parties had made such a pledge.

I'm afraid you are simply mistaken about the LibDem position between 2010 and 2015:

The Liberal Democrats 2010 election manifesto expanded on the party’s position, saying “The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.” It also reiterated similar sentiments in its 2015 election manifesto.

https://fullfact.org/europe/lib-dems-first-call-eu-referendum/

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

But your point was that PR would have likely stopped a referendum. The party most likely to have formed a coalition partner if PR had been the method of election would have been the LibDems. A major policy of every LibDem manifesto since 2007 was an EU "in/out" referendum. Ergo, PR would have increased the likelihood of a referendum not decreased it, given that neither of the two main parties had made such a pledge.

I'm afraid you are simply mistaken about the LibDem position between 2010 and 2015:

The Liberal Democrats 2010 election manifesto expanded on the party’s position, saying “The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.” It also reiterated similar sentiments in its 2015 election manifesto.

https://fullfact.org/europe/lib-dems-first-call-eu-referendum/

 

The hole in your argument is that the Lib Dems actually were in coalition majority government with the Conservatives between 2010 and 2015 and opposed a referendum on EU membership; it was an empty promise to win votes in more Eurosceptic areas where the Lib Dems were strong, such as Cornwall, based on never expecting to be in a position to actually deliver anything, much like tuition fees. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The hole in your argument is that the Lib Dems actually were in coalition majority government with the Conservatives between 2010 and 2015 and opposed a referendum on EU membership; it was an empty promise to win votes in more Eurosceptic areas where the Lib Dems were strong, such as Cornwall, based on never expecting to be in a position to actually deliver anything, much like tuition fees. 

I'm afraid you're wrong again. Clegg nuanced the LibDem commitment to an "in/out" referendum by saying the party would support a referendum if UK sovereignty was passed to the EU. He also added that they would neither support NOR oppose a Tory bill (2017) to guarantee a referendum.  

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

34 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I'm afraid you're wrong again. Clegg nuanced the LibDem commitment to an "in/out" referendum by saying the party would support a referendum if UK sovereignty was passed to the EU. He also added that they would neither support NOR oppose a Tory bill (2017) to guarantee a referendum.  

At the end of the day, there was no referendum approved while the lib Dems were in government, so whatever they said about supporting a referendum is as worthless as Labour's broken manifesto promises of electoral reform in 1997.

Additionally though, ukips electoral terrorism against the Conservative's to move the Conservatives to a more Eurosceptic position, and then the Brexit party's strategy of standing candidates in labour seats in 2019 to split off votes simply wouldn't work under PR.

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

At the end of the day, there was no referendum approved while the lib Dems were in government, so whatever they said about supporting a referendum is as worthless as Labour's broken manifesto promises of electoral reform in 1997.

Perhaps you should return to your original point which was that PR would have made a referendum  virtually impossible. The fact remains that only one party was committed to an in/out referendum at that time, the LibDems. Given that they would have been the party forming a coalition had PR been the system of election, it follows that PR would have made a referendum more likely not less.

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you should return to your original point which was that PR would have made a referendum  virtually impossible. The fact remains that only one party was committed to an in/out referendum at that time, the LibDems. Given that they would have been the party forming a coalition had PR been the system of election, it follows that PR would have made a referendum more likely not less.

Would they really have been the party forming a coalition if negotiations broke down over that point? If we take Germany as an example, it's not entirely unusual for what are called "grand coalitions" (where the two main parties, the SDP and the CDU, form a coalition) if the smaller parties are making demands for making a coalition that just won't suit the electoral winners.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

At the end of the day, there was no referendum approved while the lib Dems were in government, so whatever they said about supporting a referendum is as worthless as Labour's broken manifesto promises of electoral reform in 1997.

Additionally though, ukips electoral terrorism against the Conservative's to move the Conservatives to a more Eurosceptic position, and then the Brexit party's strategy of standing candidates in labour seats in 2019 to split off votes simply wouldn't work under PR.

Wouldn’t it though? Under PR they would have probably gained several seats. If a referendum was their price to support a minority Tory administration, it seems entirely possible that Cameron would have gone for it as he was confident Remain would win the actual referendum that he initiated.

 

And if we are going to start listing broken manifesto promises, we are going to be here for a long time...

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you should return to your original point which was that PR would have made a referendum  virtually impossible. The fact remains that only one party was committed to an in/out referendum at that time, the LibDems. Given that they would have been the party forming a coalition had PR been the system of election, it follows that PR would have made a referendum more likely not less.

The fact remains that we had a conservative/lib Dem majority coalition where the lib Dems blocked the conservatives from passing legislation for a referendum, and the conservative eurosceptics did push for one between 2010 and 2015. That kind of undermines your argument that the lib Dems would have done it if in government, be it under PR or FPTP.

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

23 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Wouldn’t it though? Under PR they would have probably gained several seats. If a referendum was their price to support a minority Tory administration, it seems entirely possible that Cameron would have gone for it as he was confident Remain would win the actual referendum that he initiated.

 

And if we are going to start listing broken manifesto promises, we are going to be here for a long time...

Again, we had a conservative lib Dem coalition from 2010 to 2015. The conservatives pushed for a referendum and the lib Dems didn't agree, so speculating that the lib Dems would have done what you suggested if in coalition doesn't make sense.

Actually labour did list lots of lib Dem 'broken promises' based on the coalition's record in the 2015,  2017, and 2019 election campaigns, treating the lib Dems as if they'd acted as a majority government instead of junior partners in the coalition. Given Labour's record of broken promises as a majority government, that was rather hypocritical of Labour, don't you think?

Edited July 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The fact remains that we had a conservative/lib Dem majority coalition where the lib Dems blocked the conservatives from passing legislation for a referendum. That kind of undermines your argument that the lib Dems would have done it if in government, be it under PR or FPTP.

It  clearly doesn't. Your point was that had PR been in place there would have been virtually no chance a Brexit referendum could have happened. AT THAT TIME the LibDems were the only party with a manifesto commitment to have an "in/out" referendum. That Clegg subsequently nuanced LibDem policy (much to the annoyance of virtually the whole of his party) is irrelevant to the point. Had, counterfactually, they stuck strictly to the manifesto pledge then a referendum would very obviously have been more likely.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I'm still curious about why the Labour Party only ever manages to appoint middle class white men as their party leaders, are they still stuck in the 19th century.

The next Prime Minister will either be a female or from an ethnic minority and the child of immigrants, and it's thanks to the Tory's again. I wonder how many female voters they lose to the Greens as a result of this painfully obvious gender issue with the membership.

But they will be rubbish PM's. But if you are happy jumping on an oblique tangent because the Tories are left with a woman or a man from an Asian background then good for you.

But it is just as easy to ask why Tories elect candidates who have been in private education? Or candidates who have been in other parties?

And a good many would argue that the two female PMs we have had were absolutely useless.

[horsefly 4,310]

33 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Would they really have been the party forming a coalition if negotiations broke down over that point? If we take Germany as an example, it's not entirely unusual for what are called "grand coalitions" (where the two main parties, the SDP and the CDU, form a coalition) if the smaller parties are making demands for making a coalition that just won't suit the electoral winners.

I seriously doubt the Tories would have objected to an in/out referendum, particularly given their subsequent manifesto pledge and attempt to make a referendum law. Plus, had PR been the system at the time UKIP would have very likely gained a significant number of seats, and I think we can safely predict what role they would have played in any grand coalition re a referendum.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

It  clearly doesn't. Your point was that had PR been in place there would have been virtually no chance a Brexit referendum could have happened. AT THAT TIME the LibDems were the only party with a manifesto commitment to have an "in/out" referendum. That Clegg subsequently nuanced LibDem policy (much to the annoyance of virtually the whole of his party) is irrelevant to the point. Had, counterfactually, they stuck strictly to the manifesto pledge then a referendum would very obviously have been more likely.

 

AT THAT TIME. indeed. The time Clegg proposed a referendum was 2008. He got into government in a coalition in 2010 and stayed there to 2015, during which time a referendum was never agreed to. Your premise that the Lib Dems were genuinely committed to a referendum is completely contradicted by what actually happened when they were in government after it had been proposed.

Additionally, you raised the point that Clegg had said they'd only agree to a referendum only if the UK lost sovereignty to the EU, most constitutional experts agree that the existence of article 50 in the Lisbon treaty, giving any member state the right to leave if it so wished, meant that no matter how much power parliament passed to the EU, the UK would always be sovereign because of that fact.

[Yellow Fever 3,821]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

But they will be rubbish PM's. But if you are happy jumping on an oblique tangent because the Tories are left with a woman or a man from an Asian background then good for you.

But it is just as easy to ask why Tories elect candidates who have been in private education? Or candidates who have been in other parties?

And a good many would argue that the two female PMs we have had were absolutely useless.

I must admit as to bewilderment as to why TVB keeps arguing this. It seems at best a very weak point and easily swatted away as does Truss claiming she had an education in failing school (she didn't - no more than me).

You have to come to conclusion that the Tories are running on empty / fumes and this is all they've got left in the tank. Seems like  a crash landing is imminent.