Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories must leave and give Corbyn his chance
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories must leave and give Corbyn his chance
According to the plan, this should have been the week when Theresa May stamped her authority on her government, her Party and the country. A reshuffle to mould her ministers in her image; a Queen’s Speech to tackle the issues she cares about, in the way that she wants to tackle them; and five years in which to do that, to deliver Brexit and to tee up another term. How the gods laughed.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But really don't want him negotiating brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/16/keir-starmer-labour-can-change-course-of-brexit-after-mays-election-rejection
Meanwhile, on the Grenfell tragedy
German construction companies have been banned from using plastic-filled cladding, such as Reynobond PE, on towers more than 22 metres high since the 1980s when regulations were brought in to improve fire safety at residential blocks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors?CMP=twt_gu
Since when we've had (at least) three Conservative, three Labour and one Coalition government......while the current government has to fix the problem, apportioning blame (at this stage, until more facts are known) may be unwise.
And:
Theresa May prepared to order evacuation of other 1970s tower blocks if they are found to be unsafe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/16/theresa-may-prepared-order-evacuation-1970s-tower-blocks-found
I expect that will please the Something must be done crowd.....
Labour have nothing like a workable majority in the HoC, there is no guarantee that the SNP, LD and DUP could agree on very much to all support Labour at the same time.The only way that Labour would be able to get anything through Parliament is for the Conservatives to abstain on any bill brought forward.
To step aside now would be like saying "although we wanted to run the country we have now decided that we don't and would prefer the party that came 2nd to do it for us" How is that in any way credible? What is the point of having an election if the party that wins the most seats then decides it does not want to govern? Corbyn and Labour lost the election by the only measure that matters - number of seats won.
The Conservatives won the election and really they do not need to get any agreement with the DUP to propose a QS. It is very likely that the DUP would at worse abstain (It is not in their interest to have another election immediately) allowing the speech to get through and get government up and running. Would it be easy ? No. But it is better than running away from the problem like you are suggesting.
People forget that in 1981 Thatcher too was seen as 'not up to it' and 'shortly to be replaced'. I'm not suggesting that Thatcher was in anything like the hole May has dug for herself - but febrile atmospheres make for poor decisions - ones which could haunt the Tories for decades.
They were elected with a job to do. They should get on with it, with humility.
Pc Keith Palmer has been posthumously awarded the George Medal for bravery, for his heroic actions in the Westminster terror attack.
Pc Palmer, who was stabbed to death when he confronted attacker Khalid Masood outside the Houses of Parliament in March, "paid the ultimate price for his selfless actions", Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick said.
Bernard Kenny, the pensioner who was stabbed in the abdomen as he tried to save the life of Jo Cox, is to receive the George Medal for his actions.
No major political honours because of the clash with the GE (and May's opposition to cronyism...)
Cheers Mr Herdson for your thoughts, however, the Tories have made their bed and now they must lie in it. Handing over the reins of power to an unstable, unelected Corbyn government now, for the sake of Tory expediency would be seen as a big FU to the electorate who have just voted for them.
The Conservatives are supposed to be the party to govern in the National Interest. They've made their bed, they need to lie in it. They need to knock heads together; remove May; replace her with David Davis for 2 years until Brexit is done; and then he stands down and those with Leadership ambitions sell their wares.
Has the mob taken over yet. Is Mrs JackW safe in the marital bed .... (probably not ..
Best have a cup of tea first ...
In normal circumstances, it might just have been possible, but not with article 50 triggered.
Nevertheless David's analysis is spot on for two excellent reasons. Firstly May needs to go and might be forced to quickly. Secondly May still has a purpose which is to absorb the radiation dose from Brexit before a fresh face takes over. If the first trumps the latter her replacement might have to face the electorate in over 4 years time having absorbed the Brexit radiation dose.
After the General Election result I'm making no predictions. But if something can't be sustained it won't be. There was a good reason the Conservatives thought they needed a large majority for the next 5 years. Buckle up.
Substantively I agree with much of your analysis. The Conservatives find themselves on the ropes and in the rope dangling in the wind waiting for the DUP to pull on the (last) legs of the near dead body of the government.
Few don't concede that May is Prime Minister on political death row. The question is when? It appears Conservative MP's are returning to Westminster with the sound of the electorate passing sentence on their PM. The 1922 Committee performance gave the PM a few days breathing space and then Grenfell ignited the whole question of the PM and now how long the stay of execution should last. My preference is for a Conservative minority government in the short term.
Passing the baton to Jezza is a huge risk for national reasons we all have discussed and disagreed on during the election. However the danger for the Conservatives is more acute. PM Jezza might prove more agile and popular as PM than many think. A massive short term unsustainable spending splurge followed in a year or so with with a vote of confidence that the Tories would vote for and the potential for a Labour majority government following a general election ?!?
Anyone watched "A Very British Coup" recently ?
In such circumstances the Conservatives should not try to be clever and simply do the obvious. The numbers are there for the Conservatives to form a government with passive support from the DUP, so they should do it. Theresa May isn't up to it, so should go. There isn't time for a full leadership contest because of Brexit so the plausible contenders should agree between them who should be the Prime Minister, with friendly persuasion applied to anyone who isn't playing ball. And then they should just knuckle down and get on with it.
They've made their bed and they should lie on it.
He can't be allowed near power. Abrogating responsibility now to such a dangerous set of individuals would be a terrible betrayal of this country.
Corbyn and his mob will cause immense damage being in number 10 even by being there for a day. Do you honestly want all the progress delivered by Maggie onwards chucked in a bin as is Corbyns plan and failed socialist dogma of the worst kind ruling over us.
Just an horrific thought.
It is that increasing numbers of the public are wanting change. They are looking at their lives and want more. They feel that more than thirty years of centrist consensus politics has not delivered them enough.
Brexit opened the floodgates to change, and now they want more.
The only people offering 'change' are Corbyn and his acolytes. It doesn't matter that his vision of change is crazy and nasty; it's change that'll help them (or so they think). It doesn't matter that his vision of change is fiscally illiterate; they don't see the fiscally restrained austerity years as having helped them.
It's change based on hate, which is exactly what they accuse the Conservatives of. Hate of anyone richer than them. Hate of the Conservatives. Hate of the other. And the poison of that hate is spreading - just see BJO's comments from last night.
In the process, truth gets lost. Most of the protesters about the tragedy at Grenfell Tower are not interested in the truth: they've decided on what the truth is and want retribution.
Who runs the Conservative party is a minor tactical issue. What matters in the medium and long term is addressing this growing desire amongst the public for a change that would be disastrous not just for the Conservative party, but the country.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/state-opening-of-parliament-puts-queen-in-danger-of-missing-day-two/289446
Is there nothing Theresa May can't screw up? Serious point -- she may be missing Nick and Fiona already. Surely they'd have (a) been able to work a calendar, and (b) handled the fallout from Grenfell Tower a lot better. Barwell is implicated, and the Cabinet are after her job. Where can she turn for advice? The Mirror's front page sums up the fatuous nature of the PM's response, contrasting May's concern for "security" with the Queen meeting survivors.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-40310518
An interesting analysis and view, but I disagree:
a) The current parliamentary arithmetic wouldn't support a Labour-led administration.
b) The Tory party owns Brexit and should be responsible for delivering it, in whatever form. May needs to own her mess and not depart until a provisional Brexit deal is on the table, with a new Tory leader to take the party into a GE as soon as practicable after 31st March 2019.
c) The DUP are not "toxic" because of their social views, although their current leader has major questions to answer. The risk if any is appearing to take sides in NI, but it is only a matter of degree and the UK government has always taken the unionist side in the 6 counties when push comes to shove.
A stable Corbyn-led Labour majority government, elected after the zombie Tory minority government stumbles and falls in 2 years, is preferable to the Labour party taking over now.
The infamy of the capitalist markets, the bias of the MSM, the enemy within (and nobody does it better than the hard left), and the seven years of Tory misrule are coming home to roost. Oh, and there's always Brexit and Farmer Jones. To some fans, Venezuela is still a shining light
Plucky Jezza is slowly rebuilding a sturdier economy, and the rich are getting their just desserts, so that's alright.
The Queen will speak in the House of Lords at approximately 11.30am on Wednesday, leaving open the possibility of her reaching the course before the first race at 2.30.
This was the case in 2001, when a ten-minute speech was delivered to parliament before the Queen exited, changed from her ceremonial robes into her racing outfit and was taken under a police escort to Windsor Castle. She arrived at the course 15 minutes before the first race.
I must say, the quality of Labour trolls isn't what it was.....and don't get me started on the age of policemen.....
In fact;
1) Corbyn is quite old
2) His supporters hate the media
3) He has made massive promises he cannot keep
4) He lost the popular vote
It reminds me of someone....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stewart-jackson-tory-mps-facebook-messages-abuse-thick-chav-constituent-a7790296.html
Hourly cost of Grenfell Public Inquiry > 5000 pounds per hour.
I very nearly skipped the thread entirely, until I checked the author. Skimmed it instead.
I disagree entirely. The Conservatives won the election (if anyone did) they have more votes than any viable Labour coalition. Corbyn's a far left fruitcake, a unilateralist, a friend of Hamas, a man whose best mate and Shadow Chancellor believes organising a massive march through London to protest against the result of democracy is a good idea.
When he's lost the election by a clear margin, when he's not got the numbers for a government, to throw the keys of 10 Downing Street at the wretched creature would be a dereliction of duty.
If May needs to go, then fine. Let May go. But advocating Corbyn, a man who only this week stated his desire for the state seizure of private property on the whim of the political class, is insane.
I see that you have already made up your mind, but it will be the electorate as a whole that matters.
Before you label me, I also think that Corbyn will not be good for Britain, but if he gets the chance and fails I believe that the public will notice that.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/875944326446149632
Properties owned by absentee landlords tend to have tenants in them.
The problem with this is that the report commissioned by Mayor Sadiq demonstrates that these properties Corbyn wants to confiscate do not really exist. Sadiq campaigned on this "absentee owner landbanking empty flats" issue, and commissioned the LSE to look into it.
The report, for the GLA, is dated May 2017. It is here:
https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngovmb/documents/s58640/08b2b LSE Overseas Investment report.pdf
"The project: The team was asked to look at four main research questions:
What proportion of new residential units in London is bought by overseas buyers?
What proportion of these units is left empty?
To what extent do the funding models of London residential developers rely on off-plan
sales to overseas buyers?
What is the role of major overseas investors (such as pension funds, sovereign wealth, debt
providers, shareholdings) in the residential development process in London? "
and they found on point 2:
"The proportion of units left empty: Developers estimated occupancy rates for individual schemes were generally up to 95%. There was almost no evidence of units being left entirely empty - certainly less than 1%. Units bought to be let out appear to have very high occupancy rates and indeed some are ‘over-occupied’ e.g. by students. However for those units bought as second homes, occupancy could be as little as a few weeks a year. Many such second home sales are to UK residents, not overseas buyers. "
An invisible proportion left permanently empty, and weeks later Corbyn is still indulging himself with his myths about requisitioning flats. Is he going to evict the tenants first?
Corbyn:
"The ward where this fire took place is, I think the poorest ward in the whole country.
"And properties must be found, requisitioned if necessary, in order to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally.
"It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and luxury flats kept as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40285994
AFAICS the "poorest ward" point is a lie, and the landbanking allegation has been debunked by his own party's report.
I agree with David.
I'm not sure that's the choice. I think what Corbyn would want to do would be to move into No 10, look prime ministerial, put forward a Queen's Speech with all kinds of popular things in it and, at the top of his honeymoon when the voters were getting used to the idea of him as PM, trigger a new election to ask for a mandate for a stable government. He may well get it.
Corbyn could get a new election by either doing what May did and defying the opposition to vote one down or by baiting the DUP or the SNP into voting him down on a wedge issue where he was on the popular side of the wedge in England.
I'd like to see this, but I don't think it's in the Tories' interests to let him try it. They should stop faffing around, put May out of her misery and let the new leader decide whether to muddle on with the DUP or pull the move I just described themselves.
It would be interesting if we could have a thread on how the parties need to change to keep lunatics of all parties out of number 10
They should give us Tory-Lite and govern recognising that they are a minority. They need to consult with other parties and to not rock the ship of state. I believe that that means the softest of all Brexits.
We should wait until Wednesday, and the details of the Queens Speech. If the Tories arrogantly proceed on the basis of their manifesto then, before long, they'll come a cropper. If they proceed on the basis of scrutiny of Brexit and on the Great Repeal Bill, then they might get themselves out of the hole they've been digging.
If it's voted down, he'd get kudos amongst those who pay superficial attention to politics (or are hard left). If voted through, he'd bugger up the nation's finances and perhaps cause lasting damage in other areas too.
All governments make mistakes, and then make excuses. Bot some governments learn from their mistakes. The Trots don't because they never make mistakes. It's a mind-set thing.
The Tory campaign was shite and they got what they deserved. Had the Corbyn campaign been derailed (it wasn't), do you suppose you'd have heard a single word of self-blame? It's a personality thing.
The clue is that you are able to pass your priorities within the manifesto in the Queen's Speech without having to donate vast quantities of pork to the DUP.
I was wrong in thinking that Corbyn would not want the election just gone, but then I was also wrong in believing that May would get her larger majority. So, the FTPA wasn't a problem for Mat in calling the last GE, however it is still in place. Why should the Tories let him cut and run at a time of his choosing?
Sinn Fein do not take their seats. Therefore, any agreement over government not involving the Conservatives has to involve the active support of the DUP (their passive support will do for the Tories). The odds of Corbyn getting their support on a Queen's Speech are slightly greater than the odds of Malcolm conceding there are benefits to Unionism.
There is a case to be made that May should have approached the SNP first to (a) claim she had no choice but to work with the DUP and (b) if by some unimaginable fluke she did get a deal, kill the rather unpleasant SNP stone dead. But she chose not to.
So while I appreciate David is still traumatised (as I warned him, a failure to take Wakefield off the loathsome and incompetent Mary Creagh would be a dismal performance) can we keep some sense of perspective please? While Corbyn's popular vote was impressive - only the 2nd Labour leader since 1970 to top 35% of the vote and just nudged it to 40% - he still came a poor second in every measurable way. In fact, in terms of seats he did very little better than Brown and worse than Kinnock. To put him in power on that result would be genuinely anti-democratic and there is no prospect of such a government surviving more than a week.
The only reason he is looking good is because the expectations for him were very low - when 140 seats is considered par (which would have been the worst result for a major party since 1931) managing to do rather badly instead of catastrophically looks like a great triumph. Yet fundamentally little has changed. He still cannot command the Commons. He is still leaking non-metropolitan support. His political programme is still ludicrous. His associates are still toxic. And he has not magically developed administrative talent and personal intelligence.
May will of course go at some point but it won't be yet because of the time pressures. I think she will manage 18 months.
The real risk of this election to my mind is that it raises the serious possibility of PM Boris. If enough Tory MPs decide Fascist populism based on transparent lies and grim thuggishness was enough to get a man who is also rather elderly, dim and incompetent close to Parliament they may decide a man who is similar to corbyn but far more intelligent might be what they need. And that would be a genuine disaster.
EU membership is a binary choice and thus divisive. People who think that it is not a binary choice (e.g. all the soft Brexit crowd) are going to find out on Monday that this is not a reality.
Painful as it is, the referendum was the only way to resolve this issue and the will of the majority has to be enacted.
Calling Corbyn's bluff is one thing. Letting the animals take over the zoo at this prticular moment wouldn't lead to an experiment in marxism it would lead to chaos.
But like I say, if they don't want to vote for one, he could engineer getting voted down on an issue where the voters agreed with him. The Tories could of course vote that they had confidence in him, but that's an even worse look than refusing an election.
I think it was mainly due to too much Osborne and Hammond. There was nothing at all to inspire in the manifesto. Suppose the Tories had e.g. promised not to implement the cuts to the school budgets/lunches which were not even large sums of money, compared to the tens of billions that Corbyn is throwing around; just that would have saved parent votes and kept enough seats that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Crosby completely disagreed on calling the early election but was overruled. Until the final week or so he was marginalized and had advised that attacking the core vote and not offering more vision was a disaster in the making.
The weekend before polling day his meta data put them on 302 seats. It would appear in the final days his greater involvement saved the Tories 16 seats and Jezza walking into Downing Street at some time.
There was a good short segment comparing laws/regulations in the UK with other countries (sprinklers fitted as standard to new builds but not retrofitted to old ones is in line with the rest of the world; the cladding is banned or restricted elsewhere). Then there was wibbling about austerity and budget cuts to the fire brigade.
This was after confirming the building met all current fire safety regulations. But the little segment banged on about insufficient fire safety inspections. However, as the building met all legal requirements, more inspections would've just led to more confirmation it was 'ok', no?
The problem isn't/wasn't lack of fire brigade budget (NB that may be a problem but it's a separate kettle of monkeys), it was that the fire safety regulations for buildings are out of date. The problem isn't applying the law, it's that the law to be applied needs to be updated.
News ended with Bradby trying to make the tragedy into some sort of symbol of austerity. Because we never had fires or tragedies before 2010. And the nation is more divided than ever. Which is a quick change, because a few weeks ago we'd never let terrorism divide us.
A tragic accident, it seems, is justification for a political kicking, angry mobs and somehow blaming government cuts for a fridge exploding, but repeated terrorist attacks aren't justification for any division at all.
Reminds me of the double standards on photographing dead children. Plaudits around the world if it's on the west coast of Turkey. Doesn't happen if you've been run over in Nice or killed in Manchester.
The same news edition included condemnation of May for not turning up, then she was chased away when she did, with some bloke saying "What did she expect?"
Well, what do we expect? Some sort of Schrodinger's Prime Minister who can both turn up and not turn up? A media that might critically examine whether a mob storming council buildings and waving SWP placards might be politically driven by the far left rather than residents?
*sighs*
/endrant
That is most unkind if you. How would they ever get high enough ratings to chase advertising and get paid if they behaved sensibly?
(Bonus points to anyone who recognises that quotation.)
While Brexit is the big journey the UK will be making in the next two years as we have seen politics is about very much more and Corbyn would just use minority government to grandstand at every opportunity. Just take one example - tuition fees. There is no way the Tories at this time could support £48bn of public money being spent scrapping the student loan system and writing off the debt of former students. Apart from the hit to public revenue there are actually far more important priorities for the exchequer. Yet Corbyn would make huge political capital out of Tory "obstructionism".
What we would have in fact is highly politicised deadlock at home. Every setback which would continue to be blamed on the Tories. IMO a Lab majority gov't would actually become more rather than less likely.
"Justice for Grenfell we want the truth"
"Justice 4 Grenfell"
"Time to go Theresa Tory cuts cost lives"
Questions need asking of the wielders of all of these placards. In your mind, what shape does justice take? Would you accept the truth even if it does not match what you believe? What the **** does the third have to do with the Grenfell tragedy?
I fear this is going to turn nasty.
Britain, 2017. When some bloke on Youtube talks infinitely more sense than the news of a national broadcaster.
Incidentally, the video's well worth watching even if you disagree with me on the news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z3pe_OSZrQ
Anyway, I'd better be off and get some work done.
Good thread. Bloody awful idea!
Crosby is clearly right about not attacking the core vote. Older readers will remember my prescient if untimely analysis of the Ken Clarke's part in the 1997 defeat, while Blair and Clegg need no comment. Unremittingly negative campaigns with no positive vision almost lost the union and did lose Brexit. We are blessed with politicians who do not understand politics.
But this is ancient history: the election was over a week ago. Right now, Theresa May is in a bind.
May must go. Its a particular kind of political perversion that insists she has a mandate or authority and must stay. For a whole list of reasons she must go, and with respect to David's piece many of those reasons are to protect the Conservative Party:
1. She is incapable of walking and talking, widely eviscerated over almost everything now with the "can't meet people because security" fiasco enough to kill a normal politician in normal times. Any alternative leader would be an improvement.
2. She is incapable of binding her party. OK so they won't rebel against her to vote her government down. But they will on every other issue. So theoretical majorities with the DUP don't exist in practice
3. We need to negotiate Brexit. She can't negotiate a deal with the DUP who politically have to back her anyway. How is she supposed to secure anything from Europe?
The question isn't whether she goes, its when. And whilst the "linger on to conference" or "linger on to finish Brexit" dreams appeal to some, it can't possibly work when she is a walking political disaster. At the same time another leadership election would re-expose the vast personality flaws of BoJo or Amber Rudd or the lack of personality of Hammond. So it would need to be a coronation and that would need to be immediate.
The lesson of history is clear. In 1992 John Major's government had a majority of 22. And was incapable of governing, defeated endlessly with something as minor (compared to Brexit) as Maastrict. The notion of May's government, with or without the DUP, leading this nation now through the increasing societal divisions and Brexit is utterly absurd. And my challenge to PB Tories is this - you KNOW its absurd. You are intelligent people. You know politics. This is untenable and damages your party at a fundamental level.
Stepping aside for Corbyn I get - you renew in opposition. But you can't do that and won't do that. Nor can you form a government of national unity as we in Labour won't back that as we aren't united. Your best option is a grey man with steady hands - Hammond. Or an election in the Autumn. Either way, she's finished. Or you're finished.
But this shows two roles a PM must have; they must be able to be detached, but also to empathise with the public. There was a very good discussion about the latter on here the other day.
And I'd be cancelling my Tory party membership immediately if they willingly gave up the keys to No. 10 to a hard leftist agitator like Corbyn.
Also applies to Margaret Beckett and Sadiq Khan.
Australia 19 : 24 Scotland
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/40278549