Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories must leave and give Corbyn his chance

2456

Comments

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,842
    Morning all :)

    Thank you as always for the article, David, with which I almost wholly disagree.

    For all the bleating on here from some Conservatives about how many votes they got and how they "won" the election, perhaps some uncomfortable truths are required.

    The Conservative Party created this unneeded and unnecessary election and need to own its consequences and take some responsibility instead of lashing out at Corbyn, the media and anyone and everyone else.

    We will one day know the truth of whether May agreed to it enthusiastically or whether she was talked into it by the untalented Timothy and Hill whose departure has been one of the saving graces of this debacle.

    It was simple - a Presidential style campaign playing on May's popularity across the political divide, the exposure of Labour (if Labour didn't fall apart themselves conveniently) and a landslide would ensue.

    The problem is May has all the personality of three-week old rice pudding and I've seen icebergs with more warmth. None of that would have mattered if they had stuck to the script but Timothy had to have a "big idea" - adult social care. It's a minefield, we all know it's a minefield so the one thing you don't do in a campaign is plonk your size 12s onto a mine. A pledge of a Royal Commission would have been adequate but as soon as you start talking caps and money people get confused and worried. It was stupid politics from a Party which so often claims it knows what it's doing.

    Never mind - the polls all showed a majority, not a landslide perhaps but enough. That was right up to the exit poll.

    Now, we are in a mess wholly of the Conservative Party's making - yes, other parties are responsible for daring to win so many seats but it's back to omelettes and eggs.

    I don't care what happens to May and all the Conservative in-fighting, maneuvering and speculation about Boris is pointless. This country is at a pivotal point in its history about to begin negotiations which will affect the economic futures of every one of us and indeed Britons who are no more than a gleam in the milkman's eye.

    My position has been clear for over a year - EFTA membership and a re-formed, re-invigorated EFTA acting as a free market counterweight to the EU. The problem is there is no concensus and May has kept so much of the process insulated within the Government and the Conservative Party vast areas of expertise are being excluded. It's a national decision in which we should all be involved - instead. we've wasted time, resources and money fighting an unwanted vanity project which backfired.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Thank you as always for the article, David, with which I almost wholly disagree.

    For all the bleating on here from some Conservatives about how many votes they got and how they "won" the election, perhaps some uncomfortable truths are required.

    The Conservative Party created this unneeded and unnecessary election and need to own its consequences and take some responsibility instead of lashing out at Corbyn, the media and anyone and everyone else.

    We will one day know the truth of whether May agreed to it enthusiastically or whether she was talked into it by the untalented Timothy and Hill whose departure has been one of the saving graces of this debacle.

    It was simple - a Presidential style campaign playing on May's popularity across the political divide, the exposure of Labour (if Labour didn't fall apart themselves conveniently) and a landslide would ensue.

    The problem is May has all the personality of three-week old rice pudding and I've seen icebergs with more warmth. None of that would have mattered if they had stuck to the script but Timothy had to have a "big idea" - adult social care. It's a minefield, we all know it's a minefield so the one thing you don't do in a campaign is plonk your size 12s onto a mine. A pledge of a Royal Commission would have been adequate but as soon as you start talking caps and money people get confused and worried. It was stupid politics from a Party which so often claims it knows what it's doing.

    Never mind - the polls all showed a majority, not a landslide perhaps but enough. That was right up to the exit poll.

    Now, we are in a mess wholly of the Conservative Party's making - yes, other parties are responsible for daring to win so many seats but it's back to omelettes and eggs.

    I don't care what happens to May and all the Conservative in-fighting, maneuvering and speculation about Boris is pointless. This country is at a pivotal point in its history about to begin negotiations which will affect the economic futures of every one of us and indeed Britons who are no more than a gleam in the milkman's eye.

    My position has been clear for over a year - EFTA membership and a re-formed, re-invigorated EFTA acting as a free market counterweight to the EU. The problem is there is no concensus and May has kept so much of the process insulated within the Government and the Conservative Party vast areas of expertise are being excluded. It's a national decision in which we should all be involved - instead. we've wasted time, resources and money fighting an unwanted vanity project which backfired.

    +1
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,518
    edited June 2017
    As always an interesting piece from David. Essentially he's arguing that a trial peirod of Corbyn without a majority will expose an inability to govern sensibly and the other parties will then bring him down and he'll lose, whereas with the increasing probaiblity of a genuine Labour majority in a few years he'd have 5 years to govern, sensibly or not. Those who disagree on the thread are mostly arguing that he's so radioactive that putting him into Number 10 at all will result in calamity, or alternatively that he's rather good and would govern well for a bit and then force an election that he'd win.

    Trying to be objective, it seems to me that the Tories are exhausted, in a very similar sense to how Labour felt in 2009-10. In some ways it's worse. It's not clear who they want to lead them, what they want to achieve or how they'll handle the major issues of the day. Labour has been energised mainly by Corbyn catching the mood and also by spectacularly good (inadvertent) expectations management, like someone expected to fail an exam hopelessly and ending up with B+. In this situation, a Labour government is probable one way or the other, and having it in a hung Parliament where other parties can veto if they want/dare is a reasonable democratic choice.

    As a Labour supporter, I'm not in any special hurry, and in a partisan way don't mind the Tories taking the Brexit problems and economic downturn on the chin so we get a chunky majority when it falls apart, but David is probably right that it's in the national interest to have a controlled epxeriment where we either show that Tory fears were exagerrated or they prove right and we lose.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    I'm not sure I understand the header - is it saying the tories should hand over to Corbyn because May's PR is poor?

    Tbh I find this ridiculous, the tories have a duty and responsibility to run the country under a minority govt, they need to get on with it and stop telling everybody how unfair it all is. And in the mean time drop the arrogance, show some humility and remember who you answer to.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    Good argument, and I feel David's frustration, but I don't think the electorate would ever forgive the Conservatives for doing something like this.

    If they did, when Corbyn turned out to be a disaster, which he will, they will blame the Conservatives for putting him there.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    nielh said:

    Might be worth sparing a thought right now to all the people who paid £3 to make Corbyn leader and make labour unelectable!

    If, as reported, the membership of the Labour Party is now over 800,000 then it is more than likely things will change. Most certainly the old consensus built around a "New Labour" philosophy is disappearing as newly inspired activists invigorate the organisation from Branch to NEC in a traditionally LP leftist approach, which at the moment, is a very popular alternative to the present centrist right.

    What will also change, as it has done in the past when the Tory Party, under whatever name it had at the time, was unpopular, is the organisation from the grass roots up. I doubt many supporters and voters are really happy that everything seems to be being run by an elite of multi millionaires under the explicit or implied instructions of multi-billionaire media barons.

    Certainly, in Scotland, the SNP are now entering a period of introspection leading to a probable period of re-organisation from the top down. Too many supporters and voters are now questioning when before, they just accepted whatever the executive spouted out as gospel. Also word is that with it's large number of spads, spin doctors and advisors needing to be supported and paid, it is having a serious cash flow problem, as donations, particularly from the treasure chest of the north east, has dried up.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    JackW said:

    Two well deserved George Medals in the queen's birthday honours list:

    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...)

    Is there nothing Theresa May can't screw up?
    Getting more votes & MPs than Corbyn?

    That was when she had Nick and Fiona alongside. That's the point: since her aides were forced out to save the reputation of Sir Lynton Crosby, Theresa May has no disinterested advisors.
    Somewhat off the mark.

    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.
    Are you sure? The messaging had Crosby written all over it. It was Zak Mk2. Different subject same style. Political advertising needed to move on with a more nuanced electorate but that seems to have passed Crosby by. A simple message oft repeated doesn't cut it anymore.
    I'm sure.

    May + Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill ran the show until the final weekend. Crosby and other experienced campaigners together with the Cabinet were almost entirely sidelined. Most of the Cabinet had no idea about the manifesto until the last minute and the social care passage was finalized the weekend before the launch and with almost zero input form relevant ministers.

    Apart from Rudd, the cabinet were effectively blocked from making major appearances. Hammond was AWOL for the whole time. This was a mess entirely made by May and her two most trusted, and now departed SpAD's.
  • I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,309

    As always an interesting piece from David. Essentially he's arguing that a trial peirod of Corbyn without a majority will expose an inability to govern sensibly and the other parties will then bring him down and he'll lose, whereas with the increasing probaiblity of a genuine Labour majority in a few years he'd have 5 years to govern, sensibly or not. Those who disagree on the thread are mostly arguing that he's so radioactive that putting him into Number 10 at all will result in calamity, or alternatively that he's rather good and would govern well for a bit and then force an election that he'd win.

    Trying to be objective, it seems to me that the Tories are exhausted, in a very similar sense to how Labour felt in 2009-10. In some ways it's worse. It's not clear who they want to lead them, what they want to achieve or how they'll handle the major issues of the day. Labour has been energised mainly by Corbyn catching the mood and also by spectacularly good (inadvertent) expectations management, like someone expected to fail an exam hopelessly and ending up with B+. In this situation, a Labour government is probable one way or the other, and having it in a hung Parliament where other parties can veto if they want/dare is a reasonable democratic choice.

    As a Labour supporter, I'm not in any special hurry, and in a partisan way don't mind the Tories taking the Brexit problems and economic downturn on the chin so we get a chunky majority when it falls apart, but David is probably right that it's in the national interest to have a controlled epxeriment where we either show that Tory fears were exagerrated or they prove right and we lose.

    Agree with that last para, Nick, but like most people can only guess what will actually happen. The atmosphere is febrile, the waters uncharted.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    I'm not sure I understand the header - is it saying the tories should hand over to Corbyn because May's PR is poor?

    Tbh I find this ridiculous, the tories have a duty and responsibility to run the country under a minority govt, they need to get on with it and stop telling everybody how unfair it all is. And in the mean time drop the arrogance, show some humility and remember who you answer to.

    Minority governments can be quite positive, it means they have to concentrate on running the economy in a way that's acceptable to parliament. It also means vanity projects are off the agenda, the problem is bexit but even with this the solution, if its available, will be one that commands a majority of the house and reflects public opinion. Now thatmay leave the hard remainers and leavers out in the cold but is that a bad thing?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,836
    The consensus from the discussion is that May has to go and that voters want change.

    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately. Either she calls the DUP bluff trusting they won't oppose, or she gives them the bare minimum to abstain.

    The Tories want a proper leadership election rather than another coronation, which is also in the national interest given the desire for change. A public contest under media scrutiny is the closest to an open debate about where we go now; it will depend on the right candidate emerging to put forward their vision of how they will do things differently, in light of the election result. This argues for a wide field, not simply two front runners.

    This takes time (that we don't really have) and therefore has to be during high summer. So May goes immediately Parliament beaks up, and the holiday period sees a leadership election.

    The new leader then has the choice between an autumn or early 2018 election, or more likely slogging on trying to make the best of a bad job, including delivering a softer and transitional Brexit.
  • ScarfNZScarfNZ Posts: 29
    May is a car crash that has already happened. She seems to have no empathy and dislikes meeting "normal people" which is a bit of a disadvantage when you are trying to be Prime Minister. Sadly there seems to be no one else who can take her place. Given the Tories shafted the Lib Dems the last time around, and the fact they will not touch her with a 10 foot barge pole, it looks like we will all be heading back to the poll booths in a few weeks time. That becomes a scary prospect with Corbyn and his cronies waiting in the wings. However, with the BREXIT looming on the horizon, being PM is a bit of a liability. The UK desperately needs some leadership rather than the egos it has at the current time.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    Give Corbyn a chance? what rubbish. Labour lost the election.

    Even if he could cobble together a coalition of Lab/LD/SNP/PC and Green he would still be three votes short of the Tories if the Ulster Unionists abstain.

    There will probably be another election in Oct 2018 or May 2019 and he'll have another chance then but I recon he has reached his high water mark.

    Corbyn is a left wing extremist and If Labour want to win again, they need to find a more inclusive leader.

    Go back to New Labour, the left wing headbangers haven't got anyone else to vote for.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,741
    I think it's obviously got to the stage where it's impossible for her to carry on.

    The question is whether the Tories have got anyone else who could turn things round. In normal circumstances, even given the lack of a majority, it would be difficult to see why not. But with Brexit looming, and the party still divided, and no clear plan for the negotiations that we know of, it seems impossible. I think Theresa May's biggest mistake was avoiding the issue of what kind of Brexit there was going to be, rather than setting out the principles and trying to get a consensus for them.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    JackW said:

    Roger said:

    JackW said:

    Two well deserved George Medals in the queen's birthday honours list:

    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...)

    Is there nothing Theresa May can't screw up?
    Getting more votes & MPs than Corbyn?

    That was when she had Nick and Fiona alongside. That's the point: since her aides were forced out to save the reputation of Sir Lynton Crosby, Theresa May has no disinterested advisors.
    Somewhat off the mark.

    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.
    Are you sure? The messaging had Crosby written all over it. It was Zak Mk2. Different subject same style. Political advertising needed to move on with a more nuanced electorate but that seems to have passed Crosby by. A simple message oft repeated doesn't cut it anymore.
    I'm sure.

    May + Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill ran the show until the final weekend. Crosby and other experienced campaigners together with the Cabinet were almost entirely sidelined. Most of the Cabinet had no idea about the manifesto until the last minute and the social care passage was finalized the weekend before the launch and with almost zero input form relevant ministers.

    Apart from Rudd, the cabinet were effectively blocked from making major appearances. Hammond was AWOL for the whole time. This was a mess entirely made by May and her two most trusted, and now departed SpAD's.
    Precisely.

    For those who haven't read it, here is the link to the Evening Standard's article with all the gory details...

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-how-theresa-mays-two-aides-seized-control-of-the-tory-campaign-to-calamitous-effect-a3566796.html

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.

    I agree.

    Lock David Herdson and Richard Nabavi and their fellow rabid Corbinistas up. Better still give them a SWP placard and deport them to Hersham where JohnO will deal with them in a manner befitting the mob - Clubbed to death with copies of the "Daily Telegraph".
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,518
    edited June 2017

    I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.

    You feel that David H is a splenetic remainiac, a rabid corbynista and an overt left-wing campaigner?

    Man, our sleeper operation is GOOD.

    But welcome to the site.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,489
    What a needless mess Mrs May and her team have created.

    I sympathise with the piece David has written, but no, the Tories must not acquiesce in making Corbyn Prime Minister.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,741

    I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.

    This is satire, isn't it?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260

    "Is this a high-risk strategy? In some senses, yes – giving the ground to your opponent always is. On the other hand, if the choice is between an unstable Labour minority government now and a potential Labour majority government elected after a zombie Tory minority government stumbles and falls in 18 months to two years, it’s a question of the lesser of two evils."

    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.

    You want to see a Corbyn premiership?

    Really?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260

    Why should the Tories let him cut and run at a time of his choosing?

    Refusing an election is a really bad look for an opposition. Even more so when you've already declined to be the government yourself.

    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.
    The lesson there is that, in many respects, being LoTO requires even greater political skills that being PM, if you want to subsequently win an election.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,990
    edited June 2017

    The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:

    "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.

    It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.

    Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.

    I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.

    You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.

    Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.

    And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.

    Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.

    Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.

    There is no end to it. The "SWP under the bed" defences from yesterday's thread are very thin, even being kind.

    Maybe it is time to create a list.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    Roger said:

    So it's unanimous.

    Good thread. Bloody awful idea!

    You're not a Corbyn fan?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Dura_Ace said:

    It hasn't even been a year since the Brexit referendum and it already feels like a completely different country now. Fuck knows where we go from here...

    :+1:
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,337
    I think a new leader is really called for. May ennobled and given headship of some sort of enquiry on strongness and stability. She needs a legacy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260

    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.

    Minor?

    If it weren't for Maastrict, we wouldn't be Brexiting at all.

    Key laws passed by tiny, tiny margins can be absolutely pivotal and define the future course of the nation for decades.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,885

    What a needless mess Mrs May and her team have created.

    I sympathise with the piece David has written, but no, the Tories must not acquiesce in making Corbyn Prime Minister.

    But also must not acquiesce in their duty in removing her from office
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,270
    Either Corbyn would exceed expectations, and engineer a successful election. Or he'd live down to them, and the Conservatives would be to blame.

    The voters (just about) gave them a mandate to govern, so govern they must.
  • woody662woody662 Posts: 255
    What an extraordinary article. The Tories won 42% of the vote and 13.7 million votes. Without the campaign cock ups, it could well have been 15 million. Corbyn and his mob are dangerous, to give up power because things might get a bit tricky would be a betrayal of 14 million people.

    Labour are still beatable, 2 months ago they were seen as a shambles, the Tories should invest in ripping their manifesto to shreds for the next 2 or 3 years and exposing McDonnall for what he is.

    Having said that, I do think we need a coronation of David Davis sooner rather than later. Theresa May is rapidly looking like Gordon Brown in 2009.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,741
    MattW said:

    The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:

    "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.

    It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.

    Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.

    I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.

    You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.

    Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.

    And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.

    Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.

    Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.

    There is no end to it.

    Maybe it is time to create a list.
    It's absolutely shocking that you've had a look on the Internet and found two things that aren't true, one thing that's unfair, and a statement by a politician that you disagree with.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,752
    Our country is not a fair ride. People don't get a go with it just because they want to or the Tories are a bit demoralised. Labour can't form a government with anyone other than the Tories and that is not going to happen. They just don't have enough MPs. It's what happens when you lose.

    It's time for the Tories to man up, get rid of May and get on with running the show. There is plenty to do.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    I also note that the 1972 European Communities Bill only passed 3rd reading by a majority of 34.

    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 284.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/jul/13/european-communities-bill
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    If Corbyn is the lesser evil we are fucked.

    I am not entirely convinced of some of the top team in Labour's love of democracy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    JackW said:

    Two well deserved George Medals in the queen's birthday honours list:

    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...)

    Is there nothing Theresa May can't screw up?
    Getting more votes & MPs than Corbyn?

    That was when she had Nick and Fiona alongside. That's the point: since her aides were forced out to save the reputation of Sir Lynton Crosby, Theresa May has no disinterested advisors.
    Somewhat off the mark.

    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.
    Christ.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    woody662 said:

    What an extraordinary article. The Tories won 42% of the vote and 13.7 million votes. Without the campaign cock ups, it could well have been 15 million. Corbyn and his mob are dangerous, to give up power because things might get a bit tricky would be a betrayal of 14 million people.

    Labour are still beatable, 2 months ago they were seen as a shambles, the Tories should invest in ripping their manifesto to shreds for the next 2 or 3 years and exposing McDonnall for what he is.

    Having said that, I do think we need a coronation of David Davis sooner rather than later. Theresa May is rapidly looking like Gordon Brown in 2009.

    Dare I say TSE might have been right, May is a pound shop Brown
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    IanB2 said:

    The consensus from the discussion is that May has to go and that voters want change.

    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately. Either she calls the DUP bluff trusting they won't oppose, or she gives them the bare minimum to abstain.

    The Tories want a proper leadership election rather than another coronation, which is also in the national interest given the desire for change. A public contest under media scrutiny is the closest to an open debate about where we go now; it will depend on the right candidate emerging to put forward their vision of how they will do things differently, in light of the election result. This argues for a wide field, not simply two front runners.

    This takes time (that we don't really have) and therefore has to be during high summer. So May goes immediately Parliament beaks up, and the holiday period sees a leadership election.

    The new leader then has the choice between an autumn or early 2018 election, or more likely slogging on trying to make the best of a bad job, including delivering a softer and transitional Brexit.

    I think there's a practical advantage in getting May to agree the contentious exit fee with the EU so the new leader can move onto what really matters, which is whether we are going to have some kind of continuity after March 2019.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    JackW said:

    I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.

    I agree.

    Lock David Herdson and Richard Nabavi and their fellow rabid Corbinistas up. Better still give them a SWP placard and deport them to Hersham where JohnO will deal with them in a manner befitting the mob - Clubbed to death with copies of the "Daily Telegraph".
    :wink:
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    nielh said:

    Might be worth sparing a thought right now to all the people who paid £3 to make Corbyn leader and make labour unelectable!

    Including some loud and proud tories
  • chloechloe Posts: 308
    Morning all.
    May has to go ASAP. Hammond should be PM, unopposed. Soft Brexit for which there is probably a majority in the Commons. Start to heal the divisions from the referendum. Deal with fallout from fire and other limited things for which minority government can get agreement for. General election in 2 years time when negotiations have ended, following shortened competitive leadership election.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?

    Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    chloe said:

    Morning all.
    May has to go ASAP. Hammond should be PM, unopposed. Soft Brexit for which there is probably a majority in the Commons. Start to heal the divisions from the referendum. Deal with fallout from fire and other limited things for which minority government can get agreement for. General election in 2 years time when negotiations have ended, following shortened competitive leadership election.

    They cannot go unopposed again.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,990

    I also note that the 1972 European Communities Bill only passed 3rd reading by a majority of 34.

    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 284.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/jul/13/european-communities-bill

    Am tempted to ask Casino Royale whether he went to Oxford University to study an Arts subject :-D.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    PClipp said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Thank you as always for the article, David, with which I almost wholly disagree.

    For all the bleating on here from some Conservatives about how many votes they got and how they "won" the election, perhaps some uncomfortable truths are required.

    The Conservative Party created this unneeded and unnecessary election and need to own its consequences and take some responsibility instead of lashing out at Corbyn, the media and anyone and everyone else.

    We will one day know the truth of whether May agreed to it enthusiastically or whether she was talked into it by the untalented Timothy and Hill whose departure has been one of the saving graces of this debacle.

    It was simple - a Presidential style campaign playing on May's popularity across the political divide, the exposure of Labour (if Labour didn't fall apart themselves conveniently) and a landslide would ensue.

    The problem is May has all the personality of three-week old rice pudding and I've seen icebergs with more warmth. None of that would have mattered if they had stuck to the script but Timothy had to have a "big idea" - adult social care. It's a minefield, we all know it's a minefield so the one thing you don't do in a campaign is plonk your size 12s onto a mine. A pledge of a Royal Commission would have been adequate but as soon as you start talking caps and money people get confused and worried. It was stupid politics from a Party which so often claims it knows what it's doing.

    Never mind - the polls all showed a majority, not a landslide perhaps but enough. That was right up to the exit poll.

    Now, we are in a mess wholly of the Conservative Party's making - yes, other parties are responsible for daring to win so many seats but it's back to omelettes and eggs.

    I don't care what happens to May and all the Conservative in-fighting, maneuvering and speculation about Boris is pointless. This country is at a pivotal point in its history about to begin negotiations which will affect the economic futures of every one of us and indeed Britons who are no more than a gleam in the milkman's eye.

    My position has been clear for over a year - EFTA membership and a re-formed, re-invigorated EFTA acting as a free market counterweight to the EU. The problem is there is no concensus and May has kept so much of the process insulated within the Government and the Conservative Party vast areas of expertise are being excluded. It's a national decision in which we should all be involved - instead. we've wasted time, resources and money fighting an unwanted vanity project which backfired.

    +1
    +2
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,295
    Sean_F said:

    Either Corbyn would exceed expectations, and engineer a successful election. Or he'd live down to them, and the Conservatives would be to blame.

    The voters (just about) gave them a mandate to govern, so govern they must.

    It is an interesting quirk of our system (as with Trump in the US) that although May gained more votes than ever Tony Blair did we are talking about a 'bare mandate'.

    I think Corbyn is getting carried away in talking of leading a government himself. He's not very bright and he's probably still slightly stunned by the result (bearing in mind he always expected to lose badly and his real goal was to ensure he had a left wing successor). Unless he's actually as stupid as he comes across he must know he's simply not up to the job (it was intriguing to look at @RochdalePioneers' list and think that actually substitute Corbyn for May and in many ways it would be nearer the mark).

    The risk is that he ends up looking hubristic or he does something totally crazy like announce he's always been in favour of shooting 50 British soldiers a week to apologise for the Arab-Israeli War (he's never done anything like that in the past but having spent two months industriously abandoning his old principles that may change). But even if he doesn't remember the fundamentals are still against him.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,990
    edited June 2017
    Chris said:

    MattW said:

    The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:

    "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.

    It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.

    Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.

    I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.

    You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.

    Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.

    And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.

    Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.

    Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.

    There is no end to it.

    Maybe it is time to create a list.
    It's absolutely shocking that you've had a look on the Internet and found two things that aren't true, one thing that's unfair, and a statement by a politician that you disagree with.
    I would say it is shocking that you find rumour-mongering acceptable in these circumstances, Chris. I expect that type of reporting to be on David Icke forums, when we have it driving big chunks of allegedly mainstream Labour politics then we have a problem. It is a little shocking that Corbynistas believe this guff.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,270
    Honestly if you are going to give Corbyn a chance I would much prefer calling another General Election than simply standing down and giving him a shot right now at forming a government. It wouldn't feel right that the party that won the share of the vote and has the most seats and the numbers to run a minority government (well better numbers than a Labour coalition) just stands down.

    If you think that a small taste of a Corbyn government might people off before another election then you could be wrong. I think he is an absolute maniac and a danger to this country economically and in terms of security, but this campaign has shown he can be a very shrewd operator.

    He could hold off on the hard left policies, operate as a moderate party for a few months the public likes it, he goes to the polls gets his majority and then goes bat shit Marxist. Then we have 5 years of renationalisation, winter of discontents with rubbish piling up in the streets and people not able to be buried, terrorist leaders plotting attacks on the country that could have been taken out with drone strike but new policy means we can't use them anymore etc.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,295

    I also note that the 1972 European Communities Bill only passed 3rd reading by a majority of 34.

    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 284.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/jul/13/european-communities-bill

    Even I can work out that is a majority of 17, not 34!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,741

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
    Do you mean pick a leader through a "smoke-filled rooms" process and then hope to get it ratified by an election? Surely that's not on.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,885

    JackW said:



    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.

    Christ.
    So with their internal numbers saying Corbyn would win power May carried serenely on as if she was still getting a landslide. Thats her level of emotional and political intelligence.

    You really want her negotiating Brexit?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    JackW said:

    Good Morning PBers Worldwide and in Downing Street

    Has the mob taken over yet. Is Mrs JackW safe in the marital bed .... (probably not .. :naughty: ) .... are we all for Madame La Guillotine ? .... Is Diane Abbott a modern day Madame Defarge

    Best have a cup of tea first ...

    :smiley:

    Post-GE, your posts have been among the best on this site. They've also been refreshingly free of forecasting apocalyptic doom, too.

    Love the message from HM. She is so good at knowing the public mood.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,741
    MattW said:

    Chris said:

    MattW said:

    The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:

    "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.

    It has already turned nasty imo. It did so on day one.

    Generally I do not think they are interested in answers; they are interested in fomenting a febrile atmosphere possibly leading to violence, while using the victims of Glenfell Tower as ammunition for their politicking.

    I have seen about ten fake conspiracy-mongering narratives driven by Corbyn supporters so far.

    You can see them all lined up on the Corbyn-supporting websites; the latest perhaps being Skwawkbox's claim that a mysterious fireman had told them that the real death toll was 200, and multiple sources were telling them that the Government has issued D-Notices to cover it up.

    Before that we had Corbyn talking about confiscating empty property that seems not to exist.

    And the one about Boris telling a Labour MLA to "get stuffed", which seems quite restrainerd when said MLA had just called him a Liar in a session of the London Assembly.

    Then we had the stuff about Neoliberals and Privatisation, when the organisation running Grenfell Tower is actually an ALMO with a majority of tenants on the board.

    Then there is some pretty murky stuff in the Grenfell Action Group, who's blog spends much time comparing their local authority to Nazis and North Koreans.

    There is no end to it.

    Maybe it is time to create a list.
    It's absolutely shocking that you've had a look on the Internet and found two things that aren't true, one thing that's unfair, and a statement by a politician that you disagree with.
    I would say it is shocking that you find rumour-mongering acceptable in these circumstances,
    You see. You really shouldn't be so surprised. In the course of our microscopically short exchange, you've already made up something about me!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?

    Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
    If it's "we agree to everything you ask", the EU might be happy to talk. Brexiteers who are unhappy with this can blame Mrs May for triggering Article 50 before we were ready, as they themselves demanded. Unhappy Remainers can blame Brexiteers for screwing up, as always.
  • chloechloe Posts: 308
    HaroldO said:

    chloe said:

    Morning all.
    May has to go ASAP. Hammond should be PM, unopposed. Soft Brexit for which there is probably a majority in the Commons. Start to heal the divisions from the referendum. Deal with fallout from fire and other limited things for which minority government can get agreement for. General election in 2 years time when negotiations have ended, following shortened competitive leadership election.

    They cannot go unopposed again.
    I see no other way with the negotiations starting & May is getting worse not better.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Am i right in thinking if you want hard brexit you believe Davis is the answer, if you want hammond you want soft brexit and if you want boris you want a laugh?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,295
    edited June 2017
    chloe said:

    Morning all.
    May has to go ASAP. Hammond should be PM, unopposed.

    If there were a successor that could command universal support, or at least sufficient support to be unopposed, that person would right now be PM. However, neither Johnson nor Hammond is in that position and no other even comes close.

    In 1924, Baldwin would have been ousted had the party been able to agree on a successor after his party was reduced to 258 seats in a snap election. But no candidate out of Austen Chamberlain, Curzon, Balfour, Derby or even Bridgeman and Joynson-Hicks could manage universal support. As a result, he rode out the storm, helped by the acute time constraints that the Unionists were under. It did however lead to the first ever Labour government.

    If Theresa May goes to the second part of that parallel - the 1924 general election in which the Unionists won what remains the greatest victory ever won by a single party operating without an electoral arrangement - I think the Tories would be very happy. However I confess I would personally be considerably surprised.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    edited June 2017

    Lets be serious, if Remain had won by 52/48 we would have had exactly the same problem - they would have claimed the question was decided, there would be no change to our status in the EU for the foreseeable future and there would have been no attempt whatsoever to do anything about the 48% who voted leave.

    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.

    There was no getting around it.

    The EU want to federalise, and continue their project to build a new country called Europe. And they didn't want the UK to be a disruptive influence on it.

    Either we actively helped with the project, or got dragged along with it, or we left.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260

    JackW said:



    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.

    Christ.
    So with their internal numbers saying Corbyn would win power May carried serenely on as if she was still getting a landslide. Thats her level of emotional and political intelligence.

    You really want her negotiating Brexit?
    You know my views on May.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,260
    ydoethur said:

    I also note that the 1972 European Communities Bill only passed 3rd reading by a majority of 34.

    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 284.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/jul/13/european-communities-bill

    Even I can work out that is a majority of 17, not 34!
    Argh. Good point! Which, thankfully, reinforces my earlier one ;-)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
    Do you mean pick a leader through a "smoke-filled rooms" process and then hope to get it ratified by an election? Surely that's not on.
    Well, if they only have one candidate then they won't even need a ballot of MPs. If they have a ballot of MPs then the number 2 candidate drops out, likewise. (Have I got this right?) I don't know what the rules say but logistically they could have this done by Monday night.

    Even if they need to ask the members, how long does that really have to take?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,912
    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
    Do you mean pick a leader through a "smoke-filled rooms" process and then hope to get it ratified by an election? Surely that's not on.
    Like Howard you mean? Doesn't require an election.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,901
    nielh said:

    Might be worth sparing a thought right now to all the people who paid £3 to make Corbyn leader and make labour unelectable!

    Thought: chortle.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,840
    Beautiful sunny day in London, people running, cycling, walking, chilling.

    The government is slowly putting support in place for the Grenfell victims.

    The Conservatives have a majority of some kind. And Brexit will be what Brexit will be.

    Far from ideal but not a calamity either.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,270
    JackW said:

    Two well deserved George Medals in the queen's birthday honours list:

    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...)

    Is there nothing Theresa May can't screw up?
    Getting more votes & MPs than Corbyn?

    That was when she had Nick and Fiona alongside. That's the point: since her aides were forced out to save the reputation of Sir Lynton Crosby, Theresa May has no disinterested advisors.
    Somewhat off the mark.

    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.
    Wow, thanks for that insight and information!

    I never thought for a second Crosby would endorse that Social Care policy fuckup that hits core Conservative leaning voters. It would be like Labour proposing to remove workers rights or something.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
    Do you mean pick a leader through a "smoke-filled rooms" process and then hope to get it ratified by an election? Surely that's not on.
    Well, if they only have one candidate then they won't even need a ballot of MPs. If they have a ballot of MPs then the number 2 candidate drops out, likewise. (Have I got this right?) I don't know what the rules say but logistically they could have this done by Monday night.

    Even if they need to ask the members, how long does that really have to take?
    Agree (I think). Two coronations in a row is a bad look. Surely a proper contest could be done and dusted within a month.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,741

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?
    Do you mean pick a leader through a "smoke-filled rooms" process and then hope to get it ratified by an election? Surely that's not on.
    Like Howard you mean? Doesn't require an election.
    No, I didn't mean that. The original question was about whether May needed to wait till the Queen's Speech. Being elected unopposed still takes time, and if an election is called, how can anyone guarantee there won't be a contest?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,901

    I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.

    A great shame that you've been so restrained in your posting over these three years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,295

    nielh said:

    Might be worth sparing a thought right now to all the people who paid £3 to make Corbyn leader and make labour unelectable!

    Thought: chortle.
    Spare a further thought for those who paid £3 and then £25 in a desperate bid to stop Labour electing somebody who would utterly destroy them...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,836

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?

    Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
    Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.

    I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,263

    Saltire said:

    But it is better than running away from the problem like you are suggesting.

    Agree. Every future GE for the Tories would be dogged by 'what will you do if you win? questions. 'Will you govern this time, or will it be too hard'?

    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.
    Tories and humility are an oxymoron. They are rightly hoist by their own petard, the sooner they go the better.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,840
    FF43 said:

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?

    Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
    If it's "we agree to everything you ask", the EU might be happy to talk. Brexiteers who are unhappy with this can blame Mrs May for triggering Article 50 before we were ready, as they themselves demanded. Unhappy Remainers can blame Brexiteers for screwing up, as always.
    There is also a subset of Conservative Leaver who is furious and unhappy with the situation today and can't for the life of them see that they brought it all on themselves.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    DavidL said:

    Our country is not a fair ride. People don't get a go with it just because they want to or the Tories are a bit demoralised. Labour can't form a government with anyone other than the Tories and that is not going to happen. They just don't have enough MPs. It's what happens when you lose.

    It's time for the Tories to man up, get rid of May and get on with running the show. There is plenty to do.

    Agree. And the Tories have the opportunity to demonstrate what they said they would bring to the country: leadership.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    calum said:
    Is the bridge thing to make it easier for football fans to get to Glasgow?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,263
    nichomar said:

    The current front page of the BBC News website has a picture of the protests. Three placards are visible:

    "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.

    I still dont understand when in the early hours of the disaster she did not turn, check the emergency services had adequate resources and then goneon to see what the survivors required. She could have then gone back to Downing street announced the public enquiry and set up a multi agency team to deal with the aftermath. Now thats leadership.
    Becausze she is an automaton, no emotion and no clue how to act normal in these kind of situations. Terrible terrible person to be running the country but thaty is the Tories for you, hearts of stone.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,456
    For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,295
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?

    Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
    Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.

    I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
    Until the 1850s it usually only met for the autumn - September to December. I think that changed for the Crimean War but I'm not certain.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185

    For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?

    ...pound shop Cameron?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,270
    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Might be worth sparing a thought right now to all the people who paid £3 to make Corbyn leader and make labour unelectable!

    Thought: chortle.
    Spare a further thought for those who paid £3 and then £25 in a desperate bid to stop Labour electing somebody who would utterly destroy them...
    I thought it was a cheek to get involved in another party's election, so I didn't pay £3.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,295

    For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?

    That's easy. He stands for Boris and his ethos is self-aggrandisement.

    He's a more intelligent, more amusing and more inefficient version of Gordon Brown.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,263

    I've commented on this before, about 3 years ago, but this site really has deteriorated in quality to become an overt left-wing campaignin site. This risible little rant by David Herdson exemplifies this... people come here for some attempt at objective views relevant to betting on political outcomes, not for splenetic remainiacs and rabid corbynistas to hijack as their soapbox agitiating for revolution and continually campaigning against the results of national democratic votes. It's really got to stop, it's not just here, it's pervasive in the BBC and other mainstream media this constant irresponsible attempt at whipping up of a mob. It's dangerous, it's stupid, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and stop now.

    LOL, what a parody , how can some headbanger be more right wing than usual mob on here.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,270

    For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?

    Being a buffoon by saying something silly and hoping people laugh with him?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    My Week: Arlene Foster*

    Thursday

    Back in to see the PM and the chief whip. She looks a bit of a mess. She says we’ve got to do this for the sake of stability, which means we might need to alleviate some concerns.

    “So,” she says, “first of all, I’ve fixed up a meeting between you and Ruth Davidson. For dinner. Next week.”

    “Sounds chummy,” I say, checking my diary. “Are we bringing husbands?”

    The PM makes that choking noise again. Then she says it’s really important, because apparently this Ruth Davidson woman, whoever she is, is particularly concerned that we can guarantee the rights of the LGBTs. So I ask her whether they’re an offshoot of the SDLP, or perhaps the UUP or PBP, but she doesn’t know. Northern Ireland politics is so confusing. Even for me.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/434e42de-52bc-11e7-9c77-dc4d2ab46f4b
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    edited June 2017
    Deep in drink last night and watching You Tube videos I put on an old Moody Blues song and suddenly thought.

    "Is Jeremy the Timothy Leary for the 20 teens?"

    Look at it. Counter culture, populist message, attracts the young disillusioned, and ....

    is spaced out on mind altering drugs ideology

    :lol:

    Turn on, Tune in and Drop Out indeed
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,518
    edited June 2017
    ydoethur said:


    I think Corbyn is getting carried away in talking of leading a government himself. He's not very bright and he's probably still slightly stunned by the result (bearing in mind he always expected to lose badly and his real goal was to ensure he had a left wing successor). Unless he's actually as stupid as he comes across he must know he's simply not up to the job (it was intriguing to look at @RochdalePioneers' list and think that actually substitute Corbyn for May and in many ways it would be nearer the mark).

    The risk is that he ends up looking hubristic or he does something totally crazy like announce he's always been in favour of shooting 50 British soldiers a week to apologise for the Arab-Israeli War (he's never done anything like that in the past but having spent two months industriously abandoning his old principles that may change). But even if he doesn't remember the fundamentals are still against him.

    One difficulty that the Tories and anti-Corbyn people generally have is that they don't get him at all. They project on to him every left-wing idea and some more, and think he has subtle unspoken objectives ("his real goal", etc.).

    I've known him personally on and off for 50 years. He's the original WYSIWYG politician - genuinely worried about the poor and the oppressed, anti-imperialist and anti-Western dominance, and at a personal level a nice man who dislikes making politics about trading insults. He has no interest in personal wealth and fame, though of course he's pleased that his ideas are proving popular.

    He isn't interested in any secret agenda, whether to seize total power in the Labour Party (he doesn't even try seriously to get left-wing candidates into by-elecitons), to support Hamas or the IRA, to foment street riots or whatever. He simply thinks his duty is to argue a case for the losers in the world that we live in, irrespective of personal comfort. If that gets a majority, that's great. If it doesn't, one must simply keep trying. Getting old or tired is not relevant and he'll keep going as long as he can.

    Now there are obvious counter-arguments to this, e.g. to suggest that his proposals won't work. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.

    But the fundamental issue from my earlier post remains the key. The Tories are tired. They don't know why they want to govern, who they want to lead them or what they want to do. Labour does, rightly or wrongly, and in the end an idea beats a vacuum, one way or another.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,295
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Might be worth sparing a thought right now to all the people who paid £3 to make Corbyn leader and make labour unelectable!

    Thought: chortle.
    Spare a further thought for those who paid £3 and then £25 in a desperate bid to stop Labour electing somebody who would utterly destroy them...
    I thought it was a cheek to get involved in another party's election, so I didn't pay £3.
    You misunderstood. My comment was about genuine Labour supporters who wanted to stop Corbyn wrecking the party. The likes of @SouthamObserver who compared the leadership election to 'a colossal self satisfied wank that they will let off in the faces of the British people and [Labour members] will be astonished when the British are delighted rather than disgusted.'

    Although the implication of your comment is you voted without paying...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    Saltire said:

    But it is better than running away from the problem like you are suggesting.

    Agree. Every future GE for the Tories would be dogged by 'what will you do if you win? questions. 'Will you govern this time, or will it be too hard'?

    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.
    Tories and humility are an oxymoron. They are rightly hoist by their own petard, the sooner they go the better.
    SNP keen for another election soon?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,907
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:


    May has to get the QS through and therefore can't go immediately.

    Is there a constitutional reason for this? They seem to be able to delay the thing until they've finished haggling, so can't they delay it some more while the Conservative Party works out who it would have confidence in?

    Obviously there are the EU negotiations too and time for those was already short but it seems fairly ridiculous to try to negotiate with someone who probably won't be in the job for more than a month or two.
    Parliament can't do any other business until the QS is done. Whilst we of course know that the world won't end without elected children shouting at each other across a small room, it would look appalling not to have parliament in session through to the autumn, with MPs unable to do the myriad things they have been elected for, such as hold the government to account for any failings on public housing policy, or responding to any further security incidents.

    I don't know in history whether parliament has been effectively suspended for such a long time since the 1650s?
    Wasn't the QS delayed after 2010 too?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?


    Does anyone?

    Apart from Boris?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,901
    On R4 this am I was struck by the number of times that Damien Green suggested that we turn to the experts and wait for their judgment on the Grenfell tragedy.

    In slightly over a week the despised experts have been returned to power, the disempowered smellysocks have gone from The People to enemies of The People and Corbyn is a realistic contender for PM.

    Topsy-turvy!
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024

    JackW said:

    Two well deserved George Medals in the queen's birthday honours list:

    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...)

    Is there nothing Theresa May can't screw up?
    Getting more votes & MPs than Corbyn?

    That was when she had Nick and Fiona alongside. That's the point: since her aides were forced out to save the reputation of Sir Lynton Crosby, Theresa May has no disinterested advisors.
    Somewhat off the mark.

    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.
    Christ.
    did they not ask you to save seats on the south coast in the final days?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited June 2017
    Interesting piece by David, but like others I don't see that it is a viable strategy even in pure party-political terms. It would very high-risk in normal circumstances, and David might be making the same mistake that Theresa May just made of underestimating Labour under Corbyn: what if he managed to blame all the difficulties of his no doubt disastrous minority government on the Tories?

    Worse, these are far from normal circumstances: the Article 50 clock is ticking. If the DUP has to be bought off, well, it has to be bought off; that's the hand which the electorate dealt us. In the national interest, we just have to 'keep buggering on', as Churchill put it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Now there are obvious counter-arguments to this, e.g. to suggest that his proposals won't work. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.

    Except that's not true.

    He wants unilateral nuclear disarmament. Campaigned for it all his life. CND, Stop The War. The whole nine yards.

    Now he is within a sniff of power, when asked the question, does he argue the case without obfuscation?

    No, he says renew Trident.

    It is entirely reasonable for people to suspect that he is a calculating careerist who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power, and to further assume that if in power he would abandon his new found position in a heartbeat to return the electorally unpalatable position he previously held.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,592
    Sorry, I don't buy David's argument. Better to keep Corbyn away from Government, if only for a few more months, and hope that those swing voters come to their senses.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,901
    Well, Tessy did say she wanted a more united Britain.

    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/875973789162631168
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Scott_P said:

    Now there are obvious counter-arguments to this, e.g. to suggest that his proposals won't work. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.

    Except that's not true.

    He wants unilateral nuclear disarmament. Campaigned for it all his life. CND, Stop The War. The whole nine yards.

    Now he is within a sniff of power, when asked the question, does he argue the case without obfuscation?

    No, he says renew Trident.

    It is entirely reasonable for people to suspect that he is a calculating careerist who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power, and to further assume that if in power he would abandon his new found position in a heartbeat to return the electorally unpalatable position he previously held.
    The Project is all. Say anything, do anything to get into power then start the killing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,592
    Scott_P said:

    Now there are obvious counter-arguments to this, e.g. to suggest that his proposals won't work. But the Tories undermine themselves by imagining a fantasy evil rogue who needs to be exposed. It doesn't work because he isn't. He's simply an idealist who thinks one should argue the case without obfuscation. There are worse things in a democracy and sometimes we need a change from calculating careerists who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power.

    Except that's not true.

    He wants unilateral nuclear disarmament. Campaigned for it all his life. CND, Stop The War. The whole nine yards.

    Now he is within a sniff of power, when asked the question, does he argue the case without obfuscation?

    No, he says renew Trident.

    It is entirely reasonable for people to suspect that he is a calculating careerist who will adopt most positions to gain and retain power, and to further assume that if in power he would abandon his new found position in a heartbeat to return the electorally unpalatable position he previously held.
    To be fair to Corbyn, he argues that it is Labour policy to renew Trident. Not his own personal view. He will no doubt seek to amend the policy at whichever conference it comes up again (iirc there has to be a gap of two years before it can be debated again).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,388

    For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?


    Does anyone?

    Apart from Boris?
    Advantage Boris. First and last. Nothing else counts.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    Lets be serious, if Remain had won by 52/48 we would have had exactly the same problem - they would have claimed the question was decided, there would be no change to our status in the EU for the foreseeable future and there would have been no attempt whatsoever to do anything about the 48% who voted leave.

    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.

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    It hasn't even been a year since the Brexit referendum and it already feels like a completely different country now. Fuck knows where we go from here...

    That is what happens when one side wins by 2% and everyone goes "It's clear that the will of the people is Brexit". No, it was the will of slightly more voters. In GE2015 the will of plenty of voters was to put Ed Miliband in Downing Street. The country is divided and rightly so.
    In 1975 the majority for "In" was over 30%. The mistake many Leavers have made is trying to pretend that their win was equally decisive. I understand it's a binary decision but the scale of the victory does matter and Mrs May's decision to simply ignore half the country and advocate a UKIP-style Brexit was a mistake and it has certainly played a part in us being in the mess we are now.

    Yes UKIP voices deserved to be heard but not to the exclusion of everybody else.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    You feel that David H is a splenetic remainiac, a rabid corbynista and an overt left-wing campaigner?

    Man, our sleeper operation is GOOD.

    But welcome to the site.

    LOL!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    For those who want Boris to be next Conservative leader (and probably PM): what does he stand for? What's his ethos?

    His ethos is that Boris Johnson has been destined from birth for the highest office, thanks to his ready wit, his ability to wing it, and an amusing joke to be brought out whenever he gets into a tight corner.
This discussion has been closed.