Ship of Fools: Theresa May to resign, when?

Thread: Theresa May to resign, when? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020221

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Theresa May:

1. consistently avoided meeting people face-to-face during the election. Lots more can be said about the campaign but it’s all been said and doesn’t need rehearsing here

2. went too speedily to see the Queen (it’s said that Her Majesty was a bit upset but how that can be verified I’ve no idea)

3. returned to Downing Street and read from a prepared speech (I saw her turn the page) and stated that she had been to see the queen and was now to form a government, thus not using the usual language of protocol (Her Majesty has asked me …)

4. is cosying up to an organisation the effect of which is likely to harm Northern Ireland

5. visited the emergency services after the tragic fire in west London but not the victims of the fire or residents in Notting Hill; she did visit some in hospital but it was a very clinical (excuse me) meeting

6. belatedly received victims of the fire in Downing Street, not on the streets of Notting Hill.

Mrs May now seems to be getting a bit of a grilling from the media and about time, too. There is growing anger directed to her in the country, it seems.

Any suggestions on when she will go?

I am thinking very quickly after the Queen’s Speech if that ever happens.

Note: I didn't even mention the 19 pairs of shoes she wore during the election. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

She has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.

I have (in All Saints) asked peeps to pray for her, beleaguered as she is, with all her faults and failings, as she is only human (like the rest of us).

For her own soul's sake, and for the sake of the country, she should throw in the towel.

Now.

She will then, I hope, be remembered, as a person of some integrity. There is no shame, IMHO, in admitting honestly that you're not up to the job.

IJ

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Seems she visited the scene of the fire yesterday - I missed that. The residents apparently didn't miss her and made their feelings very obvious: she had to be accompanied out of the area with a police escort.

BTW I am no royalist but I have to admire HM for visiting the scene of the fire and, this morning, for standing for the minute's silence without the aid of a stick (as did Philip).

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, it seems that Jeremy Corbyn, and Sadiq Khan, certainly beat May in the race to visit the victims, with HM the Q (who is, after all, Very Old) close behind.

May's failure to engage immediately with those directly affected (whatever the logistical or other reasons - or excuses - might have been) was a huge mistake on her part.

IJ

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

It isn't just the facts of the visits, it's the way that they interacted with people. Jeremy Corbyn showed complete empathy with people, his body language showed just how much he cared and was affected by it all. I have to admit I didn't see TV coverage of Mrs May's visit - but I did read that one person described her as 'cold like a fish', which fits with her general persona.

Edited to add: it seems that one reason given for Mrs May's non-visit to local people on Thursday was the question of security. How ironic, then, that HM visited on the following day?

[ 17. June 2017, 15:56: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't think she's going to quit unless all of the other EU leaders tell her that they can't negotiate with her because she has no political credibility.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

What happens if she does resign? Who takes over?

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
What happens if she does resign? Who takes over?

This could be the strongest argument for her staying - nobody will want the job. Not that I think that's a reason to stay: if she wants to go, she should be allowed to go.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

She was going to get a kicking whatever she did, in a way that Corbyn or HMQ weren't. What a shit job.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

TIME Magazine is referring to this as "Theresa May's Hurricane Katrina Moment" -- comparing it to George Bush's poor response after the devastation in New Orleans in 2005.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
What happens if she does resign? Who takes over?

Procedurally, the Conservatives would have a leadership election and whoever wins would take over from Mrs May as PM (just as she took over from David Cameron as PM when she became leader of the party). I don't know the ins and outs of Conservative party rules about who would be leader during that time: when John Major resigned as leader after the 1997 general election, he remained in post until the leadership election was complete.

Weirdly, as far as I can tell, the Tories don't have a deputy leader, neither is there a deputy prime minister, so there's no one automatically to take her place if she decided not to see things through until the leadership election was completed (though according to Wikipedia, the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't automatically become Prime Minister when the latter resigns or becomes incapacitated). Damian Green is "First Secretary of State", which apparently makes him effectively second only to the PM in terms of authority in the cabinet; whether he would step up to the plate in those circumstances I don't know.

And I don't know much more than that, I'm afraid!

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Point of clarification, please. As Home Secretary, would May have had to wear ministerial responsibility over issues like safety regulations regarding materials and practices regarding fire alarms, etc.? If so, would not the fire be something of a political body blow?

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
What happens if she does resign? Who takes over?

Jeremy Corbyn?

Explanation: everybody (well, most) now realise that Brexit negotiations will be too difficult.

Vote of no-confidence puts Labour in who are not really committed to Brexit but to something bigger.

I think this vote of confidence is likely to come after the Queen's Speech - whatever, she will see this through and then resign.

It becomes increasingly clear (I'm not suggesting any manipulation) that Brexit will be a disaster for the UK. Jeremy puts the agreed deal to Parliament and it is rejected. Macron is right - we can stay.

She must feel that life is not worth the candle at the moment, although I have little sympathy for her. Go, get a life somewhere else.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... It becomes increasingly clear (I'm not suggesting any manipulation) that Brexit will be a disaster for the UK. ...

But Corbyn and McDonnell

a. haven't a majority either, and

b. are both Brexiteers, an inconvenient fact that some of those who adulate him are choosing to turn a blind eye to.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
She was going to get a kicking whatever she did, in a way that Corbyn or HMQ weren't. What a shit job.

Yep. It can be a shit job. Which is why it's important for the person who puts herself forward for it doesn't do the job in a shit way.

The least one can expect from a national leader based in London is for that leader to be fairly instantly on the scene of a London tragedy (if not travelling) to stand with the people involved. It wouldn't have been impossible, either, to have issued a quick statement of response from Number 10, for breakfast TV, however formulaic it might've been.

The ink on the ballot forms was hardly dry when Theresa May announced that the Queen had asked her to form a new government. It wouldn't have hurt anything for her to have been as equally prompt and eager to demonstrate horror at the fire, and support for London's emergency services and the community response.

(And bear in mind, too, that the Queen - and other royals - got a huge kicking after Diana's death; both in the media and via vox pop, for not allegedly providing the nation with the response it wanted to see. That did begin to change, of course, when she eventually went up to London.)

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Sorry didn't make it clear. Vote of no-confidence results in a general election and Labour gets in.

JC is not a Remainer because he wants something bigger, he's not actually committed to being a Brexiteer ISTM.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

It can be a shit job.
Remember how Blair visibly aged when it became clear the Iraq venture was not turning out as it was hoped at the time.

May will go when her position becomes untenable due to back stabbing by her own party, not because of Corbyn being hailed as the new messiah.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

May's apparent lack of any sort of emotional response to this or any other event, and her famous inability to give a direct answer to any question make me wonder if she has Asperger's or some similar syndrome.

But I am not any sort of expert and don't mind being shot down in flames!

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

That Mrs May has gone from hero to zero in eight short weeks is a sure sign that she's not up to the job. Though I find these party leaders' head to head debates, American style, quite tacky, they're here to stay and any politician who needs to avoid them needs to avoid being party leader. I believe it when I hear that she was reduced to tears by the sight of devastation at the fire, any Christian would be, but her failure to engage was conspicuous alongside Jeremy Corbyn's high profile visits, and the ease with which the Queen and Prince William slotted into the proceedings. But when will she resign?

I suspect that many of the people who are willing her to fail and willing her administration to crash are those who want to install Jeremy Corbyn in Downing St, even though he just lost a general election. He'll probably get there, but only if he gets voted in. If Mrs May can't get a Queens Speech through parliament, she and her administration will go quickly. If she survives that, the Tory Party will let the dust of the present situation settle, and then they'll knife her. They won't, under any circumstances, let her lead them into another election.

Prime Ministers in the past have found the job a poisoned chalice. Gordon Brown coveted the job for ten years and when he got there, it turned to dust in his hands. The same thing has happened to Theresa May and as with Brown, I have an element of sympathy for her.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... JC is not a Remainer because he wants something bigger, he's not actually committed to being a Brexiteer ISTM.

Corbyn is a Brexiteer because having to fit in with the EU gets in the way of his dream of Socialism in one Country.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
those who want to install Jeremy Corbyn in Downing St, even though he just lost a general election.

If you don't win and the other person doesn't win then you draw.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Much though I dislike the current versions of both parties intensely, one cannot avoid the fact that Mrs May's got more seats and more votes than Mr Corbyn's.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... JC is not a Remainer because he wants something bigger, he's not actually committed to being a Brexiteer ISTM.
Corbyn is a Brexiteer because having to fit in with the EU gets in the way of his dream of Socialism in one Country.

His dream is bigger than that, I think it's for 'one world'.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Much though I dislike the current versions of both parties intensely

This is one on which we agree wholeheartedly!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Much though I dislike the current versions of both parties intensely, one cannot avoid the fact that Mrs May's got more seats and more votes than Mr Corbyn's.

The think is our system doesn't work like that. You need to form a government with a parliamentary majority. WHether you get the most votes - or even the most seats - is not the point. If you don't have a clear majority, you need to find other parties to support you.

The truth is that Corbyn could find wider support that May. But not enough. May has made a deal from hell to stay in, because she was forced to. But she hads an effective majority of 6, which is very shaky.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

What is Ms May's connection to the Tower Fire?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

1. "Optics".

It's a major disaster in the nation's capital and it is expected of a national leader that they issue an appropriate response to such events and are seen to be present on the site in solidarity with the victims (living and dead) at the earliest opportunity thereafter.

Doing so is a way of demonstrating that they are the leader of the entire nation and not just those who voted for them.

Not doing so suggests indifference or even disdain. (cf Bush and Katrina).

2. The fire took place in an area run by a Conservative council (same as May) split between a relatively poor north (where the tower is) and an extremely affluent south. As such it is a microcosm of the country as a whole. The council has been unbelievably inept in its crisis management. It's hard not to draw parallels.

3. The event has profoundly affected an already fragged UK, and she is not providing the moral leadership one expects of one's leaders at such times.

As the Sunday Times puts it this morning

quote:
when the Queen is our chief consoler, you know the PM is lost

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... JC is not a Remainer because he wants something bigger, he's not actually committed to being a Brexiteer ISTM.
Corbyn is a Brexiteer because having to fit in with the EU gets in the way of his dream of Socialism in one Country.

Ooo, the oh-so-subtle insinuation that Corbyn is a Stalinist. FFS...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It is also being said that the Tory gov have been putting off a review of fire safety regulations for years and have been cutting back on mandatory fire safety checks in the name of "cutting red tape".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... JC is not a Remainer because he wants something bigger, he's not actually committed to being a Brexiteer ISTM.
Corbyn is a Brexiteer because having to fit in with the EU gets in the way of his dream of Socialism in one Country.
Ooo, the oh-so-subtle insinuation that Corbyn is a Stalinist. FFS...

A great insult as he's not a Stalinist, but rather a Trot.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Don't make me laugh; it's a sign of how mainstream politics had lurched to the right in recent years that such epithets are used for a moderate democratic socialist like Corbyn outside the swivel-eyed wing of the Tory party.

Meanwhile, the answer to the OP is surely when someone finds the last Horcrux.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
May's apparent lack of any sort of emotional response to this or any other event, and her famous inability to give a direct answer to any question make me wonder if she has Asperger's or some similar syndrome.

But I am not any sort of expert and don't mind being shot down in flames!

No, I'll just leave it that you're working with the cartoon version of Asperger's.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

The Times is reporting that Tory backbenchers are giving Theresa May just 10 days to get her act together.

The BBC is reporting that this Parliamentary session will last two years, so no Queen's Speech next year. This to enable more Commons discussion of Brexit - believe that if you like.

And still no news of a deal with the DUP.

What a shambles!

TEN DAYS?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

She and the North Kensington council cannot learn from this that they have nothing to lose by getting stuck in on the ground.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is also being said that the Tory gov have been putting off a review of fire safety regulations for years and have been cutting back on mandatory fire safety checks in the name of "cutting red tape".

It can't be just coincidence that disasters similar to this recent event have happened under a Tory regimes.
Many of use must recall the series of tragedies that occurred through the 80's under the Conservatives. A familiar pattern emerged of initial shock and horror followed by a list of recommendations, some of which were obviously not enforced otherwise why are we back in the same place some 30 years later?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Her response after meeting with representatives of those effected and the task force was better, to be fair.

They've now got the Red Cross organising the volunteers and donation and a team of civil servants shipped in to support co-ordation of information etc.

The most woeful response has been the council's. The government was slow to pick up on, and mitigate, that.

[ 18. June 2017, 07:43: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

They don't just need to be reviewing fire safety in all tower blocks, they need to be getting each council to review its disaster planning.

Normally the UK is good at that sort of thing, which is why the chaos on the ground is so shocking.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Ooo, the oh-so-subtle insinuation that Corbyn is a Stalinist. FFS...

No, as I've said before on these threads, I'm insinuating that he thinks he's Lenin. At the moment, his coming from nowhere and now having the wind in his sails is feeding that fantasy.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
His dream is bigger than that, I think it's for 'one world'.

Three questions, Mark:-

1. How would you persuade me there isn't a marked element of false messianism in that statement?

2. Are you sure that isn't your own projection? and

3. Apart from the way all of us would like to see that - it's an equivalent of motherhood and apple pie - is there any evidence either that there is a specific Corbyn version of it, or a specific and credible Corbyn programme for bringing it about.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
...it seems that one reason given for Mrs May's non-visit to local people on Thursday was the question of security. How ironic, then, that HM visited on the following day?

The Queen has lived with the fear of assassination for most of her life, and has never let it interfere with doing what she sees as her duty.

Also, nobody is holding the Queen responsible for the disaster or expecting her to do anything about it (as her powers are limited). So all she had to do was express sympathy. Mrs May has to answer difficult questions such as "Why did this happen?" and "What are you going to do to stop things like this happening again?" and it's already been established that she doesn't like difficult questions.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
What happens if she does resign? Who takes over?

This is one of my biggest questions and worries. Options would seem ot include Boris, Gove and Hunt, none of whom I would trust to open an envelope. There are others I am sure, but the very heirarchical nature of the Tory party would tend to rule them out.

Oddly enough, Boris might be one politically minded enough to cancel Brexit (and survive). But he only does things for his personal advantage, so he would be a disaster in every single area.

The Tories do have a serious lack of leadership in their party - not just May, but anyone else who could lead the party towards unity.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Ooo, the oh-so-subtle insinuation that Corbyn is a Stalinist. FFS...
No, as I've said before on these threads, I'm insinuating that he thinks he's Lenin. At the moment, his coming from nowhere and now having the wind in his sails is feeding that fantasy.

I think if there's a fantasy here it's yours. Why attribute Stalin's ideology to Corbyn if you're not trying to make that insinuation?

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

The fundamental problem is that the Conservatives are right royally screwed at the moment. It is that simple. Plan A to unite the party (A referendum so that they could shut up the Brexiteers for 10+ years) was a failure. Plan B to unite the party (aka the 'we all know Jeremy Corbyn is a sad loser, lets try and make the country believe that so we can get a super-majority that we can gerrymander to a permanent Conservative Government') was a second and I would suggest rather more catastrophic failure. Rather than a significant dimming of the in-fighting by both attempts, failing at both passes has caused the in-fighting to multiply. The uneasy coalition that the Conservative Party is is starting to unravel, and replacing May would just accelerate that process.

[ 18. June 2017, 11:06: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

The thing I cannot get my head round is Theresa May herself. Surely she realises she has flunked it? Surely she sees the writing on the wall in terms of the task ahead and the continual battering that she will get from all sides? Surely she is not so masochistic that she is staying of her own free will? Do Tory leaders simply do as they are told? Surely she realises that pressure to stay is not about 'We love you' rather than 'We have no-one else we love'?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think she has a sense of duty - and despised Cameron for just walking away from the mess he'd made.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
The thing I cannot get my head round is Theresa May herself. Surely she realises she has flunked it? Surely she sees the writing on the wall in terms of the task ahead and the continual battering that she will get from all sides? Surely she is not so masochistic that she is staying of her own free will? Do Tory leaders simply do as they are told? Surely she realises that pressure to stay is not about 'We love you' rather than 'We have no-one else we love'?

She simply has to stay, to preserve the Tory govt. If she quit, another leadership election would be bizarre and laughable. She can't call another general election, because Labour might easily win.

I suppose it suits Labour at the moment. Quote from Napoleon, never interrupt your opponent when they're cocking things up (rough paraphrase).

But who is going to predict the next steps? Only a fool. The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

So I suppose it's 'selfishness' and quit or 'hypocrisy' and stay when you know you are not up to the job. And she a vicar's daughter. I know that's an over-simplification. I couldn't be in her (19 pairs of [Big Grin]

) shoes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Calling it hypocrisy is a bit weird. It's what politicians do, they keep going, well, usually. And if she quit now, she would go down in history as a big time loser. She has a chance to survive, and keep the Tories alive. A Labour government is their ultimate no-no.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I just drove past the tower. OMG, what an awful sight. We went silent in the car, then tears, anger, disgust. How can anyone understand this?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

To an extent, Tory leaders do do as they are told. Especially when they are under pressure. The party has to retain a facade of unity.

In fact, they are very much controlled by the party all along. This is particulalry the case when they are weak leaders (like May and Cameron), because they are simply put up as a froont, with others controlling the party in reality.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This is particulalry the case when they are weak leaders (like May and Cameron)

As a tangent I'm not sure that Cameron was actually that 'weak' in the conventional sense. Very few Tory leaders have lasted for longer.

Ultimately I'm not sure on what level he actually 'cared' about the job, beyond thinking he'd be 'rather good at it' and it was hubris that brought him down in the end, at which point he could no longer be arsed.

[ 18. June 2017, 16:34: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
To an extent, Tory leaders do do as they are told. Especially when they are under pressure. The party has to retain a facade of unity.

In fact, they are very much controlled by the party all along. This is particulalry the case when they are weak leaders (like May and Cameron), because they are simply put up as a froont, with others controlling the party in reality.

I read this and thought 'I don't get it; why doesn't she just go (if she wishes)?'. And then I thought about some churches where priests are under the authority of whoever and have no freedom to quit. Is it something similar? Whilst I don't agree with such systems I can understand them.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This is particulalry the case when they are weak leaders (like May and Cameron)
As a tangent I'm not sure that Cameron was actually that 'weak' in the conventional sense. Very few Tory leaders have lasted for longer.

Ultimately I'm not sure on what level he actually 'cared' about the job, beyond thinking he'd be 'rather good at it' and it was hubris that brought him down in the end, at which point he could no longer be arsed.

I think he was weak in a different way - he was not a strong leader. He was an arrogant shit who felt that he deserved the job. That is weakness of a different sort.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Cameron my have been weak and a privileged shit but he was the best they had, which was the only reason he has lasted to the election and beyond. Then his gamble to deal with the Euro-sceptics in the Tory party failed and he had to go.

Now what have we: A government that has leaving the EU as its sole purpose for being led by a Remainer who has to cosy up to the nastiest political party Westminster has ever seen. She will be held to ransom by them and the result will be that we will be lumbered with the DUP's preferred version of Brexit and sod the interests of the rest of the UK.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quetzalcoatl:

quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.

Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...

Because people get old. As they get old, they become more conservative. Or have interests which align conservative/ fears which the conservatives exploit well.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...

Yeah. You know Justin Trudeau, the guy routinely hailed by international liberaldom as the greatest world leader alive right now? Well, his party had been reduced to third-place in the 2011 election, with 19% of the popular vote.

There was lots of talk about that being the end of the road for the Liberals, who had been dominating Canadian politics since at least the early Twentieth Century. Similar predictions had been made about the party in 1984, when they suffered a slightly less catastrophic drubbing at the hands of the Tories.

But of course, in both cases, they managed to pull themselves back together and retake their "rightful" place as the Natural Governing Party Of Canada. I would expect the British Tories to have at least as much resilience.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
As a tangent I'm not sure that Cameron was actually that 'weak' in the conventional sense. Very few Tory leaders have lasted for longer.

For five years he didn't have a majority of his own party, a situation that made his backbenchers restless. Instead of standing up to them he took to pretending to throw his weight around ineffectually in Europe.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
Because people get old. As they get old, they become more conservative. Or have interests which align conservative/ fears which the conservatives exploit well.

Because they have no principles beyond 'let's stay in power for as long as possible'.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...

Joint Oldest with the Whigs, who are not dead yet.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...
Because people get old. As they get old, they become more conservative. Or have interests which align conservative/ fears which the conservatives exploit well.

Is this actually true, statistically? I'm 64, and am as left wing as I have ever been, same is true of many of my contemporaries. My impression is that it's the generation after mine, who never knew of anything before Thatcher, who are the most conservative.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...
Joint Oldest with the Whigs, who are not dead yet.

If I remember my history correctly, the Conservative Party is closer to the old Whigs, who represented the business class, new money and campaigned for Free Trade. The Tories were for landed interests and tariffs to keep produce prices high.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...
Because people get old. As they get old, they become more conservative. Or have interests which align conservative/ fears which the conservatives exploit well.
Is this actually true, statistically? I'm 64, and am as left wing as I have ever been, same is true of many of my contemporaries. My impression is that it's the generation after mine, who never knew of anything before Thatcher, who are the most conservative.

According to this link, you do not hang around the average of your group. Your group and older voted majority Tory. The age bracket you think most conservative swung a bit towards Labour in this last election.
If you graph the age bracket section of the chart, it is a straight line, right pointing arrow to the grave.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...
Joint Oldest with the Whigs, who are not dead yet.
If I remember my history correctly, the Conservative Party is closer to the old Whigs, who represented the business class, new money and campaigned for Free Trade. The Tories were for landed interests and tariffs to keep produce prices high.

If I remember Wikipedia correctly...
The old Tories eventually died out as a party towards the end of the eighteenth century. However, the Whigs then began to split into factions at the end of the eighteenth century one of which became the new Tory party. After a succession of splits, minor parties, and mergers, the Tory faction turned into the Conservative Party under Victoria and the other faction of the Whigs into the Liberals.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

A plague on all their houses....

I dunno. I reckon the Land Of Government By Headless Chickens is ready for a change. Mr. Corbyn, over to you.....I wish...

IJ

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quetzalcoatl:
quote:
The Tories could rebuild. Well, pigs can do ballet.
Don't write them off just yet. There's a reason why they are the oldest political party...
Joint Oldest with the Whigs, who are not dead yet.
If I remember my history correctly, the Conservative Party is closer to the old Whigs, who represented the business class, new money and campaigned for Free Trade. The Tories were for landed interests and tariffs to keep produce prices high.
If I remember Wikipedia correctly...
The old Tories eventually died out as a party towards the end of the eighteenth century. However, the Whigs then began to split into factions at the end of the eighteenth century one of which became the new Tory party. After a succession of splits, minor parties, and mergers, the Tory faction turned into the Conservative Party under Victoria and the other faction of the Whigs into the Liberals.

Sorry if someone posted this, but does anyone else see the absurdity in the proposal by sacked Tory Minister Robert Halfon to rename the Conservative Party the "Workers Party"???? If this were done and if it were electorally successful, it would be Orwellian in its redefinition of terms and frightening in its hearkening to the names of fascist parties in pre-World War II Europe. But would people fall for this?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If I remember my history correctly, the Conservative Party is closer to the old Whigs, who represented the business class, new money and campaigned for Free Trade. The Tories were for landed interests and tariffs to keep produce prices high.

The Whigs were originally the nobles. Hence, they sided with the Puritans in their fights with Charles I as a mens of enhancing their own power Landed gentry were Tories. (Both great simplifications, of course) This pattern started to change with the growth in industry; the new industrialists liked the mercantilist policies of the Whigs and from there rose the Liberal Party, a combination of the old Whigs and these new Liberals. Gladstone's Home Rule changed a lot of this with the split of the Unionists from the Liberals.

You can see this quite clearly in the person of Harold Macmillan. His family (of Scottish crofters) had supported the Liberals but his father and uncle split and became members of the new Unionists - as did the Cavendish family. Macmillan married Lady Dorothy Cavendish - both of whose parents came from staunch Whig families but split from the Liberal Party over Home Rule.

A much more scholarly account is in The Liberal Tradition from Fox to Keynes by Bullock and Shock. Well worth reading.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I find all this finger pointing very disturbing. It seems that Theresa May is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. I'm not sure how I would have reacted in response to all the incidents that have occurred recently in the UK. Maybe I would have reacted in the same way as Ms May. Maybe I would have chosen a different path. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Don't you think she looks tired?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I find all this finger pointing very disturbing. It seems that Theresa May is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

If this is true, it is because she earned it. With help from her party, but earned no less for that.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

This is one of the reasons why they are so good at surviving. All the public anger at the screw-ups is focused on May. When she resigns, the new PM will get a honeymoon period DURING WHICH NOTHING ELSE WILL CHANGE. Jeremy Hunt is still Health Secretary, BoJo is still Foreign Secretary pissing away all the relationships the FO diplomats have built up over the last half century and Michael Gove is back from the dead, raring to trash the environment.

Look at what the government's actually doing, not who's in charge of the whole sorry mess. Does anyone seriously imagine that May could survive for more than five minutes without the approval of the party?

It would be great if nobody fell for the misdirection this time, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
This is one of the reasons why they are so good at surviving. All the public anger at the screw-ups is focused on May. When she resigns, the new PM will get a honeymoon period DURING WHICH NOTHING ELSE WILL CHANGE.

It won't be much of a honeymoon if you spend it with Arlene Foster.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Or Boris Johnson.

M. Barnier may end up having to negotiate with himself after all...

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Don't you think she looks tired?

Funny you should link that. Not absent from my mind, either.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
May's apparent lack of any sort of emotional response to this or any other event, and her famous inability to give a direct answer to any question make me wonder if she has Asperger's or some similar syndrome.

But I am not any sort of expert and don't mind being shot down in flames!
No, I'll just leave it that you're working with the cartoon version of Asperger's.

I don't think so. I made the same suggestion to one of our very highly qualified church psychiatric counsellors, and he said the same thing had crossed his mind some time ago - and he deals with it on a daily basis. But no-one pretends that's a diagnosis.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I am beginning to fear May may be somewhat like Pratchett's Lord Vetinari. Nobody wants her in power but everybody wants to keep someone else out of power more than they want to get rid of her.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It also reminds me of zugzwang in chess, where any move that you make is a bad one. In chess, you have to move, so you are compelled to make a bad one, if you are in zugzwang, but I suppose the Tories can try to carry on not making any move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang#Fischer_versus_Taimanov.2C_second_match_game

[ 19. June 2017, 19:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Cosying up to the DUP must surely be zugzwang (what a lovely word, BTW!).

IJ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Cosying up to the DUP must surely be zugzwang (what a lovely word, BTW!).

IJ

Yes, it arises out of zugzwang, but it still leaves them in it, as can happen in chess.

Well, it gives Labour the chance to make the Tories sweat, but never underestimate the ability of Labour to shoot themselves in both feet, and the head. I expect a right-wing plot quite soon.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

That is a wondrous word! Thank you.

I guess it takes sheer guts, determination and a bollocks-load of self-belief to reach the top job, or a job near enough in politics, that once you reach the pinnacle you are so convinced you earned it and have the right to be there that quitting would not enter the mind. And I believe this about those on the left as much as I do those on the right.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Dafyd:

quote:
I am beginning to fear May may be somewhat like Pratchett's Lord Vetinari.

Not in the slightest: Vetinari was competent.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
That is a wondrous word! Thank you.

I guess it takes sheer guts, determination and a bollocks-load of self-belief to reach the top job, or a job near enough in politics, that once you reach the pinnacle you are so convinced you earned it and have the right to be there that quitting would not enter the mind. And I believe this about those on the left as much as I do those on the right.

I think this is probably true, too. A kind of supreme unassailable confidence, the assumption of entitlement of possession of power, irrespective of objective ability.

In someone like Churchill, it wins wars, in others it divides continents and kills the welfare system of a nation. A real double-edged sword which is both needed for a nation's success, but fatal when in the wrong hands.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
That is a wondrous word! Thank you.

I guess it takes sheer guts, determination and a bollocks-load of self-belief to reach the top job, or a job near enough in politics, that once you reach the pinnacle you are so convinced you earned it and have the right to be there that quitting would not enter the mind. And I believe this about those on the left as much as I do those on the right.

Yes, that's where the analogy with chess breaks down. If you are in an impossible position (zugzwang) in chess, there's nothing you can do. You've probably lost, although some positions like that end in a draw.

But in politics, this isn't the case. For one thing, you can just wait, and hope for better times. I suppose also, in the case of May, you are almost called upon to sit tight, for the good of the party.

Most analogies fail in the end.

[ 20. June 2017, 10:10: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Dafyd:
quote:
I am beginning to fear May may be somewhat like Pratchett's Lord Vetinari.
Not in the slightest: Vetinari was competent.

I agree that's how it looks. But then Corbyn was doing his level best to appear hopeless until he had lulled May into calling an early election and now it turns out he's a master political strategist. Perhaps May has an even more complicated scheme.

Or perhaps not.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

A mere ten years after he should have taken the job, it looks like Vince Cable is going to stand for leadership of the LibDems.

Bang goes your two-party system.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Dafyd:
quote:
I am beginning to fear May may be somewhat like Pratchett's Lord Vetinari.
Not in the slightest: Vetinari was competent.
I agree that's how it looks. But then Corbyn was doing his level best to appear hopeless until he had lulled May into calling an early election and now it turns out he's a master political strategist. Perhaps May has an even more complicated scheme.

Or perhaps not.

Vetinari's insight was that what people most want is for tomorrow to be pretty-much like today; he also encouraged immigration because 'alloys are stronger'.

May, on the other hand...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A mere ten years after he should have taken the job, it looks like Vince Cable is going to stand for leadership of the LibDems.

Bang goes your two-party system.

It was fairly certain he would stand. Though as a leader he could be a mixed bag electorally (which will impact whether it results in a bang to the two-party system).

He has the advantage of having served in Cameron's coalition cabinet

He has the disadvantage of having served in Cameron's coalition cabinet

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
Vetinari's insight was that what people most want is for tomorrow to be pretty-much like today; he also encouraged immigration because 'alloys are stronger'.

So we're all agreed then; Vetinari for our next PM?

Could be bad news for mime artists...

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

It appears that the DUP might not back Mrs May. In which case the Queen's speech vote could be very close.

AFZ

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It appears that the DUP might not back Mrs May. In which case the Queen's speech vote could be very close.

AFZ

The Tories are demonstrating a complete inability and incompetence at negotiation. They cannot negotiate with the DUP (who are not the most complex or difficult people to negotiate with), so what hope for the Brexit negotiations.

I think the Queens Speech will be voted down, and we will have another election.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

O Jesu, mercy. Ladye, pray......

[Help]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I think the Queens Speech will be voted down, and we will have another election.

In which case May will be hay. Dried up in the June heat and blown away.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It appears that the DUP might not back Mrs May. In which case the Queen's speech vote could be very close.

AFZ
The Tories are demonstrating a complete inability and incompetence at negotiation. They cannot negotiate with the DUP (who are not the most complex or difficult people to negotiate with), so what hope for the Brexit negotiations.

I think the Queens Speech will be voted down, and we will have another election.

I do hope so, as she wants a "Two-year parliament" which would only require a single Queen's Speech to cover the whole period of the Brexit negotiations. By then, if not before, Theresa May will want out of politics for any number of reasons.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I googled "Queen's Speech" and found out what it is, but they didn't say what happens if it's voted down. So what does happen? Is it likely?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I googled "Queen's Speech" and found out what it is, but they didn't say what happens if it's voted down. So what does happen? Is it likely?

The Queen's speech along with budgets are confidence motions so, if it is voted down, the government falls. But that doesn't meant an automatic election. In theory, Corbyn (as leadet of the next biggest group) has 2 weeks to see if he can command the support of parliament.

AFZ

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A mere ten years after he should have taken the job, it looks like Vince Cable is going to stand for leadership of the LibDems.

Bang goes your two-party system.

1. Does anyone who served as a LibDem minister in the Con-LibDem coalition have a chance of ever being PM? (If that's what you mean).

2. How many average UK voters even know who he is?

3. Are you suggesting he might be a kingmaker in a hung parliament? I would think that the LibDems would regard any and all pacts, even super duper unofficial ones as political poison given recent history. And other progressive parties might be wary of pacts with the Lib Dems for precisely this reason.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
How many average UK voters even know who he is?

He's pretty well known and had a good reputation on the financial crisis. But also somewhat tarnished by the coalition government. I'm not sure he'd be wildly successful in reigniting the Lib-Dems.

They remind me of a Pentecostal sect always banging on about revival that never comes. Since Lloyd George and the 1st World War the declines and false dawns have been pretty consistent. (Ironically it was a lib-con coalition that did him in as well).

Their latest leaders have not really been Lloyd-Georges either. Kennedy drunk was worth the rest of them sober 5 times over. The others have not been transformative and while Cable seems like a good guy, as Sioni says it is about a decade too late for him and I don't see it happening now.

[ 21. June 2017, 06:02: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

alienfromzog:

quote:
In theory, Corbyn (as leadet of the next biggest group) has 2 weeks to see if he can command the support of parliament.

...and he will only get that if he can persuade a few Conservative backbenchers to support him, which is about as likely as Hell freezing over. So in practice, another election is almost guaranteed - and that's another umpty million pounds down the drain, and all the while the clock is ticking on the Brexit "negotiations".

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

If 400 MPs across the Commons cannot construct a stable non-partisan government, then we must return to another inconclusive choice between a one-party state and civil war.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
If 400 MPs across the Commons cannot construct a stable non-partisan government, then we must return to another inconclusive choice between a one-party state and civil war.

And soon we might have another King Charles [Devil]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
alienfromzog:
quote:
In theory, Corbyn (as leadet of the next biggest group) has 2 weeks to see if he can command the support of parliament.

...and he will only get that if he can persuade a few Conservative backbenchers to support him, which is about as likely as Hell freezing over. So in practice, another election is almost guaranteed - and that's another umpty million pounds down the drain, and all the while the clock is ticking on the Brexit "negotiations".

Yes, but you end up with a giant game of poker. The Tories might be reluctant to bring down a Corbyn govt, as an election would follow, in which Corbyn might get a majority, especially if he portrays the Tories as nihilists, or whatever term he chooses.

So they may hold off for a while, no doubt hoping that a Corbyn govt would also attract opprobium. Then it might depend on whether the Tories can win back support. At the moment, they are in a bad place, but hope springs eternal.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Forgot to say that the DUP probably hate Corbyn, because of his support for Sinn Fein, so they will support May in most things, especially if they see tons of money flowing across the Irish sea.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Whether or not there is a deal with the DUP (and I really hope not) the Queen's Speech will get through ok. The DUP will support it because they fear another election which Jeremy Corbyn would win.

I still think Theresa may will go soon after the speech, although this will not be directly related to the Speech. She'll see it through and then go. What can I do to nudge her? [Big Grin]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

To hold on in government the Tories have a challenge ahead of them. The first hurdle of which will be the Queens Speech. In a way stating that this will cover two years legislation was a clever move - if they get it voted through they don't need to jump that hurdle again next year (though there will still be budgets to get through), giving them a bit of breathing space before potentially having to go to the country again. Though, it's also risky - they could have probably put together a years legislative programme which avoided all the really difficult commitments in their manifesto (so, no additional austerity, no changes to pensions etc) and put in all the things that they'll get cross party support for (fire safety in high rise buildings, increased support for counter-terrorism etc) and all they'd need would be enough non-Tory MPs to abstain to get it through and then face the difficult parts of the package next year - and a year is a very long time in politics, a few by-elections in their favour and the maths of the chamber changes considerably.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

The body language as the PM and Jeremy Corbyn walked towards the Commons - she obviously wanting to be loved, he doing his best to ignore her.

She knows she's on the way out.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Forgot to say that the DUP probably hate Corbyn, because of his support for Sinn Fein, so they will support May in most things, especially if they see tons of money flowing across the Irish sea.

Nothing unusual there. The DUP, as heirs to the opposition to the civil rights movement, are big on hate. It started with the Provos and Sinn Fein, through the British Government, the SDLP and eventually the other Unionist parties.

They may for a while be allies, (weeks? months?) but the cost will be disproportionate.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

2 billion, according to the BBC.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That's quite a jump between "Taken for granted" and worth 2B GDP.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
The body language as the PM and Jeremy Corbyn walked towards the Commons - she obviously wanting to be loved, he doing his best to ignore her.

She knows she's on the way out.

I missed that, hope to catch it on the news. No doubt her previous body language towards him was utter froideur and hauteur. Hey, these French words are neat.

Apparently, Skinner shouted out, when MPs were invited to the Queen's speech, 'hurry up, the first race at Ascot is 2.30', knowing the Queen's preference for horses over humans. Who can blame her?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Interesting minor point, that the DUP are supposed to have asked the Great Leader to guarantee no poll on a united Ireland. I think that that would be a flagrant breach of GFA, although I don't have it to hand.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
alienfromzog:
quote:
In theory, Corbyn (as leadet of the next biggest group) has 2 weeks to see if he can command the support of parliament.

...and he will only get that if he can persuade a few Conservative backbenchers to support him, which is about as likely as Hell freezing over. So in practice, another election is almost guaranteed - and that's another umpty million pounds down the drain, and all the while the clock is ticking on the Brexit "negotiations".
Yes, but you end up with a giant game of poker. The Tories might be reluctant to bring down a Corbyn govt, as an election would follow, in which Corbyn might get a majority, especially if he portrays the Tories as nihilists, or whatever term he chooses.

So they may hold off for a while, no doubt hoping that a Corbyn govt would also attract opprobium. Then it might depend on whether the Tories can win back support. At the moment, they are in a bad place, but hope springs eternal.

Corbyn's Janus-faced approach to the subject of Brexit served him well during the election as Remainiac Ultras turned to him as the nearest way of giving May a kicking whilst those reconciled to departure and Leavers were also able to vote for him. However, as leader of a minority government he would have to negotiate Brexit and get it through the House of Commons.

Incidentally, I have never understood the DUPs "Jeremy Corbyn supported the IRA so we can never support him" line. Dudes, you've been in a power sharing agreement with Martin fucking McGuinness. You've all read your Bibles so remind me what the Good Lord said about camels and gnats.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The best moment of the whole day came from Dennis Skinner MP:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40351816/the-queen-s-speech-mp-tells-black-rod-to-get-skates-on

Apparently, a comment or remark from Mr. Skinner at this point is part of the traditional ceremonial of the occasion...

[Overused]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

Apparently, a comment or remark from Mr. Skinner at this point is part of the traditional ceremonial of the occasion...

When the Beast finally leaves the house, someone really has to step in as his replacement on these occasions.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed, but may that day be long delayed...

IJ

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The best moment of the whole day came from Dennis Skinner MP:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40351816/the-queen-s-speech-mp-tells-black-rod-to-get-skates-on

Apparently, a comment or remark from Mr. Skinner at this point is part of the traditional ceremonial of the occasion...

IJ

I enjoyed the smirk on the face of Black Rod. I can't help wondering of Brenda muttered something to that effect to him and then The Beast of Bolsover inadvertently repeated it.

I believe that it was Chris Patten who said of Skinner that he had become a British Constitutional Tradition, a bit like the ravens at the Tower of London. And that was before the State Opening, when he looked up at Black Rod and growled "I bet he drinks Carling Black Label". (Product placement Dennis? What are you like?)

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Oh, and the other Good Thing about the Queen's Speech was that there was no mention of the proposed State Visit of The Odious Orange Ozymandias ( aka Trump).

Hopefully, said Visit is postponed indefinitely, as by the time The Government Of Headless Chickens gets itself sorted out, Ozymandias will have fallen...

IJ

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Incidentally, I have never understood the DUPs "Jeremy Corbyn supported the IRA so we can never support him" line. Dudes, you've been in a power sharing agreement with Martin fucking McGuinness. You've all read your Bibles so remind me what the Good Lord said about camels and gnats.

They've read their Bibles. But the bits they tend to remember are usually about what people do with their naughty bits to get them sent to hell. And anything about peacemaking, reconciliation, treating others as you would wish to be treated etc, is meant for the other guy. Not them. They're God's little sunbeams, so they're perfect already. That's why they feel compelled to force their narrow religious beliefs on the whole province.

God knew what he was about when he told 1st AD Christians all same-sex practitioners would go to hell; but He's on kind of shaky ground when He told them to love their enemies. No, couldn't have meant that bit. At least not without some serious revisionist interpretation. [Big Grin]

Never thought I'd say this, but I think I'm missing the Revd Ian Paisley... [Paranoid]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Bishop's Finger:

quote:
Oh, and the other Good Thing about the Queen's Speech was that there was no mention of the proposed State Visit of The Odious Orange Ozymandias ( aka Trump).

I can't believe nobody has mentioned The Hat yet. Speculation over whether this is a coded message to the populace about the Queen's real opinion of Brexit is rife, to the point where the Daily Heil is annoyed about it.

Yes. THE QUEEN HAS ANNOYED THE DAILY MAIL. By wearing a hat.

Glorious.

[ 21. June 2017, 18:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

But The Crown went to Parliament, apparently in its own car.... [Eek!]

I thought HM the Q looked rather less regal today than Charles-III-in-waiting, but full marks to her for pi**ing off the Daily Heil.

IJ

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes, the thing about the Crown having to go in a different car was a bit weird. It's probably another message that I don't know enough about royal protocol to decode...

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

They may have been worried about errant mallets ¹

---

¹ Wikipedia

(Clickbait, what clickbait ...)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

You'd probably need a sledgehammer to flatten the Imperial State Crown... it's a lot bigger than the one Colonel Blood tried to pinch.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I now understand the allusion to The Royal Hat:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40356113

[Eek!]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, the thing about the Crown having to go in a different car was a bit weird. It's probably another message that I don't know enough about royal protocol to decode...

Royal Ascot. "How dare you interfere with my race meeting".

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, it appears that HM made a very quick change from a blue outfit for Parliament to a yellow outfit for Ascot. It would surely have taken her much longer to get changed out of all those robes she usually wears, not to mention the discomfort of wearing the Crown in this Heat.

[Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Though, it's also risky - they could have probably put together a years legislative programme which avoided all the really difficult commitments in their manifesto (so, no additional austerity, no changes to pensions etc) and put in all the things that they'll get cross party support for (fire safety in high rise buildings, increased support for counter-terrorism etc)

They haven't got a mandate to implement their manifesto. They've only got authority to introduce legislation that they think most of the electorate will accept.

The same would apply to Labour if it were to form a minority administration in the present Parliament much though Momentum and their ilk might squeal otherwise.

quote:
... a few by-elections in their favour and the maths of the chamber changes considerably.

If.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Though, it's also risky - they could have probably put together a years legislative programme which avoided all the really difficult commitments in their manifesto (so, no additional austerity, no changes to pensions etc) and put in all the things that they'll get cross party support for (fire safety in high rise buildings, increased support for counter-terrorism etc)
They haven't got a mandate to implement their manifesto. They've only got authority to introduce legislation that they think most of the electorate will accept.

The same would apply to Labour if it were to form a minority administration in the present Parliament much though Momentum and their ilk might squeal otherwise.

We can bandy around the difference between "mandate" and "authority" - I've seen no indication that the current Conservative Party leadership would know a mandate if tripped over it. But, that's an aside.

I generally agree with you. Without getting a majority of seats the Tories have been given a get-out from implementing what were clearly unpopular ideas. So, they can go for what they think will be most widely accepted policies.

Of course, what the Tories think will be the most widely accepted policy ideas and what Labour think will be the most widely accepted policies will differ, and the views of the SNP/PC/Greens/NI parties will be different again. There is going to be a set of policies on which Conservative and Labour are in broad agreement, and another set where the Conservatives and other parties are in agreement (probably a very small set where everyone agrees).

My point was that if the Conservatives concentrate on those policies where there is cross-party agreement that these would be widely supported by the electorate in this Queens Speech then there would be a reasonable chance that they might get sufficient cross-party support (even by abstention) to get it voted through. As they progress through their term they will a) start exhausting that list of policies which are agreed will be widely accepted by the electorate and b) the time since the election will make the question of whether something would be acceptable harder to judge - and hence they're less likely to get the cross party support to get a Queens Speech voted through.

At the moment all the parties are aware that the views of Brenda from Bristol are very common, and another general election this year will go down like a lead balloon with a large portion of the electorate who are likely to punish the party that's seen as causing it to be called. Voting down a Queens Speech (or, even the next budget) just because they have the numbers to do so won't go down well IMO, whereas if a party can vote that down on the basis of a principalled objection to one or more policies that they strongly oppose then their supporters rallying behind them might offset the "not another one" effect. It's a gamble, but the safest course for Mrs May would be to write a Queens Speech that can get enough cross-party support to be voted through, which means ditching a lot of stuff that will raise hackles in the Opposition (which I subsequently see has more or less happened, so no new Grammar Schools etc), and then see how the winds fare when she gets to write the next one.

quote:

quote:
... a few by-elections in their favour and the maths of the chamber changes considerably.
If.

Politics is full of uncertainty. And, one of the ways things may change is through by-elections. Now, I doubt at the moment the Tories would pull any seats back from opposition parties, the optics suggest that it's more likely to swing the other way. But, anything is possible. The fact is that if the GE had returned 2-3 more Conservative seats they probably could have struggled through without feeling the need to sweet-talk the DUP, if there had been 2-3 less Conservative seats then sweet-talking the DUP would still not have given them enough. And, a couple of years is enough time for a few by-elections that could push things either way.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

I thought HM the Q looked rather less regal today than Charles-III-in-waiting,

Meme doing the rounds on social media: "Bring Your Child to Work Day".

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Killing me]

O, how I wish I'd thought of that!

IJ

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Traditionally, British voters have tended to punish governments that they feel are 'hanging on' - which May's Tories certainly are. She will remain in office - but barely in power - as long as the opposing factions in her party are more frightened of the other faction gaining power than they are of them all getting dumped in an election.

But an election there will surely have to be; I'll be astonished if there isn't one in October, right after the Party Conferences.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

You would normally expect another election within a year, and you would expect Labour to win. However, these are not normal times, so all kinds of scenarios seem possible. The Tories might regenerate, Labour might fall victim to plotting again. Who knows.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

I thought HM the Q looked rather less regal today than Charles-III-in-waiting,
Meme doing the rounds on social media: "Bring Your Child to Work Day".

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

I have a new prediction. She will stay through the Brexit negotiations. When she realises what a colossal mess she and the Tories will have made of them (and as the public realises this, the growing public anger) she will resign, leaving the country in an even worse mess than it already was, and no one to easily pick up the pieces. This will cause the Brexit-related economic weaknesses to turn into catastrophes, and she will blame the fact she wasn't given an overwhelming majority rather than her own incompetence. We will have an election that Labour will win by a landslide, but with a Tory-negotiated Brexit that forces the whole country into a decade long recession, as we have no capital left with anyone who might be minded to help us.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I have a new prediction. She will stay through the Brexit negotiations. When she realises what a colossal mess she and the Tories will have made of them (and as the public realises this, the growing public anger) she will resign, leaving the country in an even worse mess than it already was, and no one to easily pick up the pieces. This will cause the Brexit-related economic weaknesses to turn into catastrophes, and she will blame the fact she wasn't given an overwhelming majority rather than her own incompetence. We will have an election that Labour will win by a landslide, but with a Tory-negotiated Brexit that forces the whole country into a decade long recession, as we have no capital left with anyone who might be minded to help us.

Thank you for this much needed positive outlook!

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
.... and she will blame the fact she wasn't given an overwhelming majority rather than her own incompetence. ...

I don't get this. How does her majority make any difference? She is strong and stable [Ultra confused]

.

The meltdown has already begun. She has agreed that thousands of EU people in UK will be given special rights to stay (that's essential, of course). But she has said nothing that I have heard about replacing the thousands who already have left or who will leave in the next two years. We need these people. (And, of course, they need us.)

She cannot be serious about staying a further two years? Can she? [Waterworks]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
... We will have an election that Labour will win by a landslide, but with a Tory-negotiated Brexit that forces the whole country into a decade long recession, as we have no capital left with anyone who might be minded to help us.

What? Another decade long recession?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
as we have no capital left with anyone who might be minded to help us.

Which was one of my thoughts pre-election; the supposedly 'serious' and 'strong and stable' party had done little since the 'Leave' vote, bar prevaricate on a massive scale, and piss off anyone in the EU who might have had good will towards the UK.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

So May has offered the EU a 'deal' on citizens' rights which falls far short of what she should in decency have given. Typical of her - offer very little, lie about it by claiming that it's a lot, and then prevaricate and refuse to answer questions. Lord, I'm getting to loathe that woman.

And why should anyone trust anything she says? Frankly I wouldn't be inclined to believe her if she were to swear on a pile of Bibles that the earth is round.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, she is a bad liar, where some politicians are good ones. I still don't really understand how her image has shifted in a few weeks from honeymoon to nightmare. I suppose people are in a volatile mood today, febrile maybe a better word.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, she is a bad liar, where some politicians are good ones. I still don't really understand how her image has shifted in a few weeks from honeymoon to nightmare. I suppose people are in a volatile mood today, febrile maybe a better word.

I don't think there was ever a honeymoon. Possibly a dirty weekend, but no more than that.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, a one-night stand. I suppose her first speech in Downing St impressed plenty of people, but after that, it all went squish.

Wow, does Corbyn really want to take this pile of poo on? I mean Brexit, Grenfell, austerity, etc. It could wreck Labour as well.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Lord, I'm getting to loathe that woman.

I'm ahead of you.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still don't really understand how her image has shifted in a few weeks from honeymoon to nightmare.

A series of U turns when the campaigning USP was stability, a wooden manner and lack of empathy both in policy and in demeanour. Isn't that enough?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Lord, I'm getting to loathe that woman.
I'm ahead of you.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still don't really understand how her image has shifted in a few weeks from honeymoon to nightmare.
A series of U turns when the campaigning USP was stability, a wooden manner and lack of empathy both in policy and in demeanour. Isn't that enough?

Not sure. I would say that she's also misjudged the national mood, which is mighty febrile, after terrorist attacks, Grenfell, Brexit, etc.

For example, after the first terrorist attack, I just thought that this is Tory territory, law and order, but it backfired, especially with the awareness of police cuts etc. I think austerity is producing a very bad hangover, and the Tories underestimated this. Whether or not Corbyn was lucky, or has an intuitive ability, dunno.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Corbyn hasn't been all that good at intuitive guessing between 1983 and 2015. I think it's more that he's in the right place at the right time and the moment has come for his ideas. For stability of a political line you can't do much better than Corbyn.

It's easy to try and make political narratives fit deterministic explanations (as I just did). In reality there is probably tremendous stochasticity.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I had a fair amount of time for Mrs May when she first became PM, but I think a lot of that was sheer relief that she wasn't Dr Fox, Mr Johnson, Mr Gove, Mr Crabbe, Ms Leadsom, or a lengthy period of interregnum. When she had to stand on her own merits, she collapsed in my estimation.

In this I suspect I am not atypical of the voting population.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Corbyn hasn't been all that good at intuitive guessing between 1983 and 2015. I think it's more that he's in the right place at the right time and the moment has come for his ideas. For stability of a political line you can't do much better than Corbyn.

It's easy to try and make political narratives fit deterministic explanations (as I just did). In reality there is probably tremendous stochasticity.

Yes, good points. I think Corbyn has shown resolve under fire, whereas May has buckled. One of those peculiar ironies in politics, he looked so weak. But then if elected, Labour may well make a total mess of it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

error.

[ 23. June 2017, 12:10: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

It now transpires that the vile May actually blocked a unilateral deal to secure the future of EU citizens before she became PM; she was the only cabinet minister to do so. Details here in a Guardian article.

What a nasty piece of work she is.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
... We will have an election that Labour will win by a landslide, but with a Tory-negotiated Brexit that forces the whole country into a decade long recession, as we have no capital left with anyone who might be minded to help us.
What? Another decade long recession?

I think from now on we can expect decade-long recessions to come along about once every ten years.

If Labour do win an election this year or in two years' time, they may well mess up. We may have reached a point in our national life from which there are no good outcomes possible for a very long time, whoever is in charge and whatever they do. Personally I think that Corbyn's old-school social democratic policies offer the best chance of a good outcome, but there are no guarantees.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I can never remember the point in the business cycle where Keynesian remedies are appropriate, but you might think, that this is one of them.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
a couple of years is enough time for a few by-elections that could push things either way.

And, those by-elections may not be that far off. Should someone tell the Tories that if they're going to break the election rules they should at least win the election?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Alan:

quote:
Should someone tell the Tories that if they're going to break the election rules they should at least win the election?

Well, that's just it; they thought they were going to or they'd never have called it. And they never do seem to think that the rules apply to them.

Presumably if they had won the election we would all now be marching in lockstep towards a Brave New World.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I don't think public sentiment is really moving in the Conservative party's direction. ¹

---

¹ Telegraph

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think public sentiment is really moving in the Conservative party's direction. ¹

---

¹ Telegraph

I don't think Conservative Party sentiment is moving in Theresa May's direction either. The Welsh and Scottish Conservatives could be especially cheesed off by a Brexit deal favouring "Unionist" interests in Northern Ireland.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

If it wasn't an unholy mess before May's snap Election it is beginning to reassemble one now. Not even sure that another Election with a Labour victory would make much difference.
The bitter trials of NI affaiars are an enigma which have defied politicians of all colours for decades.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If it wasn't an unholy mess before May's snap Election it is beginning to reassemble one now. Not even sure that another Election with a Labour victory would make much difference.
The bitter trials of NI affaiars are an enigma which have defied politicians of all colours for decades.

So, calling for a referendum on Brexit, which almost no politician supporting it actually wanted to pass, to appease people who had no clue as to what it would entail, giving the resultant mess to TM on the basis that she hadn't fucked herself over as badly as the more qualified candidates, pretend "being tough" would overcome a deficit in power during negotiations to try to get back what not leaving already gave. That was not an unholy mess?
Just what kind of mess was it, then?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
a couple of years is enough time for a few by-elections that could push things either way.
And, those by-elections may not be that far off. Should someone tell the Tories that if they're going to break the election rules they should at least win the election?

Is this NEW news or does it refer to the last election, about which we already knew?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
a couple of years is enough time for a few by-elections that could push things either way.
And, those by-elections may not be that far off. Should someone tell the Tories that if they're going to break the election rules they should at least win the election?
Is this NEW news or does it refer to the last election, about which we already knew?

This is new. This is paid (allegedly) canvassing for tory candidates in the 2017 GE, which (if proven) would be a clear violation of election law and ought to see the result in any affected seat held by the tories overturned. I wouldn't be surprised to find, however, that the list of these seats that the tories actually now hold is quite small - what they though were marginals probably weren't.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The seats listed in that article are Caerphilly, Camarthen East, Ceredigion, Pontypridd, Torfaen, Newport West, Bridgend, Gower, Clywd South and Wrexham. According to Wikipedia, these are respectively Labour, Plaid Cymru, Plaid Cymru, Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour, and Labour.

It does not appear that their alleged illegal paid canvassers gave good value for money ...

[ 24. June 2017, 20:58: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The concentration on Welsh seats either suggests this was a Welsh tory initiative (unlikely; they're not known for even this level of sophistication) or it's one part of a national operation.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I suppose my concern would be, if they did this in wales - where else did they do it ? Did it affect the election result elsewhere - if so do some results need to be voided.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I dunno, thinking about it, whether it succeeded or not, is this not basically Watergate if true? As in, flat-out illegal activity for the purpose of electoral advantage? It's qualitatively different from the battlebus scandal, where you can always argue that it's just an accounting issue.

(My idle, evidence-free speculation is that they saw that poll that suggested they could get a majority in Wales and realised they had hardly any activists in Wales who would help it come to fruition. Whereas in England they do have an activist base.)

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The point I'm getting at is that if this is true, it's not something that could be fixed just by re-running a few constituency elections. It's something that would be fixed by impeachment, if impeachment was an option over here.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It would be interesting to know if it had any effect though, see that the Tories lost both Gower (very marginal) and Cardiff North (thought to be safe and the last blue blob in the Cardiff area) to Labour. They did however hold Vale of Glamorgan, albeit with a greatly reduced majority.

My wife, who is a political activist, is in no doubt that what the Tories did is illegal.

[ 25. June 2017, 08:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The point I'm getting at is that if this is true, it's not something that could be fixed just by re-running a few constituency elections. It's something that would be fixed by impeachment, if impeachment was an option over here.

Oh it is an option, just not one that has been used in some time.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The point I'm getting at is that if this is true, it's not something that could be fixed just by re-running a few constituency elections.

After the questions over expenses in 2015, I would have expected all the parties to be particularly careful not to appear to be breaking the regulations. It appears that, even if the Conservatives managed to stay just inside the line with this call centre thing (we'll need to wait until any investigation is concluded), they weren't really being that careful to make sure there were no legal questions hanging over the election. The specific incident, if true, didn't affect the results as far as we can tell. But, with political parties pushing the limits of what's permitted it seems unlikely that this is the only example of questionable activity, and in some cases that may raise questions about the results in specific constituencies. I do wonder whether the fines charged by the electoral commission are effective - they could easily be rolled into the overall costs of the election by the accountants in the main parties.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

From the Bullingdon club to slum landlords to dodgy tax deals, the rich have always had a contingency convinced the rules to not apply to them.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I suppose my concern would be, if they did this in wales - where else did they do it ? Did it affect the election result elsewhere - if so do some results need to be voided.

No action was taken last time - so will not nthis time?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Some people are being prosecuted.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, calling for a referendum on Brexit, which almost no politician supporting it actually wanted to pass, to appease people who had no clue as to what it would entail, giving the resultant mess to TM on the basis that she hadn't fucked herself over as badly as the more qualified candidates, pretend "being tough" would overcome a deficit in power during negotiations to try to get back what not leaving already gave. That was not an unholy mess?
Just what kind of mess was it, then?

That was the mess caused inadvertently by a Tory Party which was endeavouring to tighten it's grip on Power, while at the same time trying to slay it's demons. Now, as irony will often have it's way, we appear to be one Election away from the most Socialist Labour agenda since the war.
Cameron's "For goodness sake man,(Corbyn). Just go!" looks increasingly like coming back to bite the Tories in the pants.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, calling for a referendum on Brexit, which almost no politician supporting it actually wanted to pass, to appease people who had no clue as to what it would entail, giving the resultant mess to TM on the basis that she hadn't fucked herself over as badly as the more qualified candidates, pretend "being tough" would overcome a deficit in power during negotiations to try to get back what not leaving already gave. That was not an unholy mess?
Just what kind of mess was it, then?
That was the mess caused inadvertently by a Tory Party which was endeavouring to tighten it's grip on Power, while at the same time trying to slay it's demons.

It was caused because the chuckleheads have no clue regarding the people they are attempting to govern.

quote:

Now, as irony will often have it's way, we appear to be one Election away from the most Socialist Labour agenda since the war.

OoooOOOoooOOooh, Socialism Boogity, boogity boo!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Impeachment is a case brought by the Commons and heard by the Lords. Theoretically it still exists, but there hasn't been a case for brought that way for over 200 years.

It wouldn't be either appropriate or likely to happen for electoral offences. First of all they already have due processes under which they can be pursued.

Second Impeachment could probably only arise where the appropriate authority to bring a case was not doing so, and members of the Commons were therefore to decide to instigate the process themselves. One has to assume this would require a majority of MPs to vote to do that. But they would be the government anyway. So unless a majority of MPs were to rebel against the administration, even if it were the appropriate process, it ain't going to happen.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Jeremy Corbyn seems to me to have shot himself in the foot if reports of his estimate of being Prime Minister in 6 months' time are true. Not a good idea to make such a prediction.

Also John McDonnell has apparently accused the authorities of murdering the victims of the tower block fire. Wrong word to use, John.

The deal has been done with the DUP. At a high financial cost but possibly at a cost to peace in N I and complaints from Scotland and Wales. Corbyn has a wonderful opportunity to make gain from that.

Edited to say I'm sticking with my OP prediction.

[ 26. June 2017, 11:24: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think 'murder' is OK to use, in the colloquial sense. I hear 'murdered by austerity' a lot. It reminds me of negligent homicide.

Somebody has to convey the sheer anger and outrage of tenants that complaints and warnings about fire safety were ignored, and regulations waived. You can bet that blocks in millionaire row have sprinklers, better fire alarms, and safer cladding.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I'm sticking with my OP prediction.

Your prediction was 'very quickly' after the Queen's speech.

What does that mean?

One month, two, six?

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

I see that the DUP have managed to extort a cool billion quid as their price for supporting the government, in addition to promises of various policies being dropped which would probably never have made it through anyway.

Clearly austerity has its limits when it comes to Mrs. May staying in office.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
I see that the DUP have managed to extort a cool billion quid as their price for supporting the government, in addition to promises of various policies being dropped which would probably never have made it through anyway.

Clearly austerity has its limits when it comes to Mrs. May staying in office.

Austerity is one thing. The Good Friday Agreement wasn't too healthy before this but with one side of any possible power-sharing executive aligned with the UK government it looks pretty sick now.

Nice work Mrs May. All in the interest of staying in power.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I'm sticking with my OP prediction.
Your prediction was 'very quickly' after the Queen's speech.

What does that mean?

One month, two, six?

Two months at the most. I think (hope, please) that she will get her Queen's Speech through and then say (privately) 'job done, I can go now'. To leave someone else to clear up all the mess of NI and Brexit.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

If she doesn't get her Queen's Speech through, do you think she'll go sooner (please, pretty please....)?

When I hear/read her name, I can't help comparing Mrs. May to that famous Liverpool Lady Of Negotiable Affection (thank you, Terry Pratchett IIRC), Maggie May, and her fate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4GITm7PfY

IJ

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If she doesn't get her Queen's Speech through, do you think she'll go sooner (please, pretty please....)?

When I hear/read her name, I can't help comparing Mrs. May to that famous Liverpool Lady Of Negotiable Affection (thank you, Terry Pratchett IIRC), Maggie May, and her fate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4GITm7PfY

IJ

If she doesn't get her QS through, she will have to resign as PM, give Jeremy two weeks to cobble together a government and, when that fails, contest another General Election.

So she'll get it through. Then it will be the long grind of government by Whips Office and every by-election holding a massive significance until either the government runs out of road or an unexpected swing of public opinion towards the Tories.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If she doesn't get her Queen's Speech through, do you think she'll go sooner (please, pretty please....)?

IJ

Yes, but, yes, but... I think she will get it through. If not, all sorts of complications re Labour trying to get a Queen's Speech together / calling another election / who gets the blame for 'yet another' election. If she doesn't get it through, presumably the DUP deal is off - that would be good.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Cross-posted with Callan.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

A billion quid for hiring a bunch of swivel-eyed terrorist supporters in Norn Iron?

Truly, the lunatics have taken over.

IJ

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

According to Paisley Junior MP it's actually one and a half billion. And they've already said they'll be back for more.

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane. (Kipling)

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
A billion quid for hiring a bunch of swivel-eyed terrorist supporters in Norn Iron?

Truly, the lunatics have taken over.

IJ

And to piss-off the other bunch of swivel-eyed terrorist supporters to boot.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was just wondering how the anger over Grenfell will pan out politically. I live two miles away, and the anger is like a flamethrower, scorching everybody who comes near. Nobody is exempt - for example, Khan got heckled. I think Lammy is accepted - for the moment.

Maybe it will have no effect, or will fade, but you can see it as a terrible symbol of Britain, or maybe England, run down, neglected, deregulated, thrown onto a bonfire of regulations, abandoned, while the rich whine about the view of those horrible tower blocks.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Were it not for the awful effect it would have on former residents (especially those who lost loved ones in the fire), it would almost be worth preserving the blackened ruin of Grenfell Tower as a stark reminder of the worthlessness of our 'government' (local as well as national), and the divide between rich and poor.

IJ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Were it not for the awful effect it would have on former residents (especially those who lost loved ones in the fire), it would almost be worth preserving the blackened ruin of Grenfell Tower as a stark reminder of the worthlessness of our 'government' (local as well as national), and the divide between rich and poor.

IJ

Yes. Doubtless Tory politicians and some Labour ones, will try to sweep it into the maw of forgetfulness, via enquiries, interminable council discussions, and so on, usually called, kicking it into the long grass. But Hillsborough does show that if you persevere, you can get justice (of sorts).

But yes, it would too painful a symbol to leave alone.

I forgot to mention the local MP, newly elected of course, Emma Dent Coad, who is working like a Trojan. Thank God she isn't a Tory.

[ 02. July 2017, 16:37: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Mind you, isn't a loving God a stinking dead dog lying next to the Grenfell Tower?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
while the rich whine about the view of those horrible tower blocks.

It's curious that the aesthetic value of cladding has been presented as a rich vs poor issue, almost as if poor people or the residents of these blocks aren't interested in living somewhere that looks nice.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
while the rich whine about the view of those horrible tower blocks.
It's curious that the aesthetic value of cladding has been presented as a rich vs poor issue, almost as if poor people or the residents of these blocks aren't interested in living somewhere that looks nice.

Looks nice?

Spending millions on cosmetic improvements when the tenants have clearly, unequivocally asked for improved fire safety and access?

It's a rich vs poor issue.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

As usual, in Government-By-(Rich)-Headless-Chickens-Land.

IJ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
while the rich whine about the view of those horrible tower blocks.
It's curious that the aesthetic value of cladding has been presented as a rich vs poor issue, almost as if poor people or the residents of these blocks aren't interested in living somewhere that looks nice.

Because the Tories are clamouring to do the will of the poor?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
while the rich whine about the view of those horrible tower blocks.
It's curious that the aesthetic value of cladding has been presented as a rich vs poor issue, almost as if poor people or the residents of these blocks aren't interested in living somewhere that looks nice.

As people who actually live there - and as a number of letters have now shown, they were also interested in living somewhere safe.

It seems that they weren't about to allow themselves to be paid off with shiny beads.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

But, but - they're foreign brown people! Why won't they accept the shiny beads? It worked in the past.....

IJ

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It's curious that the aesthetic value of cladding has been presented as a rich vs poor issue, almost as if poor people or the residents of these blocks aren't interested in living somewhere that looks nice.

Or, perhaps, that the people with the money aren't very interested in spending extra so that poor people can live somewhere that looks nice? You'll find a variety of explanations for this idea - some will say that the poor people don't deserve a pretty building, and that they have to earn anything more than basic utility housing; some will say that council tenants won't respect the fabric of the building because they don't have to repair it themselves.

Ugly tower blocks are all very well in some poor suburb, but they're not suitable for housing poor people in the vicinity of wealthy ones (because the wealthy people have to see it.) If you're housing poor people near actual humans (assuming you can't just shuffle them all off south of the river) then you have to build modest low-rise buildings, that can be hidden on the other side of a convenient park or row of trees.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
while the rich whine about the view of those horrible tower blocks.
It's curious that the aesthetic value of cladding has been presented as a rich vs poor issue, almost as if poor people or the residents of these blocks aren't interested in living somewhere that looks nice.
Looks nice?

Spending millions on cosmetic improvements when the tenants have clearly, unequivocally asked for improved fire safety and access?

It's a rich vs poor issue.

Though, the primary purpose of the cladding was to improve thermal efficiency for the flats - reducing heating bills for residents, reducing damp and associated ill health. Doing that making things look aesthetically pleasing wouldn't cost any more.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I forgot to mention the local MP, newly elected of course, Emma Dent Coad, who is working like a Trojan. Thank God she isn't a Tory.

How can I put this: she won the seat by just 20 votes, which is a lot less than the number of people who died in Grenfell tower. Now make up your own mind how much voting matters.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

I couldn't care less about Brexit at the moment. Nor whether someone is a Stalinist or not (read your history please - no one in British politics espouses Stalinism ....... even Corbin)

1)We have had a major fire in London, and not the first with the same cladding involved, with probably 100+ dead, when all the figures come in. Yet no viable disaster emergency plan was put into force by our politicians, either local or national. Thank God for the community groups; churches, mosques and gurdwaras who swung into action immediately.

Where was May? No doubt, talking about Brexit while people died and were made homeless! Talk about Nero......
The Mayor of London was there next day and has continued to communicate with people, the Queen (not Prince Philip. I think it was Prince William) visited and talked to people. Even Adele came and made cakes for the firemen say thanks! The Red Cross were there immediately on the ground but with no disaster plan or anyone in charge, they did what they could - no one was there from Council or Government organising the effort.

2)Survivors are even getting their rent for the burnt out building still deducted from bank accounts! And as for the Council...........who are more interested in funding opera in Holland Park (a hobby of the Council leader who thankfully has now gone) than dealing with their tenants worries over the years! People are being moved from hotel to hotel. What about these empty mansion blocks round the corner? They say the survivors will be housed later this month, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the new flats will have their rents increased all too soon. This Council has absolutely massive reserves which technically should be used for disasters such as this. Why aren't they using it? The Council shut up shop and send their workers home the day after the fire. They ran scared. So much for leadership!

3)We have teachers (I was one), nurses, doctors, police and fire-people with 1% or less annual increase in salaries, for many years yet prices are rising (I shop!). MP's accept, without question for the most part, substantial salary increases year on year. They have subsidised food and drink in the House restaurants and bars. They can claim back expenses that most of us have to pay out of our salaries. The use of food banks is increasing and politicians seem to think people are using them from choice!! People who are disabled or ill (some illnesses are intermitent and in the chronic stage a suffer cannot hold down a job) loose their benefits, while rich people can sidestep paying taxes and the Government aren't interested in clawing that money back. I don't know what planet they are on .....Zog?

4)We have young people not being able to afford to live, rent or buy, near their work and this has nothing whatsoever to do with immigrants. My son and his wife are such. Yet rich overseas celebrities and Arab Royal Families(sometimes with terrible civil rights issues in their own countries) are being allowed to snap up properties but not live in them for months or at all. Why couldn't they have been requisitioned, even short term and used to house survivors of the fire? London councils, usually Conservative, are chasing out council tenants to "renovate" their properties and then make them into "mansion flats" (with sprinklers and proper fire precautions) at huge rents, ultimately having less flats than the people they de-housed in the first place. Thus sending their former tenants miles away from their families, friends and children's schools. They are putting in place private deals with companies for council housing (note COUNCIL housing) so they can absolve themselves from caring for the housing stock. Being housed adequately is surely a basic right - one many people in Britain today don't.

5) Need I say much about the NHS? I've having to wait 6 months+ for an ENT appointment! Our hospitals are in crisis.

6)Old people's homes are a disgrace in many cases and not properly funded. Old people should have the dignity of proper care when they can't do so themselves - not a quick visit of 15 minutes to be washed, fed and their rooms cleaned by workers who are not paid when they journey from one house to anther - sometimes miles away.

7)School budgets are being cut in real terms yet there is an increase in pupils. Politicians who know nothing about how children learn keep interfering in the nitty-gritty of the curriculum, referring back to some non-existent Golden Age of education i.e. public schools that their rich parents could afford to send them to. The education system is so fractured now and money spent on so called free schools and academies that do no better and sometimes much worse than local authority schools. The clock has been turned back a century or more on education.

8) Alchzimers is NOT a social illness but medical condition so therefore people with it should come under NHS not poor or non-existent social care. We used to have lovely (granted some not so nice but better than the worse "homes" we have now) hospital/homes for old people who were too infirm to look after themselves. My mum worked in one, and we went every Christmas Day to talk to the old folks, laugh with them and listen to them, as did the staff. Why did they close them down and leave old people alone and unable to care for themselves?

9) And then we have a PM selling off votes for money to the DUP. This is downright political corruption. How dare we critisise other countries for political corruption!I would have thought it against the British constitution - do we have one any more?

I won't go on. We need to put our own house in order. Brexit in whatever form is not going to solve these problems.

Oh course May needs to resign.
She has shown a complete dereliction of duty towards the people of her own country.

With the country desperately needing to sort out the care of its resdidents before anything else (most of whom have paid taxes for many, many years)
Yet she refuses to put up taxes by a penny or two to pay for the care and education of our most vulnerable......... just in order to appease the rich.

She says she's a Christian but I think she needs to go back to the Gospels to read what Jesus said.

She has shown a complete lack of judgement in calling the election, expecting to have a landslide. She didn't.

Her judgement is (excuse the language) crap! She should not be British PM

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

wild haggis [Overused]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Wow.

What wild haggis said.

With bells on....

IJ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

wild haggis - excellent.

I was going to say, let us wait until the last king is strangled by the entrails of the last priest, and then I thought, oops, this is the wrong forum for that. It's only a metaphor.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I'm sticking with my OP prediction.
Your prediction was 'very quickly' after the Queen's speech.

What does that mean?

One month, two, six?
Two months at the most. I think (hope, please) that she will get her Queen's Speech through and then say (privately) 'job done, I can go now'. To leave someone else to clear up all the mess of NI and Brexit.

I was wrong. [Mad]

She's still there, doing her own thing for her own people, mucking up the rest of the country, wandering aimlessly through the brexit. That's when she's visible, which isn't all that often it seems to me.
And the media still doing its anti-Corbyn stuff.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What a surprise!

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

As another female prime minister once said, "there is no alternative". Recent polling suggests that any other Tory leader would be (even) less popular with the electorate.

As long as she keeps giving her right-wing Brexit loons everything they want, they'll leave her be. The likliehood of an early general election is, I suspect, receding.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What, even the silver tongued Jacob?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I wonder if Labour coming out for soft-Brexit improves her position. It means that however much she messes up with the right-wing of her party, they will fear the threat of a general election all the more.

Last polls I know of had Labour at 45, Tories at 39. I would guess the best bet for Tories at the moment would be simply to give it time for the tide to turn.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Last polls I know of had Labour at 45, Tories at 39. I would guess the best bet for Tories at the moment would be simply to give it time for the tide to turn.

That was a while ago - this morning (pre Labour announcement, which already seems to be unravelling as Mr Starmer is attacked by backbenchers in his own party who want to leave, and showing what looks like a 1 point Labour:UKIP transfer even then:

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 42% (-2)
CON: 41% (-)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)
GRN: 1% (-1)

via @YouGov, 21 - 22 Aug

despite it being 42/41 in Labour's favour, that would make the Tories the largest party by 10 seats.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Actually here's an interesting one:
CON: 42%
LAB: 39%

via @BMGResearch, 07 - 11 Aug

although I'm not sure of BMG's track record...

Essentially, I think the chances of an early election have gone away, and Labour have by no means got the next one in the bag either.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Essentially, I think the chances of an early election have gone away, and Labour have by no means got the next one in the bag either.

As the last result showed us nothing's ever in the bag in politics.

But it does feel as if the current situation is not simmering towards votes of no-confidence and early elections, and if we are into a full 5 year cycle then anything could happen in 5 years. It's a long time, and an eternity in politics.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0