UK General Election

[MikeG]

...... We could be looking at years of unbroken Tory rule.........

I think we are anyway.

However, just to cheer you, you could look at this election as reducing the length of that rule by 3 years, given that there was little chance they'd have lost in 2020 (don't forget the parliamentary boundary changes due in before then). In other words, the earliest realistic chance of a non-Tory government is now 2022 rather than 2025.

 

[McHrozni]

I think the big deal in this election, which almost no-one has mentioned as far as I have seen, is the Parliament Act. Brexit wasn't in the last Conservative manifesto, other than in providing a referendum. It will obviously be in this new one. The Parliament Act prevents the Lords from rejecting government bills if they were in the ruling party manifesto. Strengthening the government's hand by getting a democratic mandate for the type of Brexit that they outline in the manifesto will remove the veto which the Lords currently hold. Imagine the situation where the Lords, and the Lords alone, reject the deal that Britain spent two years negotiating with the EU...........and don't forget for a second that the EU negotiators would know this was a possibility. Wanting the Brexit strategy in the manifesto isn't Erdoganesque, it is democracy.

This weakens the British negotiating position. Without this the British negotiators would always have the option of saying "we would agree to this, but the Lords wouldn't accept it". With this, they don't.

By contrast, EU negotiators have 27 national plus an array of regional parliaments they can use in this manner.

The aspect of manifesto strengthens the hand of EU and weakens the hand of UK. It's internal politics trumping national interest to the maximum possible extent.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Surely not. If he even tries to hold on after a demoralising loss, he will confirm is utter disregard for the party and will go down as the worst Labour leader ever.

And if the party still votes for him to remain? The Labour party is its members and they keep voting for him.

 

[baron]

Surely not. If he even tries to hold on after a demoralising loss, he will confirm is utter disregard for the party and will go down as the worst Labour leader ever.

I doubt that the man who has shown utter disregard for the party and is the worse Labour leader ever will be cowed by the the idea of having utter disregard for the party and being the worse Labour leader ever.

 

[McHrozni]

And if the party still votes for him to remain? The Labour party is its members and they keep voting for him.

Maybe - this is just an idea but it could be true - this fact tells more about all the other contenders than it does about Labour members and Traitor.

McHrozni

 

[lionking]

And if the party still votes for him to remain? The Labour party is its members and they keep voting for him.

True leaders have to put their own ambitions behind the needs of their party. Even if he thought he would be voted back as leader, the decent thing to do is retire. Bloody hell, this is pretty fundamental. When you lose in a monumental way, you fall on your sword.

 

[lionking]

I doubt that the man who has shown utter disregard for the party and is the worse Labour leader ever will be cowed by the the idea of having utter disregard for the party and being the worse Labour leader ever.

Sadly, I think you are right. To repeat the point I've made many times I am a Labo(u)r man from birth. The worst crime a Labour leader can do is make the party unelectable. Corbyn is scum.

 

[ddt]

I think the big deal in this election, which almost no-one has mentioned as far as I have seen, is the Parliament Act. Brexit wasn't in the last Conservative manifesto, other than in providing a referendum. It will obviously be in this new one. The Parliament Act prevents the Lords from rejecting government bills if they were in the ruling party manifesto. Strengthening the government's hand by getting a democratic mandate for the type of Brexit that they outline in the manifesto will remove the veto which the Lords currently hold. Imagine the situation where the Lords, and the Lords alone, reject the deal that Britain spent two years negotiating with the EU...........and don't forget for a second that the EU negotiators would know this was a possibility. Wanting the Brexit strategy in the manifesto isn't Erdoganesque, it is democracy.

That doesn't hold water.

First, this is not in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. It's merely a convention, and according to that wiki article, in 2005 the LibDems said they didn't feel bound by it.

Second, this Salisbury Convention says that the Lords wouldn't do anything to wreck a bill that was in the election manifesto, but that they still had the (moral) right to pass amendments.

But, according to the Parliament Act, the Lords cannot veto a bill anyway. When they say "no", it goes back to the Commons, and if the Commons has another vote on it and it passes, that's the end of it. If the Lords pass an amendment, the bill has to go back to the Commons too for a second reading. I don't see a material difference there: in both cases, the Commons has to do a second reading so it costs time.

 

[MikeG]

That doesn't hold water......

Second, this Salisbury Convention says that the Lords wouldn't do anything to wreck a bill that was in the election manifesto, but that they still had the (moral) right to pass amendments.........

The second of the quoted sentences shows why your first is wrong.

 

[MikeG]

True leaders have to put their own ambitions behind the needs of their party. Even if he thought he would be voted back as leader, the decent thing to do is retire. Bloody hell, this is pretty fundamental. When you lose in a monumental way, you fall on your sword.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that Corbyn is doing this to further his own political ambitions. I think he is doing it entirely to further the hard left cause, to keep the socialist flame burning. If the consequence is the destruction of the Labour party, well hard cheese (iin their view) because the Labour party is only a vehicle for the promotion of the hard left agenda when it suits the hard left. When the Labour party is not itself hard left, the socialists despise it and care nothing for its destruction.

 

[ddt]

.......and every politician in history who has just won a divisive vote. You're pushing the Erdogan thing far beyond any relationship with reality.

That's a non-sequitur. Erdogan pushed the line before a divisive vote. May now also pushes the line before a vote. The Brexit referendum was last year, was a divisive vote but the main opposition party resigned to the result and agreed to a Brexit, however, they don't agree with the way and the terms May has in mind. That's still fully in line with the referendum, because there was no way for the voters to express what they expected of a Brexit.

This comes back to that Attlee quote up-thread: "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking." . It's one thing, and democratic, when you say "we have to be united in this goal" after the decision has been taken. But when you do so before that decision has been taken, you do it in order to stifle discussion and you're undemocratic about it.

 

[ddt]

The second of the quoted sentences shows why your first is wrong.

Whose quoted sentences? Yours? You claimed this was in the Parliament Acts. That's not true.

 

[lionking]

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that Corbyn is doing this to further his own political ambitions. I think he is doing it entirely to further the hard left cause, to keep the socialist flame burning. If the consequence is the destruction of the Labour party, well hard cheese (iin their view) because the Labour party is only a vehicle for the promotion of the hard left agenda when it suits the hard left. When the Labour party is not itself hard left, the socialists despise it and care nothing for its destruction.

Yeah, okay. Even if it's not his own ambition, it is beyond selfish to oversee the destruction of a once great party. As I've said previously, the hard left is dead in the UK and always will be. The Australian Labor Party dumped its socialist doctrine and is a slightly left of centre, but more importantly, electable party. As Labour was under Blair. This is the only way forward.

Ideologically pure, but unelectable parties are pathetic.

 

[McHrozni]

Yeah, okay. Even if it's not his own ambition, it is beyond selfish to oversee the destruction of a once great party. As I've said previously, the hard left is dead in the UK and always will be. The Australian Labor Party dumped its socialist doctrine and is a slightly left of centre, but more importantly, electable party. As Labour was under Blair. This is the only way forward.

Ideologically pure, but unelectable parties are pathetic.

To a normal person events in Hungary in 1953 and in Czechoslovakia in 1967, already discredit the hard left for good. Center left I can understand, but hard left, socialists and the like, lost the last vestiges of credibility no latter than half a century ago.

McHrozni

 

[lionking]

To a normal person events in Hungary in 1953 and in Czechoslovakia in 1967, already discredit the hard left for good. Center left I can understand, but hard left, socialists and the like, lost the last vestiges of credibility no latter than half a century ago.

McHrozni

Agreed. And I once called myself a socialist.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

To a normal person events in Hungary in 1953 and in Czechoslovakia in 1967, already discredit the hard left for good. Center left I can understand, but hard left, socialists and the like, lost the last vestiges of credibility no latter than half a century ago.

McHrozni

And as the right lurches further and further right you can just keep redefining 'hard left' and discredit anything with any semblance of social conscience. There must be no dissent from the right wing orthodoxy.

 

[McHrozni]

And as the right lurches further and further right you can just keep redefining 'hard left' and discredit anything with any semblance of social conscience. There must be no dissent from the right wing orthodoxy.

Maybe, but this is not even similar to what I'm doing. Socialism has been tested on over 20 states and proven to be a dismal failure 100% of the time. Corbyn described himself as a socialist. How am I redefining anything?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-visions-socialist-future-8931555

Socialism of the 21st century. You know who else spoke of that? Hugo Chavez.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Maybe, but this is not even similar to what I'm doing. Socialism has been tested on over 20 states and proven to be a dismal failure 100% of the time. Corbyn described himself as a socialist. How am I redefining anything?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-visions-socialist-future-8931555

Socialism of the 21st century. You know who else spoke of that? Hugo Chavez.

McHrozni

So rather than toss around nonsense descriptors like 'hard left' and start comparing the current Labour party to Hungary in the 50s why not consider their actual policies?

Your argument makes as much sense as saying that the right have been discredited by Germany in the 30s and 40s.

 

[baron]

Sadly, I think you are right. To repeat the point I've made many times I am a Labo(u)r man from birth. The worst crime a Labour leader can do is make the party unelectable. Corbyn is scum.

He's basically a cuckoo. He has never been Labour, always voting against the party, and he was elected by a huge influx of the far left, not traditional Labour voters. A socialist party has no chance of attaining power under its own steam so the only option is to infiltrate an existing party. People express surprise that he doesn't care about the party but there's no reason he should, he's not even Labour, he uses the party only as a vehicle to attain political influence for the far left.

 

[Craig B]

To a normal person events in Hungary in 1953 and in Czechoslovakia in 1967, already discredit the hard left for good. Center left I can understand, but hard left, socialists and the like, lost the last vestiges of credibility no latter than half a century ago.

McHrozni

The suppression of the Hungarian Revolution was in 1956, not 1953: and the invasion of Czechoslovakia took place in 1968, not 1967. Watch out or you might lose the last vestiges of your credibility.

Did the Suez invasion and the Vietnam aggression of these same years remove the last vestiges of credibility from right conservatism? If a Tory candidate for the Town Council elections next month comes to my door to give me a leaflet with promises about how he's going to cleanse the local park of dog turds, should I say : you lot lost the last vestiges of your credibility at Suez. Be off with you!