UK General Election

MikeG said:
There is no such thing over here. I think the usual definition of a super-majority is one which is sufficiently large as to be able to change the constitution, isn't it? Well, without a written constitution........:)
Click to expand...

I was using Supermajority in the sense of 60%+ seats (Hypermajority would be 70%+).
 
Ambrosia said:
I'd be quite happy to see the back of the shambles that is the current Labour party forever.

There's a brave new world out there, automation is going to wipe out a lot of manual jobs in the next couple of decades, we are unpicking our country from the EU, that's going to take a decade to sort out properly there's all sorts of challenges up ahead and we need a coherent opposition to the government to hold them to task to make sure they act in the best interests of the country and not the Conservative party.

the current Labour 'led' opposition might as well not exist.

Previously when political parties run things for long periods of time they upset enough of the electorate to vote in 'the other lot' (see 1997) so I doubt we'll be under Tory rule for the next 20 years.

I expect Corbyn to lose so badly that Labour finally rejects the more extreme left wing nonsense and Labour trends back towards centre left and is actually electable the next time we all go to the polls.
Click to expand...

Yep. 100%. A strong opposition is really important for the proper functioning of democracy, and after the Corbyn shambles, Labour will have the choice of reform or die. I hope they choose reform, and are thus in a position to compete for power in 5 years time. I suspect that they'll get such a hiding this time that 5 years will be too early for them to expect to win, but for them to get back into a sensible balance of power with the government in Parliament next time would be a big step forward.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
I was using Supermajority in the sense of 60%+ seats (Hypermajority would be 70%+).
Click to expand...

Oh OK. Just for clarity's sake, though, it should be said that there is no difference to be made in terms of power for the government by falling one side or other of the notional 60% threshold, or 70% threshold.
 
The Don said:
....and that includes some (but not all) union leaders.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Problems on both sides.

Key Corbyn supporters like Len McCluskey seem locked in the adversarial union/management relationship which plagued British industry for large parts of last century.

For sure German companies have very different relationships with their unions, but then again the unions have very different relationships with the companies. My understanding is that they with both try to work for the common good rather than attempting to score points at the expense of the other.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Would require significant cultural change but that can't come about if people dismiss every attempt to look at things as 'taking us back to the 70s!'
 
MikeG said:
Yep. 100%. A strong opposition is really important for the proper functioning of democracy, and after the Corbyn shambles, Labour will have the choice of reform or die. I hope they choose reform, and are thus in a position to compete for power in 5 years time. I suspect that they'll get such a hiding this time that 5 years will be too early for them to expect to win, but for them to get back into a sensible balance of power with the government in Parliament next time would be a big step forward.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, where do they go? A centre ground rendered toxic by Blair? Further left into political suicide with Momentum, who ARE the Labour Party at this stage?

I think Labour will most likely fracture like the SDP in the 80s. I can see a Hard Left Momentum style party, while the Lib Dems will merge with the Centrist Labour to form a new party. Maybe Progressive Democrats or something?
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Yeah but that's my point. Rather than base our opinions on the individuals involved lets looks at the actual proposals rather than just dismissing them out of hand.
Click to expand...

The abstract proposals mean little when those who would be responsible for implementing them, in the incredibly unlikely event that Labour are elected, are the likes of Corbyn and McCluskey. A newly empowered Unite union with McCluskey at the helm is unlikely to enhance union/management relations.
 
The Don said:
The abstract proposals mean little when those who would be responsible for implementing them, in the incredibly unlikely event that Labour are elected, are the likes of Corbyn and McCluskey. A newly empowered Unite union with McCluskey at the helm is unlikely to enhance union/management relations.
Click to expand...


That's just speculation though, right? Given that all of Corbyn's problems apparently stem from his (apparent) unelectibility and that the skill set required to be elected is entirely disparate from that required to actually run a government (c.f. Trump) then I don't think you have a great deal of information to go on.
 
3point14 said:
That's just speculation though, right? Given that all of Corbyn's problems apparently stem from his (apparent) unelectibility and that the skill set required to be elected is entirely disparate from that required to actually run a government (c.f. Trump) then I don't think you have a great deal of information to go on.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see any evidence that Corbyn has the skills necessary to run a government. So far he's displayed a singular inability to control his own parliamentary party.

Yes Trump was apparently electable (although he lost the popular vote) and yes, he is incapable of running a government but doesn't necessarily follow that electable = incapable of running a government. Obama and Clinton were both electable and could run a government.

There's nothing I've seen so far from Corbyn that indicates that is capable of running a government as he seems to lack the drive, intellect, charisma, loyalty, attention to detail, ability to delegate and a myriad other things which to a greater or lesser extent are desirable in a leader - YMMV.
 
The Don said:
I've yet to see any evidence that Corbyn has the skills necessary to run a government. So far he's displayed a singular inability to control his own parliamentary party.
Click to expand...


I think there's a significant difference between leading a party to an election victory and leading the country. An awful lot of Corbyn's party problems stem from his apparent unelectibility. I think that's a very, very different proposition from leading a party in power full of happy little MPs with their parliamentary salary and associated pension.


Yes Trump was apparently electable (although he lost the popular vote) and yes, he is incapable of running a government but doesn't necessarily follow that electable = incapable of running a government. Obama and Clinton were both electable and could run a government.
Click to expand...

No, I understand that. I'm simply using Trump as a fairly robust example that a skill for electioneering and carrying the party isn't really going to help when running the country. They're disparate skill sets. they may both appear in the same person, but it's not a given. Similarly a lack of skill at electioneering doesn't in any way mean one is going to lack talent for running the country once elected.


There's nothing I've seen so far from Corbyn that indicates that is capable of running a government as he seems to lack the drive, intellect, charisma, loyalty, attention to detail, ability to delegate and a myriad other things which to a greater or lesser extent are desirable in a leader - YMMV.
Click to expand...

I can understand why you think that. I think fighting against a hostile press and half a hostile party haven't helped his image. Is he the right man for the job? Probably not. Do his abilities and talents in his current battleground give any indication as to how good a PM he'd be? I don't think so. YMMV.
 
3point14 said:
I think there's a significant difference between leading a party to an election victory and leading the country. An awful lot of Corbyn's party problems stem from his apparent unelectibility. I think that's a very, very different proposition from leading a party in power full of happy little MPs with their parliamentary salary and associated pension.
Click to expand...

True, but I have yet to see evidence that he has the skills necessary to lead the country either. He's not particularly bright, he doesn't work particularly hard, he's acted as a bit of a loner, doesn't seem to be able to inspire confidence or loyalty in anyone other than his closest associates, he's inflexible in his beliefs and policies, he's ineffective as a communicator and he's unconvincing when saying something that he personally doesn't believe.

3point14 said:
No, I understand that. I'm simply using Trump as a fairly robust example that a skill for electioneering and carrying the party isn't really going to help when running the country. They're disparate skill sets. they may both appear in the same person, but it's not a given. Similarly a lack of skill at electioneering doesn't in any way mean one is going to lack talent for running the country once elected.
Click to expand...

OTOH IMO Corbyn appears to have neither skill set. IMO Corbyn's problem is that a lot of people share my opinion.

3point14 said:
I can understand why you think that. I think fighting against a hostile press and half a hostile party haven't helped his image. Is he the right man for the job? Probably not. Do his abilities and talents in his current battleground give any indication as to how good a PM he'd be? I don't think so. YMMV.
Click to expand...

OTOH his long and inglorious career as an MP gives ample evidence for some of his less suitable characteristics and his inability to marshal his own party gives an insight into his (in)ability to coax support from political opponents or to persuade foreign governments to consider the UK's interests.
 
The Don said:
.......He's not particularly bright, he doesn't work particularly hard, he's acted as a bit of a loner, doesn't seem to be able to inspire confidence or loyalty in anyone other than his closest associates, he's inflexible in his beliefs and policies, he's ineffective as a communicator and he's unconvincing when saying something that he personally doesn't believe............
Click to expand...

Yeah, but apart from that.....:D
 
The Don said:
The abstract proposals mean little
Click to expand...

That sounds pretty much like there is nothing that Corbyn could then propose that you would agree with. Which is exactly what I am talking about. Its entirely about the personality (and a media tainted impression of the personality at that) rather than the policy.
 
The Don said:
I've yet to see any evidence that Corbyn has the skills necessary to run a government. So far he's displayed a singular inability to control his own parliamentary party.

Yes Trump was apparently electable (although he lost the popular vote) and yes, he is incapable of running a government but doesn't necessarily follow that electable = incapable of running a government. Obama and Clinton were both electable and could run a government.

There's nothing I've seen so far from Corbyn that indicates that is capable of running a government as he seems to lack the drive, intellect, charisma, loyalty, attention to detail, ability to delegate and a myriad other things which to a greater or lesser extent are desirable in a leader - YMMV.
Click to expand...

Do you believe Theresa May has these qualities? If so what do you base that assessment on?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Do you believe Theresa May has these qualities? If so what do you base that assessment on?
Click to expand...

Some of them, but not to the extent that she is a good Prime Minister IMO.

She seems much better at keeping her parliamentary party in line than Corbyn - given that the majority of the party hasn't been in open revolt, she has pwned Corbyn during PMQ, she is currently the Prime Minister and although the government isn't doing what I want it to, it is a functioning government. May doesn't have a history of voting against party policy, she appears more inclined to learn and to work hard than Corbyn.

That said, I don't think she's a good Prime Minister at all, it's just that it appears that she is less worse at it than Corbyn looks to be.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
That sounds pretty much like there is nothing that Corbyn could then propose that you would agree with. Which is exactly what I am talking about. Its entirely about the personality (and a media tainted impression of the personality at that) rather than the policy.
Click to expand...

Re: the highlighted.

I was a Labour Party member for a long time. Corbyn was well known within the party. It's not just media taint....

My scepticism about Corbyn's intentions regarding unions is the same as my scepticism about May's intentions regarding human rights. The party manifesto says something reasonable, but years, decades even, of experience of the individuals leads me to be concerned that reality may be very different.

In Corbyn's case this is reinforced by the knowledge that throughout his parliamentary career personal principles have trumped party policy, something he has continued as party leader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom