New Prime Minister

Discuss the news, current events, politics, celebrity gossip, etc.

New Prime Minister

Unread postby michaelah » 7 July 2016, 17:57

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/and ... 25131.html

So. We have a choice between an openly anti-gay bitch, or a "I used to be an anti-gay bitch but I totally voted for same-sex marriage to increase my popularity in 2013 so therefore I am no longer anti-gay lol" anti-gay bitch, to take over David Cameron (who, allegedly, fucked a pig's head).

This is ongoing whilst the value of the pound is plummeting, my place of work has confirmed they may need to consider redundancies due to the Brexit situation (construction is going to be badly hit), the Labour party are trying to unfairly force out the democratically elected leader Jeremy Corbyn, it has been confirmed (although already technically confirmed by it being an OBVIOUS FUCKING FACT) that Tony Blair is a vagina, most of the EU has admitted they hate us, we voted to leave the EU for (among other reasons but mostly) immigration when Britain not so long ago colonized probably half the fucking planet and it's almost certain that the price of Freddos will once again rise.

I fucking love being British, soon to be English once Scotland decide to fuck us. Why not? We fucked ourselves blatantly.
"Is Bukkake a restaurant?"
michaelah
 
Posts: 58
+1s received: 3
Joined: 10 May 2015, 01:22
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Marmaduke » 7 July 2016, 19:07

I think your argument is a little over-simplified and it damages your credibility to base your claims that the country is fucked on the Conservative government presenting two candidates who didn't support gay marriage. If you want to argue why they're bad choices, perhaps start with how one has done an absolutely terrible job as Home Secretary and is somehow immune from being called to account over it, or the other having next to no experience whatsoever of parliamentary leadership being a stone's throw from leading parliament. Those are the sorts of points to make. The really concerning ones, that affect everyone going forward.

The value of the pound is still falling, yes, but it's still widely considered to be a temporary blip that will resolve itself once the country re-stablisies politically and investor confidence returns. The Tory way of cutting taxes and supporting business will also start to bolster investment once The Treasury formalises a drop in corporation tax below 15%.

I think most places of work that do business with foreign markets and investment groups have acknowledged that there may need to be redundancies if the economy falls to the worst case scenario, but it's still way too early to start calling that a likelihood.

The Labour party has acknowledged that Jeremy Corbyn has done a fairly poor job of running an opposition government, in so far as he hasn't really opposed anything, or held the Tories to account effectively in PMQs, or been a visible and engaging opposition leader to the public. They, as a party, have come to the reasonable conclusion that he isn't suited to the public realities of his role and his continuing in post is only allowing the Tories to operate without effective opposition whilst letting the public forget he exists. For a politician, he really is pathologically shy and never appears on TV or interviews. He always sends Diane Abbot, who is terrible and serves only as a further example of his questionable judgement. Yes, the man was democratically elected, but that doesn't mean he is tenured to the job and immune from criticism or the chance of being replaced. If it is still the will of the electorate that he remain, then he'll win again. If not, then the party has done the right thing for it's members. Either way, the argument of it all being undemocratic is nonsense.

Tony Blair is indeed a twat. On that we can agree.

Most of the EU hasn't admitted that they hate us, rather that they are unsurprised by our leaving and rightly willing and ready to go on about their lives now that the decision has been made. Politicians have expressed everything from regret about departure to hope that it may catalyse the positive reform that the EU has so desperately needed for so long. Personally, I hope that our leaving proves to be a positive to the EU. There's no reason we both can't prosper off of the back of this decision.

The argument that as former colonialists, we can't oppose free movement of citizens is one that doesn't hold to scrutiny. If we took all our decisions going forward on whether or not they'd be considered hypocritical against our decisions hundreds of years ago then we'd still be fighting with France and Spain and our empire would likely still cover a quarter of the planet. It doesn't. Because we recognise that things change.

I will concede that the immigration argument was a stupid one, but so were a lot of the remain arguments. There were, however, a number of valid arguments for leave that ranged from concerns over a lack of democratic representation all the way to TTIP being one of the biggest dangers to face the NHS and other public services in years. Good arguments or bad, none of them are why Leave won the vote. Leave won because the government and both sides of the argument wholly failed to engage with low-income households, working classes and those who rely on the state for their welfare. Those groups were hugely marginalised and they're groups that have had difficult times over the past few years in the name of Tory austerity. They've had benefits and welfare cut back to the bone and find themselves increasingly hard-up year-on-year. And they were wholly ignored. Nobody addressed them on what it meant to them, so they were faced with the choice of vote remain and have everything stay the same or vote leave and maybe have it change. Continue with nothing, or roll the dice for a chance at an improvement. They voted leave because it's the only vote, rightly or wrongly, that made sense to them. That's not their fault. It's the government and the media who we pay to debate the points and keep us informed and they wholly failed to do so, and what's worse is nobody cares. If you'd argued the country is fucked on those grounds, I'd get it. But you aren't.

The price of Freddos will, sadly, always rise in simple terms. But that's not Brexit, that's inflation.

You're British. Yes, the government are largely bell ends. But you don't have to worry about healthcare, you have a job, the country is relatively secure and the quality of life is relatively great. If I was looking for something to hate, I could probably find something better to hate than how privileged I am. I'd probably just hate Michael Gove.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 5947
+1s received: 795
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby michaelah » 7 July 2016, 21:28

I admire your reply. Really though, I was just having a dig at the current state of our political system. Of course, it could be worse - we're relatively lucky to have some form of functioning democracy, where some countries are living under either dictatorships or 'faux democracy' (Russia, for example, where Putin is elected but on the grounds of strictly controlled media propaganda and suppression of free speech).

My knowledge on the issue based on the above is not quite at your level, so I'll try to respond but may fall short of the standard that has been set.

I'm not saying the country is fucked solely based upon the two candidates being opposed to multiple LGBT rights. It's collectively the issues I mentioned in addition to others such as the apparent increase in hate crime, the decline of the NHS and what is becoming a one party opposition to the Tory party. Note that that's in addition to the originally posted points. Of course there are more important points that make both May and Leadsom bad choices to take over from Cameron but the stance on LGBT rights of a politician sometimes gives an indication of just how far right that politician is. In a world in which far-right sentiment seems to be on the increase, it's distressing to think that rights of the LGBT community and of course other minorities could be at stake. However, I doubt that anything will be repealed unless the loathsome Britain First ever made their way into power which is extremely unlikely to happen.

Michael Gove as an example. Despite the fact that he has always been an apparent supporter of LGBT rights, I wouldn't consider voting for him since he has made clear his view on the NHS. Any politician who sees nothing wrong with wishing to dismantle the NHS can get to fuck, really. Unfortunately, every single politician and every single party will have views and policies that you don't like mixed with some that you do. You cannot dream of finding a politician or MP with whom you agree on everything. Doesn't happen.

The issue with Theresa May is that almost every single thing she has done (and the lack of doing anything) has pissed me off. Especially wearing this :shake: I cannot forgive her making a secret deal with Saudi Arabia for example. Why are we still dealing with Saudi Arabia at all? Okay. Yes, I know. We need the oil trade.

Leadsom. Who? I completely agree with your point on her. She has way too little experience to run the country. To be honest, I'd never heard of her until a couple of weeks ago. She is also an indecisive lady who won't stick by her beliefs (probably to make herself more popular and run for PM ;)); Leadsom reckoned leaving the EU would be bad for the UK only a few years ago and she supported the leave campaign!

I am a critic of Cameron (even though I voted for him at the last General Election). However, I was devastated when he stepped down because I truly believe he would have been the best person to negotiate with the EU. However, I respect his decision to resign. He wanted to remain so it's not at all in his interests to remain in his position and go through the stresses of negotiations. Bit of a selfish git as we're left with May or Leadsom who no doubt will be about as good at negotiating trade deals as England is at football.

I'm going to disagree and agree with you on the pound. Yes, it will most likely stabilize and begin climbing again before too long. The unsure part is that there is zero guarantee that it'll not crash again once Article 50 is triggered and in the further future, when we actually leave the EU. Our future is still in the hands of the EU and other nations; if we fail to secure good trade deals our economy will decline and the pound will fall once again. Everything hangs on trade. I think you can agree that if we fail to negotiate trade deals we will be in poor shape. Yes we will still be able to trade without a trade deal but as the costs of tariffs and with restrictions if trading with countries part of the EU. This will make businesses less likely to base themselves here because why the fuck would they want to if they pay higher import/export fees? So yeah, it'll rise again but for how long? What happens if we can't negotiate a decent trade deal with the EU?

Redundancies are never a good thing. The last thing we need is a higher unemployment rate which will lead to an increase in reliance on welfare and thus an increase in borrowing (potentially). Poverty has absolutely no place in the modern world. To be honest, a lot of the time I feel like my job is all I have. Losing it would be heartbreaking. I work in the commercial side of the construction industry (sort of a cross between an Estimator, Quantity Surveyor and a Contracts Manager). We basically work with large commercial warehouses such as distribution centres. How many distribution centres will we need when we have restrictions on trade and businesses begin moving elsewhere? On the plus side, labour shortfalls are expected and thus the wages for workers in the industry could increase. I am confident our business will make it through. I am confident any business that survived the 2007-2010 (approx) recession with minimum redundancies can make it through Brexit, however.

Jeremy Corbyn has one major issue: he's nice. Nice people don't do well in politics. However, he secured leadership of the Labour party with a majority in excess of 70% and support for him among Labour members still seems strong. I guess we will see what happens - if he doesn't secure the vote of the members again it was the right thing. So I agree with you there. What I don't agree with is that he's not pressed issues. I have watched many a PMQ and witnessed him grilling Cameron. Unfortunately, Cameron just takes the piss out of him most of the time and refuses to answer the actual question. For all of his flaws, he does seem a principled man. Perhaps he wouldn't make a good leader and perhaps he is unelectable but he is a man of integrity. He vocally and strongly opposed the Iraq War way back in 2003 and stood by that decision. I like the guy, even though I'm principally a Conservative Party voter. I agree he is shy and that is a real shame. He is a nice man so having the confidence and being outgoing with it would perhaps persuade me to vote Labour. Perhaps.

Definitely a twat :lol:

EU MEPs saying they regret our decision isn't heartfelt. Surprisingly I think that Merkel is really the only leader that genuinely gives a shit. Jean-Claude Juncker wants us out ASAP. They are all insistent that we will get the same terms as before. The populations of EU countries on social media are seemingly quite hostile to the UK and are glad we are leaving. Some of course are hoping that our decision to leave will trigger referendums in their own countries as they also wish to leave the EU. EU leaders want us to fail so that we are a warning to others that leaving the EU is a bad idea, so of course they're not going to be particularly willing to help us out and let negotiations be in our favour. The EU will never change. Despite some leaders of other countries within the EU saying that this means the EU needs change, they are too stubborn to do anything about it. I voted Remain. If anything, leaving has shown me that remaining we are just the puppets of the EU. Leaving? It's very worrying. We just have no idea what will happen.

Point taken on the colonization. Won't say too much in response in regards to immigration as that's going to be answered in the next point.

I wouldn't call the immigration issue as a reason to vote leave a stupid one. Completely uncontrolled immigration is bad. Very bad. As things go, the UK is a small island. Also as things go, there is a limit to our infrastructure. Quick point on the infrastructure. These Tory cuts need to be focused better. We need MORE investment in the NHS, public transport, roads, etc and not less. Investment to public transport (mainly buses) has been cut under the Tory part. That's not good at all. I'm a driver and don't rely on public transport but I'd like to see less people relying on driving themselves. As for the elderly and disabled, public transport is their independence. There haven't been any cuts in the NHS in terms of a decrease in budget - there has been an increase as with under the coalition and the previous Labour government. However, the amount invested in the NHS is less of an increase on previous years under the previous governments.

Despite immigration needing some sort of control, which we can't really implement as a member of the EU, immigration when controlled is a fantastic thing. For example, immigrants contribute more to the economy and take out less in welfare on average than non-immigrants. Immigration keeps the UK diverse, provides benefit to the UK economy and provides labour to less desirable industries and job roles. The downside of immigration is over-crowding and demand on the infrastructure (which is partly also due to too little investment). It's not a stupid reason unless it is the sole reason. Similar to your saying that my only judgement of May is that she's against LGBT rights.

Issue is, I was content with the status quo. It is way too easy for us to blame our issues on the EU but most of it is due to our own government including both our current Tory government and our previous Labour governments. I was content with where we were and where I was. When it comes to leaving, things could get much worse. I love our NHS. So of course escaping TTIP is the main benefit to me of leaving the EU. However, until I see evidence the only two benefits to leaving I see are: controlled immigration and not being bound under TTIP and therefore survival of our NHS. Other than that it all seems like maybes to me.

I am so glad you raised the issue with the failure to inform. There were so many opinions presented as facts, lies presented as truths and right out threats on both sides that nobody really knew the for and against of a leave or remain. The campaign became so confusing that people went for their instinct. I was so unsure to the point of almost not voting at all. I didn't decide until the day of the vote, mainly due to the fact that I didn't know what was true and what was just a lie. Both sides of the argument are guilty of that.

Let me just make a point. Not everyone struggling financially voted Leave. I'm struggling to pay off a huge amount of debt whilst trying to afford to move into a flat after moving out from my boyfriend's home (due to an issue with the mother in law). I'm always chasing the next pay but I voted remain.

Freddos :(

That's one benefit of May vs. Leadsom I suppose. If Gove was a candidate still, I'd be worried about healthcare.

Thank you for your dignified and informed response.
"Is Bukkake a restaurant?"
michaelah
 
Posts: 58
+1s received: 3
Joined: 10 May 2015, 01:22
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Tony » 11 July 2016, 21:50

Theresa May was just announced as the new Tory leader and soon-to-be PM earlier today ..
Tony
 
Posts: 3294
+1s received: 194
Joined: 24 October 2014, 20:30
Location: London
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Jacketh » 12 July 2016, 16:55

Marmaduke wrote:The Labour party has acknowledged that Jeremy Corbyn has done a fairly poor job of running an opposition government, in so far as he hasn't really opposed anything, or held the Tories to account effectively in PMQs, or been a visible and engaging opposition leader to the public. They, as a party, have come to the reasonable conclusion that he isn't suited to the public realities of his role and his continuing in post is only allowing the Tories to operate without effective opposition whilst letting the public forget he exists. For a politician, he really is pathologically shy and never appears on TV or interviews. He always sends Diane Abbot, who is terrible and serves only as a further example of his questionable judgement. Yes, the man was democratically elected, but that doesn't mean he is tenured to the job and immune from criticism or the chance of being replaced. If it is still the will of the electorate that he remain, then he'll win again. If not, then the party has done the right thing for it's members. Either way, the argument of it all being undemocratic is nonsense.


What on earth are you on about, Dukey? Fair enough if you dislike Corbyn's politics - that is fine. But Corbyn has been opposed practically every Conservative policy this year. Whilst before the Labour Party were happy abstaining on Welfare cuts, Corbyn, and the party line, was to oppose most of Osborne's Budget - their opposition to the Tax Credits helped the U-turn. Likewise academies. The Labour Party have offered their support to Junior Doctors in the ongoing row. Corbyn and Labour opposed the cuts to PIP, which again.

During the Blair and Brown years, even Miliband, there really wasn't all that much separating both parties. They were both neo-liberal. And I imagine if Blair was still in charge or in opposition, he would support the new plans for the NHS, and would likely be supporting the austerity measures in the last six years.

Regardless of what you think of Corbyn, its weak to say he hasn't opposed. The fact is, the majority of the people in the Labour Party are not socialists. They're not democratic socialists. Most are firmly in the centre, and care about being elected. They know Corbyn would be destroyed in an election, and that the media would only up their assault on him. They don't want Corbyn as leader, and they're using the excuse of the EU referendum to attempt to oust him.
User avatar
Jacketh
 
Posts: 512
+1s received: 245
Joined: 30 January 2015, 00:12
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 July 2016, 18:27

Jacketh wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:The Labour party has acknowledged that Jeremy Corbyn has done a fairly poor job of running an opposition government, in so far as he hasn't really opposed anything, or held the Tories to account effectively in PMQs, or been a visible and engaging opposition leader to the public. They, as a party, have come to the reasonable conclusion that he isn't suited to the public realities of his role and his continuing in post is only allowing the Tories to operate without effective opposition whilst letting the public forget he exists. For a politician, he really is pathologically shy and never appears on TV or interviews. He always sends Diane Abbot, who is terrible and serves only as a further example of his questionable judgement. Yes, the man was democratically elected, but that doesn't mean he is tenured to the job and immune from criticism or the chance of being replaced. If it is still the will of the electorate that he remain, then he'll win again. If not, then the party has done the right thing for it's members. Either way, the argument of it all being undemocratic is nonsense.


What on earth are you on about, Dukey? Fair enough if you dislike Corbyn's politics - that is fine. But Corbyn has been opposed practically every Conservative policy this year. Whilst before the Labour Party were happy abstaining on Welfare cuts, Corbyn, and the party line, was to oppose most of Osborne's Budget - their opposition to the Tax Credits helped the U-turn. Likewise academies. The Labour Party have offered their support to Junior Doctors in the ongoing row. Corbyn and Labour opposed the cuts to PIP, which again.

During the Blair and Brown years, even Miliband, there really wasn't all that much separating both parties. They were both neo-liberal. And I imagine if Blair was still in charge or in opposition, he would support the new plans for the NHS, and would likely be supporting the austerity measures in the last six years.

Regardless of what you think of Corbyn, its weak to say he hasn't opposed. The fact is, the majority of the people in the Labour Party are not socialists. They're not democratic socialists. Most are firmly in the centre, and care about being elected. They know Corbyn would be destroyed in an election, and that the media would only up their assault on him. They don't want Corbyn as leader, and they're using the excuse of the EU referendum to attempt to oust him.

But when does Corbyn publicly stand in front of any of those points? Because that's mine. He doesn't stand in front of anything, I never see him make public statements. The party has opposed here and there, but they've stood other politicians front and centre - distressingly often, the aforementioned Abbott. He doesnt present himself as a leader. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really feel that unless you're a Corbynite and proactively taking an interest then - leadership challenge aside - you could forget he was there.

And a concern with getting elected is vital for an opposition party. Acknowledging that he cannot win an election is acknowledging that the party he leads doesn't pose any significant likelihood of even forcing a coalition government in a general election. It renders the party much less relevant and much less able to do its job. Liking him as a socialist and for his policies is secondary, the labour party needs to place someone at the helm who is electable and they need to do it fast. At the moment, the Tories will be weighing up calling a general election and cementing Teresa May with a solid mandate to lead. It's going to seem particularly tempting to do it soon because they will - in all likelihood - extend their majority in the commons. Labour will flounder under this shitty leadership crisis, and having taken a bat to their own legs and with May headlining on "Brexit means Brexit" is going to swing some UKIP voters back to the Tories whilst Labour loses the left to the Lib Dems and The Greens and the Center left to the Tories. Keeping Corbyn makes no sense. At all.

And the EU referendum is a pretty relevant grievance to throw against him. He stood at the head of a party which was in the remain camp and said the bare minimum, with a well known past as a hard-line Euro-sceptic. That, on its on, maybe not enough to replace him but certainly call him to account. But when he refused to publicly respond to the question "Jeremy, did you vote remain?" and essentially plead the fifth, he essentially silently told the public that he was leave all along. He let down remain and he betrayed the party. A lesser party figure would be looking at getting deselected to run in the next general election for doing something so duplicitous so publicly, and to such detriment to the party. He needs to go.
Last edited by Marmaduke on 12 July 2016, 18:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 5947
+1s received: 795
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Marmaduke » 12 July 2016, 18:44

If Corbyn is in charge when an election is called, we're a one party state and it's his fault. Labour needs him to leave, and not just office. He needs to distance himself from the party. Become an independent or swing over to the Lib Dems if they'll take him.

Labour needs to elect Chukka Umunna, assuming they've forgiven him for announcing and then abruptly quitting for no obvious reason last time.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 5947
+1s received: 795
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Severelius » 12 July 2016, 22:42

I honestly don't even know with Labour any more. They seem determined to slowly slapfight themselves out of existence and at this point I'm not sure if it'd be a greater kindness to help save them or to push them off a cliff to send them on their way in a somewhat prompt if not dignified manner. A leader who many have severe doubts about the electability, a coup against that leader, a challenge by a woman probably just as unelectable who is now facing a no confidence vote from her own local constituency who support Corbyn, and on top of all of this they seriously want to contest an election?

I support the notion of a general election as soon as possible, but if you're Labour surely it's the last thing you want to have to do until you can get your own house in order. An election being called right now would most likely be a disaster for them given the party's at war with itself and doesn't seem to even remotely care about anything happening in the outside world.

The sad thing is he probably won't go until after an election. He seems determined to hold on and the people who support him won't let him go until he's fought an election. Hell some of them might not even let him go after that, they might just blame any trouncing the party receives on the "Blairites" and doggedly stick with Corbyn.

I don't want to call this the death of Labour but if things don't improve it just might be. They've already lost Scotland, probably for a damn long time if not forever. So their ability to win a majority anyway is significantly weakened and now with them tearing their party in half it seems impossible until they decide what they want to be and stick to it. Plus with the state they're in I can't see any other party really wanting to be saddled with supporting them as they limp their way through trying to make a government work. They're bad enough when all their jobs are just make believe, I'd hate to see how dysfunctional they'd be if they had to actually run a country right now.

Honestly this entire country's politics is one steaming hot mess right now. We have the Tories recovering from their Eurosceptic split opinion and handing the leadership to Theresa May, a woman I find thoroughly unpleasant in every sense. Labour's falling apart. UKIP is without a leader until Nigel Farage inevitably comes back. The Greens are soon to be without a leader for a while. The Lib Dems are sassing Theresa May with a 404 page on their website.

It's just a mess all around, honestly.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2843
+1s received: 205
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Nickr » 13 July 2016, 17:57

I love being Right.

Vis a vis May I'm very swayed by her speech in front of Downing Street and think we'll look forward to a good few years under her
[6:42 PM] Marmaduke: Nick is GFO Lord of the Dance

Semen disposal unit
User avatar
Nickr
 
Posts: 354
+1s received: 17
Joined: 2 June 2014, 13:23
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 13 July 2016, 20:44

Its not the first time a party has swooped its leader without a general election is it?. Remember Blair did this stunt with Brown at the time a certain Tory MP Theresa May spoke out about saying it was an injustice to the electorate. Clearly been an MP must affect the memory either side of the house.
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Marmaduke » 13 July 2016, 21:17

Ironsky3 wrote:Its not the first time a party has swooped its leader without a general election is it?. Remember Blair did this stunt with Brown at the time a certain Tory MP Theresa May spoke out about saying it was an injustice to the electorate. Clearly been an MP must affect the memory either side of the house.

Well let's cut her some leeway. I don't like the woman, but even I wouldn't resort to painting her a hypocrite just yet. She found out she was getting the job with about 48 hours notice to take over a country. I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect her to call a general election before she's even had a chance to sit at her desk.

I think there's a pretty fair chance of the Tories calling a general election. Circumstance is certainly well on their side and nobody else is currently in a position to challenge. That said, the speed with which the Government has resolved it's leadership issues is impressive and is what the country needs right now. Stability is required off of the back of Brexit and there's a fairly compelling case that a general election might not be what's best for the economy, and by extension the country right now. We've never left the EU before, and we've certainly never had a prime minister resign straight after such a destabilising political incident. She's in uncharted waters and there's a lot of unknowns and variables that the prime ministers before her have not had to consider. Let's give her a couple of weeks grace.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 5947
+1s received: 795
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Marmaduke » 13 July 2016, 21:48

In fact, thinking about it, can she call an election whilst the opposition is in the midst of a leadership battle? I'm not sure she can. And even if she can, Labour would just take legal action and seek injunctive relief. They'd have a pretty strong claim of it being in the interests of the electorate to delay an election and the Tories would struggle for a compelling reason to push ahead so quickly with the political landscape as it currently stands.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 5947
+1s received: 795
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Severelius » 13 July 2016, 21:58

On the subject of calling an election I really don't buy the way some people argue against it by just citing previous Prime Ministers who got the job without a general election. It basically sounds to me like they're saying we shouldn't fix what I consider kind of a problem with our political system and that the reason we shouldn't fix it is because it hasn't gotten fixed before.

I know a lot of the British identity seems linked to upholding tradition in some way but I don't agree that we should stick to a bad idea just because it's always been there. And I really do think that getting a new head of government is the kind of thing that should require an election.

But I am giving Theresa May every chance. I don't like Tories but it'd be small-minded to write them all of as fundamentally terrible. She's got an uphill battle in terms of making me like her in any way (but then again I'm far from her core voter base in all but geographic location) but I am willing to give her a shot. Her selecting Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary isn't a good start, but at least she got rid of Osborne.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2843
+1s received: 205
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby c1ask0 » 13 July 2016, 22:27

I don't think May will call a general election. She has already expressed a disinterest in doing so and the economy needs stability, which is not something that an election would support.

Saying that, if she did call a general election it would be ruddy interesting to see how it turned out.

P.S. Did anyone else read the story about that bird of prey in Australia trying to fly off with a little boy? I initially misread the headline to be Angela Eagle snatches child. :lol:
Don't think about doing it tomorrow. You won't do it tomorrow. Do it today.
User avatar
c1ask0
Moderator
 
Posts: 4168
+1s received: 56
Joined: 17 December 2013, 19:48
Location: Preston
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Ironsky3 » 14 July 2016, 13:34

My point is when the kitchen gets too hot Prime Minster jumps ship and let's their successor carry the can. What's the point in voting for one leader but get an unelected one not very democratic is it?
Ironsky3
 
Posts: 33
+1s received: 2
Joined: 11 July 2016, 20:53
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Nickr » 14 July 2016, 14:19

I read 50% or so of PMs have taken office as part of an intra-party swap around. And I guess this makes sense, you vote for the manifesto and the party; the electorate never votes for a party leader. That said if May did call an election I think she'd get a 150 seat majority, and that given the enemies she's made in her reshuffle she might seek a greater majority than 12.
[6:42 PM] Marmaduke: Nick is GFO Lord of the Dance

Semen disposal unit
User avatar
Nickr
 
Posts: 354
+1s received: 17
Joined: 2 June 2014, 13:23
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby nikolii » 14 July 2016, 15:18

My profile picture is strangely suddenly relevant all of a sudden. And here I was using it to merely poke fun at feminism.

I'm very glad that Mrs May is our new Prime Minister. I think she has what it takes to do what is necessary for the national interest post-Brexit. Her reshuffle of the cabinet also seems promising.
And Marmaduke you are a bitch.
Image
User avatar
nikolii
 
Posts: 821
+1s received: 19
Joined: 20 December 2012, 23:07

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Severelius » 14 July 2016, 18:05

There are numerous things in her reshuffle that worry me.

Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary
Keeping Jeremy Hunt as Health Secretary
Bringing Liam Fox back into frontbench politics
Abolishing the Department for Energy and Climate Change
Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary

But at the same time she's gotten rid of Gove and Osborne. So that's good. Oh, and Stephen Crabb is gone already. Probably the only positive I've found in this whole thing so far outside of "at least we know this PM hasn't orally violated a dead pig's face."
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2843
+1s received: 205
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Derek » 14 July 2016, 18:29

Abolishing the Department for Energy and Climate Change? Is that as bad as it sounds?
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 5122
+1s received: 1367
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: New Prime Minister

Unread postby Severelius » 14 July 2016, 18:57

Derek wrote:Abolishing the Department for Energy and Climate Change? Is that as bad as it sounds?

When you pair it with the fact she also abolished the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and folded them both into the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and that the aforementioned new Environment Secretary is a climate change denier or at least opposes climate change measures then yeah, it does sound pretty bad.

Basically the climate change response of the government will be handled both by the same department as its interactions with big business, and by the new person in charge of the environmental policies of the government who doesn't believe in climate change. Also advocates for bringing back fox hunting too. Because murdering foxes with an army of dogs is great environmental policy.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 2843
+1s received: 205
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Next

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Courage, Fiulaposm, Severelius and 7 guests