May's Speech

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Has the UK ever had a worse collection of leaders across the political spectrum than it has right now?

Not in my lifetime.

May's speech was excruciating. Corbyn's was delusional. Cable is irrelevant.

Even looking beyond the current incumbents it's hard to see anyone of any genuine quality waiting in the wings to replace them.

Ruth Davidson might perk the Tories up a bit and widen their appeal in future, but she's not even an MP yet. Johnson? Gove? Rudd? God help us.

Labour will only be hobbled by another Corbyn clone whenever he goes thanks to its stupid leadership election rules, further tweaked at Conference to make it easier for no hopers to get on the ticket.

Depressing times ahead.

It's hard to argue against what you have said here and yet it's probably wise to pause a little, not to excuse the current lot but to ensure we don't overestimate politicians from the past.

The key difference in the modern world is the 24-hour scrutiny that all politicians face as well as the endless TV programmes that mock politicians and the endless social media commentaries from every man and his dog.

Which politicians in the past would have survived that sort of attention?

Churchill certainly wouldn't, while Attlee's reluctance to utter a sentence longer than two words, while admirable in many ways, would have meant the Labour Party would never have supported him as its leader in today's world.

It's always easy to assume that great statesmen of the past, such as Gladstone and Disraeli, were giants compared to today's pygmies, but I would suggest that neither of those two would have survived the scrutiny of the modern media.

In fact I can't think of many who would, from any of the main parties.

[Tongs ya bas]

9 minutes ago, ckn said:

I'll keep this thread open and unmerged with the Tory thread on the condition it stays on the narrow subjects of:

- May's speech and the consequences.
- A cross-party discussion on the leadership and "talent" in the parties

If it gets into general Tory stuff then it gets merged with the main Tory thread

I can think of little if any of its actual content. I doubt whether there was much if any. But the whole thing was smokescreened by events during it.

I doubt whether the man going to the front and giving her a p45 was a major security issue, unless you want a cordon of security guards at the front of the stage. Anybody trying to smuggle a knife into the auditorium would almost certainly have been detected. The only alternative would have been to ban paper and strip search everyone.

The throat issue. This according to a voice coach on breakfast tv this morning could have been ameliorated if not avoided. She knew she had a cold and she could have taken fairly simple measures to make things easier. Amateurish.

The letter falling off the signage. This was the annual conference of the government, and it was operating at the same level as a minor light engineering firm giving a presentation about the future of the sniffer valve. Incompetent.

The Tories used to be very good at this sort of thing.

[John Drake]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

It's hard to argue against what you have said here and yet it's probably wise to pause a little, not to excuse the current lot but to ensure we don't overestimate politicians from the past.

The key difference in the modern world is the 24-hour scrutiny that all politicians face as well as the endless TV programmes that mock politicians and the endless social media commentaries from every man and his dog.

Which politicians in the past would have survived that sort of attention?

Churchill certainly wouldn't, while Attlee's reluctance to utter a sentence longer than two words, while admirable in many ways, would have meant the Labour Party would never have supported him as its leader in today's world.

It's always easy to assume that great statesmen of the past, such as Gladstone and Disraeli, were giants compared to today's pygmies, but I would suggest that neither of those two would have survived the scrutiny of the modern media.

In fact I can't think of many who would, from any of the main parties.

That's a fair point.

When you consider the torrent of abuse public figures are expected to put up with these days, 24/7, from people often hiding behind the cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet, it's little wonder so few people of genuine substance want to stick their heads above the parapet.

[Tongs ya bas]

6 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Because they allow the party to be led by an individual who cannot command the support of the majority of the party's own MPs. 

The threshold for getting on the leadership ballot was just reduced further to 10% of MPs nominating.

And then, any Tom, Dick or Harriet can then join up and vote for the leader without any qualifying membership period.

Stupid.

IMO, anyway. Others may think differently, of course.

Thanks. I didn't know this.

So the solution is to have the leader chosen by the mps

 

[JonM]

2 hours ago, John Drake said:

Has the UK ever had a worse collection of leaders across the political spectrum than it has right now?

Not in my lifetime.

May's speech was excruciating. Corbyn's was delusional. Cable is irrelevant.

Even looking beyond the current incumbents it's hard to see anyone of any genuine quality waiting in the wings to replace them.

I liked Marina Hyde's colour piece in the Grauniad on this theme yesterday, although predictably the comments are filled with howls of range from Corbynistas.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/04/boris-lion-king-to-theresa-may-p45-malarial-week-tory-conference

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, John Drake said:

That's a fair point.

When you consider the torrent of abuse public figures are expected to put up with these days, 24/7, from people often hiding behind the cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet, it's little wonder so few people of genuine substance want to stick their heads above the parapet.

It is a fair point.  There's a group of commentators on twitter who are revelling in May's discomfort.  Not just finding it amusing for a short time but piling on again today.  These aren't anonymous trolls, the majority have paid gigs at the New Statesman, Guardian and the rest.  Now, I happen to think the P45 prank was decent, the loss of voice ludicrous and the letters falling off the sign just perfect - but we now need to move on to what she said.  We know - and she knows - she looked ridiculous.

On the other side, you have the horrendous and sickening abuse piled on to Dianne Abbott and others.

But, leaving aside that ... I still struggle to see much worth celebrating in our political class even though I will agree they don't deserve the venomous personal abuse and threats.

[JonM]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

 The likes of Johnny Mercer, Lucy Frazer and Tom Tugendhat are all potential ministers but are quietly keeping their heads down. 

All 3 of them were fairly vocally opposed to Brexit though - and all have only been in the commons for a couple of years. They'll be keeping their heads down for a while yet. Lucy Frazer is my local MP - she certainly puts in the time visiting local schools, farms, scout groups etc etc. which she doesn't really need to do given how safe a seat it is.

[John Drake]

25 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

Thanks. I didn't know this.

So the solution is to have the leader chosen by the mps

 

Not exclusively, no.

I think the Tory system is better, where MPs nominate, and then hold elimination votes to reduce the number of candidates to two.

Members then vote to pick the leader, knowing that whoever wins, they have the support of a sizeable chunk of the Parliamentary party behind them, not just a rump.

I think there should also be a qualifying period before members are allowed a vote for the leadership, to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the party they have joined, rather than selling votes to anyone in exchange for a few quid, as Labour currently does.

Of course, no system will guarantee you get a good leader if the field you are selecting from in the first place is weak, but given that party members are selecting the candidates to be MPs in the first place, if they end up with a load of useless ones, they only have themselves to blame for that.

[Tongs ya bas]

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

Not exclusively, no.

I think the Tory system is better, where MPs nominate, and then hold elimination votes to reduce the number of candidates to two.

Members then vote to pick the leader, knowing that whoever wins, they have the support of a sizeable chunk of the Parliamentary party behind them, not just a rump.

I think there should also be a qualifying period before members are allowed a vote for the leadership, to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the party they have joined, rather than selling votes to anyone in exchange for a few quid, as Labour currently does.

Of course, no system will guarantee you get a good leader if the field you are selecting from in the first place is weak, but given that party members are selecting the candidates to be MPs in the first place, if they end up with a load of useless ones, they only have themselves to blame for that.

Thanks again, makes a lot of sense.

I wonder who would have been labour leader under that system.

[Robin Evans]

Burnham? 

[John Drake]

8 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

Thanks again, makes a lot of sense.

I wonder who would have been labour leader under that system.

Who knows. Can only speculate, but they could have been PM by now.

[Jasper]

3 hours ago, John Drake said:

Has the UK ever had a worse collection of leaders across the political spectrum than it has right now?

Not in my lifetime.

May's speech was excruciating. Corbyn's was delusional. Cable is irrelevant.

Depressing times ahead.

 

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

It does feel like no sensible person wants to be leader of either main party right now.  

I am one of these strange people with no political party leaning.  When an election comes around I vote for whoever I think will do the best job for me, my family and the country. I agree with John Drake when he says "Has the UK ever had a worse collection of leaders across the political spectrum than it has right now?"  No it hasn't, and none of the three 'major' party's leaders speech's has done anything to change that.  There MUST be some potential leaders in waiting out there, but, as Bob says,  no one capable  seems to want to lead at this moment in time.

[Vladman]

3 hours ago, John Drake said:

Has the UK ever had a worse collection of leaders across the political spectrum than it has right now?

Not in my lifetime.

May's speech was excruciating. Corbyn's was delusional. Cable is irrelevant.

Even looking beyond the current incumbents it's hard to see anyone of any genuine quality waiting in the wings to replace them.

Ruth Davidson might perk the Tories up a bit and widen their appeal in future, but she's not even an MP yet. Johnson? Gove? Rudd? God help us.

Labour will only be hobbled by another Corbyn clone whenever he goes thanks to its stupid leadership election rules, further tweaked at Conference to make it easier for no hopers to get on the ticket.

Depressing times ahead.

Totally agree where are the decent politicians?

A good friend of mine is in full time political PR  said to me this week all the party conferences have been totally depressing this year:(

Johnson is an egoistical fraud and as for Fox/Davis and Gove:((( YUK

Well at least i am enjoying the show mu money is on Barnier:))))

[John Drake]

2 minutes ago, Vladman said:

Totally agree where are the decent politicians?

I've always thought we get the politicians we deserve.

No one wants to hear the truth about anything these days, because reality is too depressing.

So we elect those who tell us what we want to hear, whether that is how easy and painless Brexit will be (Tories) or how we can all have fantastic public services and free stuff without anyone having to pay any more in tax (Labour).

The truth?

No one on any side has a clue how to make Brexit work because the people who called the referendum didn't expect to lose it and have now left the intractable mess for others to clear up, but no one dare admit they don't know what they're doing.

And, if we want genuinely good long term sustainable public services we would all have to pay a lot more tax in order to get them.

Who's willing to vote for anyone saying any of that?

Hence we are where we are, and the more the lies we have been told are exposed by grim reality, the more those telling the lies are diminished.

[Bob8]

I might be alone, but I think my civic representatives are actually doing a great job of representing my interests.

[ckn]

5 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I might be alone, but I think my civic representatives are actually doing a great job of representing my interests.

At borough council level, we have an excellent Lib Dem councillor who really is seen everywhere in keeping the area nice.  We used to have two of them but one was replaced by a Tory who is also a Tory party local organiser/agent and spends all his time doing that unless he's in the council chamber voting exclusively by the whip.

Same at county council level, we used to have a great Lib Dem who was an effective representative, now we have a Tory drone who is about as hard to tie down as Lord Lucan.

At MP level, our MP is a 100% whip voting, fox-hunting advocating Brexiteer Tory who consistently supports welfare erosions and votes against anything to improve equality and human rights.  So, as you can guess, this one doesn't represent my interests.

[John Drake]

17 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I might be alone, but I think my civic representatives are actually doing a great job of representing my interests.

That's good to know.

I certainly don't subscribe to the view that somehow 'they're all the same' and a collective bad lot.

The lower down the food chain you go, you will find many good local politicians motivated by genuine community spirit and doing the best they can for their area, mostly without appreciation. 

But at the highest levels, I don't think we've ever been as poorly served.

[Bob8]

17 minutes ago, ckn said:

At borough council level, we have an excellent Lib Dem councillor who really is seen everywhere in keeping the area nice.  We used to have two of them but one was replaced by a Tory who is also a Tory party local organiser/agent and spends all his time doing that unless he's in the council chamber voting exclusively by the whip.

Same at county council level, we used to have a great Lib Dem who was an effective representative, now we have a Tory drone who is about as hard to tie down as Lord Lucan.

At MP level, our MP is a 100% whip voting, fox-hunting advocating Brexiteer Tory who consistently supports welfare erosions and votes against anything to improve equality and human rights.  So, as you can guess, this one doesn't represent my interests.

Yes.

I was being a little disingenuous in my circumstances.  But there are several levels.  

MP's will typically be amongst the worst politicians around though,  it can be a chamber for loudmouths and the selection is often apparently corrcupt.

[Shadow]

4 minutes ago, John Drake said:

That's good to know.

I certainly don't subscribe to the view that somehow 'they're all the same' and a collective bad lot.

The lower down the food chain you go, you will find many good local politicians motivated by genuine community spirit and doing the best they can for their area, mostly without appreciation. 

But at the highest levels, I don't think we've ever been as poorly served.

I stood in the recent local elections and whilst chatting to my opponents at the count was pleasantly surprised how much we had in common.

At local level it really does seem to be about getting stuff done rather than supporting the party line.

[ckn]

1 minute ago, Shadow said:

I stood in the recent local elections and whilst chatting to my opponents at the count was pleasantly surprised how much we had in common.

At local level it really does seem to be about getting stuff done rather than supporting the party line.

When I was on the local parish council, it was considered rude to discuss political parties and affiliations.  Admittedly the parish council was only looking after an area with a few thousand people but it did help when you just had to consider the needs of the area

[shrek]

Fair play to her for carrying on.  Was excruciating to listen to.

But then the same could be said of her time as PM, ploughing on, presumably knowing in her heart of hearts if her party has any chance of winning the next election she'll have been replaced as PM.

[Tongs ya bas]

33 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I stood in the recent local elections and whilst chatting to my opponents at the count was pleasantly surprised how much we had in common.

At local level it really does seem to be about getting stuff done rather than supporting the party line.

My local councillor is a Tory. He's a nice person, works hard and gets things done. When we talk about stuff, some of the things he says sound very unTory like. I once asked him why he was a Tory. His reply was; "you've got to be a Tory to get elected round here".

[Griff9of13]

To me the most remarkable thing about the speech was the amount of backtracking, apologiesing and promising to fix things that the Tories were responsible for breaking in the first place.

 

[Bedford Roughyed]

47 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

To me the most remarkable thing about the speech was the amount of backtracking, apologiesing and promising to fix things that the Tories were responsible for breaking in the first place.

 

The same can be said for trying to say 'we won' whilst dumping 40% of the winning manifesto.  

[Saintslass]

19 hours ago, shrek said:

Fair play to her for carrying on.  Was excruciating to listen to.

But then the same could be said of her time as PM, ploughing on, presumably knowing in her heart of hearts if her party has any chance of winning the next election she'll have been replaced as PM.

I think that following the election, which was a risk she didn't need to take, she will have wanted nothing else but to resign.  However, she is big on duty - that is her background and her age range - and so she is dutifully carrying on, getting battered from every angle.  If her mental health can withstand it, there are no more mishaps or terrorist attacks (which actually there weren't when she was in charge of the Home Office - interesting, that), then there is a possibility the current shambles can be turned around.  After all, the Tories polled their biggest number of votes since 1983 in that election and are still polling around 40% and that is even with an atrocious election campaign, terrible manifesto, numerous tragedies and many mishaps.  Just a few percentage rise in the polls and the Tories would be through to a proper majority.  They need to start thinking like that rather than shrieking about Corbyn.  Once they change their collective mindset things will start to improve, not only for the Tories but also for the country which actually needs a functioning government rather than one in which Grant Schapps thinks he is big dog.