Senate The UK Politics discussion

If this alleged "ripping apart" involves a gross misunderstanding of my post, then you've got a long day ahead of you I see. "Tory-lite" doesn't mean "secret Tory." It means Tory-lite. That doesn't mean all their policy positions suddenly become the same as the Tories.

The most successful political party in the world? haha! On what criteria?

 

The Conservative Party dates back to 1867 but their roots are in the "Whigs" and the "Tories" who date back to the 18th century.

As well as being a very old political party they were also the party of government (either through coalition or on their own) throughout the 20th Century. Having largely unbroken runs from 1914 to 1945 (they did lose power for a year in 1923 and again in 1929) Then again from 1951 to 1964 and then again from 1979 to 1997.

 

The Liberal Party of Canada held power for 69 years in the 20th century. Not consecutive, but still longer than a party in any other developed country.

 

It's interesting that both parties have had very successful (you can debate the nature of that forever) leaders - Thatcher / Blairand then, in the aftermath, they've had less than successful successors - Major / Brown - who lose power, then the party undergoes a period of several years of internal fratricide, played out to varying degrees in public, before someone new takes over to recharge it.

For the Tories that's been Cameron, for Labour - it'll have to be someone new.

Can that happen in four years? Given what's happened in the last one, with all manner of political changes no one foresaw, it very well could do.

Not that I'll be placing any bets. My future boss will likely be one of two political opportunists - Khan or Goldsmith. No way to tell how that'll play out either.

 

I think after initial success (I do expect him to win the 2020 general election) George Osborne will be toxic with the electorate.

Osborne taking over from Cameron is how Labour gets back in the game (but they have to remove Corbyn and the mad people that have infiltrated the party through Mr Ed's "brilliant" membership rule changes and really just pull themselves together)

 

It'll be interesting too see what happens in the Oldham by-election on Thursday. Labour had a 14,000 majority in 2015.

 

Longevity as your primary criteria for success would rank the Conservative party up there with the Communist Party of China, Castro's regime in Cuba and Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe, so well done them. Legitimacy depends on all kinds of factors including the number of viable choices and the voting system.

FPTP success doesn't represent majority consent, at least not in the UK in recent decades. Is a victory via a gerrymandered system much of a success for all those whose votes don't count?

All the old parties claim glory for various achievements of previous governments and for opposing potential disasters of various others, so it's tricky and subjective to assess a party's contribution to measures like the economy, happiness, health, etc. The events occurring during any 4 or 5 year parliament have been affected by all previous parliaments in complex. Many policies have unintended consequences, negative and positive, that only become apparent decades or even centuries later. So Daniel has some work ahead of him explaining party success beyond the largely trivial meter of election results, imo.

Regarding 'Tory-lite': as a British citizen I can confirm this was a term used regularly in the 90s and 00s by all kinds of people interested in politics. It has obviously never meant secret tory, but he had also been called a closet tory in his time. The policies that Daniel mentions are now all mainstream tory policies (the tory party of the late 90s was a little more regressive, coming off the soggy end of 'back to basics' and high profile sex scandals), and let's not forget that the victory Blair led Labour to in 97 was on the promise that he'd stick to the Conservative spending plan.

 

They won't soon

My worry is it will go to UKiP as Oldham won't vote Tory

 

I've thought about that too. In recent times you had Thatcher followed by Major. Then Blair followed by Brown. Also occurs in the U.S. presidency with multiple administrations from same party and really did from its outset: Washington was followed by J Adams(although who could really match GW?). Lincoln followed by Johnson. Coolidge followed by Hoover. Kennedy by LBJ. Reagan by HWBush.

 

Opinion is hardening a bit against air strikes in Syria but Jeremy Corbyn's personal approval rating has dropped to a catastrophic -41 and the Conservatives have an 11% lead over Labour

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02/analysis-sharp-fall-support-air-strikes-syria/

 

I don't see why it matters so much today how far ahead the Conservatives are. You guys just had an election and the next one won't be for what, five years?

 

leave her alone, this is what she follows instead of "footie". she's the uk equivalent of ghost. let her cheer her team

 

Have been watching some of the debate Re. Syrian air-strikes today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34980504

I thought both Cameron and Corbyn were poor (Cameron accusing people who vote against military action of being "terrorist sympathizers" and then refusing to offer a work of apology today was a particular low point for him I think)

Despite the poorness of the leadership speeches there's been some fantastic backbench contributions in the debate. Alan Johnson and Yvette Coopers speeches were especially good I thought.

If I was in Parliament I think I'd be inclined to vote against air strikes.... Just can't see how bombing the cr*p out of Syria helps anything.

Vote will be around 10pm and government is expected to win but it will be interesting to see how close the vote is.

I suspect it will be a lot closer than it would have been without Cameron's idiotic intervention.

I think it's of interest to monitor opinion through the Parliament though, especially with Corbyn winning the Lab leadership.

Clearly Corbyn tapped into "something" when he went to backbench obscurity and fringe politics to lead one of the Great Parties of British Politics.

I've been waiting to see whether he would connect with the wider electorate like he did the Labour membership. My guess has always been that he wouldn't connect with the wider electorate and so far that seems to be getting born out but it's worth keeping an eye on it I think.

 

I would appear to be a terrorist sympathiser then.


Whilst I agree that something needs to be done about ISIL, I don't know what the answer is. I'm pretty sure however that adding the "might" of GB airstrikes to what Russia, Turkey, France and America is doing isn't going to make one iota of difference bar putting us at increase risk in the uk.


If there was a plan with a follow up for the occasion where we do disrupt ISIL and can support Syria back onto its feet and the UK still come out looking like "Good guys" then I guess I would be OK in going in but at this moment I just don't see what would be served in going in half assed. There are nations already blowing the crap out of them, how about we take the political approach and at least attempt negotiation how ever slim an outcome may be.

 

Agreed.

In terms of air-power it will make no difference if we're there or not... The only reason to enter up this phase really is to show "solidarity" with the US and France (who are probably thinking we're becoming a flaky ally) but that seems a pretty small reason to go and bomb the cr*p out of another country, especially one that already seems to have half the world bombing it.

 

But can't a very unpopular government lead to a vote of no confidence and/or force the hand of the PM to call for new elections? I agree five years seems far out but I was under the impression that popularity or lack thereof with a specific government can change the election timetable.
So maybe conservatives become more unpopular and that changes things? But Labour doesn't seem to be helping things.

 

Because we have a fixed term parliament act it's very difficult for an election to be called before the end of the term. In theory a government can be brought down by a vote of no confidence, however, the Tories have a small majority (and with the DUP its a much more secure majority) so its highly unlikely a vote of no confidence would be passed.

MP's currently voting over whether or not to bomb Syria. This evening Hilary Benn (who is Labours shadow foreign secretary and pro-bombing) has given what some are describing as the best speech Parliament has heard in years. This is being said to have moved a dozen or so Labour waverers in favour of bombing.

Looks like the motion to bomb Syria will now be passed more comfortably than it might have appeared an hour or so ago...

 

Ah I see. Aren't the Lib Dems caucusing with the Tories too?

Looks like the DUP you mentioned are in support of air strikes too.

 

Yes.

Lib-Dems (with the exception of Normal Lamb MP) are voting to bomb Syria with the Tories, DUP, UKIP MP and around 60 Labour rebels - Which seems to include half of Corbyn's shadow cabinet.

Against bombing is the rest of the Labour Party, the SNP, the Green MP and I think 12 or so Tories.

EDIT: And we have the result:

YES: 396 NO: 223

174 majority for air strikes.

EDIT 2: Looks like 57 Labour MP's voted for air strikes. 10 Tories voted against air strikes.

EDIT 3: The government couldn have carried the motion

 

I'm still very torn on the Syrian airstrikes. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Hilary Benn said in his summing up. But then I worry there isn't enough of a coherent plan on military action and ideally I'd like to see governments in the area taking more of a lead, though I understand the difficulty in that.

 

Well the West has never been down that road before in the ME, especially Iraq or surrounding countries.

Yeah, it's just bombs away and then……well we hope that solves it.

 

Bomb things and prop up authoritarian regimes and then scratch our heads in confusion as terrorism gets worse, rinse, repeat.

 

I'm finding all those calling the MP's who voted for military action "bloody-thirsty war mongers" just as distasteful the PM labelling those against terrorist sympathisers tbh. It's all too polarised. Like, can we have some rationality and nuance in our public discourse? Just once? Please?

 

Just to say this would have finished, government could have carried the motion without Labour support.

Hear. Hear. Cameron frustrates the hell out of me because he can be really good (his response to the Bloody Sunday inquiry for example) but sometimes he really demeans his Office and his comments last night were one of those times.

 

Sadly not, an election now is practically a 5-year blank cheque for the winners.

Manifestos? Need them you will not.

I was about to quip that the government would suddenly have to be strangely silent.... But, more seriously, yes. There does seem to be a great gap in MPs' understanding of what being 'honourable members' entails....

(Like for instance not taking liberties with the expenses system.)