Cameron opens up tory candidate list

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jew_unit, May 24, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    He's missed (or pretended to miss) the point about Mrs Mackay which is that noone will believe that she has not benefited from the fiddling.

    The main thing however is that he is trying to break any old-boy stranglehold in individual constituencies which are sticking up for an indefensible MP already (or to be shortly) outed as a scrounger. As he has the wit, which the local associations clearly haven't, to realise that come the election all the muck will start flying again.

    Several Labour constituencies have yet to grasp this, too.
  2. I'd like to see it as a positive step, but quite apart from my loathing of anything to do with party politics the Conservatives have rather a lot of work to do to convince me that we'd not just be replacing one group of trough-swilling hypocrites milking us for the benefit of their supporters with another.

    His constant reference to 'public service' to describe life in the service of a political party is just one giveaway.

    Edited to add: His claim that the best way to restore faith in politicians is for an immediate General Election is just blatant opportunism. Politics needs to be changed before that will happen, not just a few politicians.

    Oh, and edited to correct 'pubic service' to wot I really meant. Although they are all a bunch of cnuts.
  3. I think it's both. Unlike Labour, I think the Tories - or at least Cameron - have some idea of how angry people are and that drastic change is required. I think this is only the start of it, if I was them my intent would to deliver a constant stream of changes to drive home the message that they are changing.

    However, I also suspect that they think that all they need to do is stay ahead of Labour, which is hardly challenging. I therefore doubt whether they will do enough to draw voters back to them.
  4. This morning on the Andrew 'doormat' Marr show he was asked if he would welcome an influx of independently minded MP's joining his government and would they have a free hand in voting.

    His answer came across to me as

    "Well I like the idea of the public thinking that they have a independently minded MP representing them....but I have party whips for a reason...."

    Clegg is looking at a recall system for MP's and that alone smacks of real progress.

    After all the electorate can only sack an MP once every 5 years or so...the party can effectively end an MP's career at any time.If you were an MP who would you listen to?
  5. If this is his idea as reported by the beeb, then it sounds crazy to me:

    Five per cent of the constituents? That would bring politics to a halt as the opposition should be able to muster a 5% vote against any politician on any pretext. It would be a shambles.

    Better that Party leaders have the balls to actually sack MPs and then let the constituents vote on whether they want the sacked MP re-employed or not.
  6. maguire

    maguire LE Book Reviewer

    what if you fixed the level at say, the same amount of signatures as votes for the second or third candidate in the election that selected them? that would seem slightly more workable to me - you would need more than the 5% so to try and make it a bit more than 'on a whim' if you like, but not so many as to make it impossible for people with a genuine problem to raise it.

    either way, I would hope after this parties will pay slightly more attention to what voters *really* care about - not the right-on PC kneejerk bulls**t so beloved of harperson, blears and their loathsome ilk.
  7. I agree that a percentage that low would indeed lead to some serious abuse...but that is,as ever,the Lib Dem position in all its well thought out glory.

    I think the idea in principal has massive merit (anything that focuses the mind of an elected representative in regards to his constituents wishes has to be a good thing.)

    It just requires careful thinking through in the first place.

    You suggest that a strong party leader should be the answer but what happens when the parties idea conflicts with the voters?It is that exact lack of checks and balances that have led to British politics crumbling in the first place.

    I wish to see a situation where an MP ask themself before voting on an important matter..

    "Will my decision here wash with those that have elected me to represent them?"

    Novel idea huh?
  8. Well firstly, as much as I loath politicians, I feel, politicians should at least be given a respectable amount of time once elected. Although in theory it's a great idea that the people should be able to de-elected any MP at any time, in practice I think it would be counter-productive.

    Of course, if an MP in doing something seriously wrong, then he should go but that should be the decision of the Party leaders.

    But, with my suggestion, there still is a counter-balance. If the Party sacked an MP, that would result in a by-election. If the sacked MP truly had the support of his constituents then he would be re-elected. His constituents still take the final decision whether he stays as an MP or not.

    Even adjusting Clegg’s idea with a higher percentage, I’m still not sure that it is viable. However, it’s good that he’s considering ways to make MPs more accountable to the public.
  9. It can't work because other parties can play fast and loosse with it.

    I'm sure that two parties co-operating together would be able to get the necessary signatures.
  10. It can't work because that would mean that MPs voting for an unpopular bill would be voted out instantly. This would result in something close to direct democracy, which this system is designed to avoid. Its just a shame that politicians seem intent on abusing their position.
  11. Are you?

    The petition for Brown to resign is at around the 65000 mark...and that is after many weeks and very high publicity.

    It is made even easier to vote for as its online and requires minimal effort to collect names.

    Now try just getting a third of that number in door to door canvassing in a constituency of 70000....and over what would probably a frivilous matter if it is merely local party politicians playing party political games.

    This is where we have to have a bit of faith in the general public,and I understand that it has been an alien concept in politics for a long time.
  12. I disagree. I think most people know how angry the public is. The amount of vitriol directed against MPs in the newspapers and on telly is a giveaway. The problem for Gordon Brown is the fact that he is clearly yesterday's news. Most people think that Labour will lose the next election. To that end, Gordon Brown is powerless to grip his MPs.

    Contrast that with Cameron. Many people think that Cameron has a good shot at being PM. With that comes power. Nobody wants to cross the next PM and everyone wants to have a slice of the pie. That is why Cameron can make grand gestures in the form of sanctimoniously gripping MPs, as if all this is news to him.

    I saw David Cameron on telly this morning. He is imo a lightweight. He is the personification of the wily politician but lacks the charm and wit of blair to pull it off convincingly. When asked a question, he resorts to the old distraction technique favoured by the current shower in government, "blah blah blah...but what is important here is [insert something irrelevant]". He is easily seen through.

    I despair of British politics. There seems to be a singular lack of talent in politics. Labour must clearly be punished. The Conservatives very clearly aren't ready to govern anything. The lib dems are a bit of a running joke. Where to for competent governemnt? I think perhaps the independent candidate is the way to go. AFter all, if one is not convinced that parliament is competent enough to make policy, what better than to make it difficult for parliament to make policy. I believe a house of independents is the imperfect answer.
  13. Or the very least that they would have to do is present the case to their electorate in a reasoned and well presented manner before voting.

    Instead of the way MP's seem to belligerently vote in accordance with the whips wishes.

    A recall system would help to end the arrogance of the state for good.
  14. Funny, I didn't see that at all. I saw a statesman like display from a politician who clearly sees the way forwards in all this. I sincerely believe that he is a conviction politician. I think that he'll make a fine PM.