Mrs May - whither (or wither) the Tory Party

I hope you don’t mind me putting forward a counter view but they were never going to agree with anything that was put forward as they never do as that’s what’s politics is all about, and she’s a politician so cut from the same cloth and as corrupt as the rest of them. They (collectively) with the exception of the ERG have by playing politics done everything in their powers to thwart the will of the people that put them there.

If this was the Russian revolution, she’d have been first against the wall. We are a tad more civilised so she will get ejected via a vote.

She’s a guilty as the rest of them
The ERG have been playing politics just like everyone else, just their own brand.
 
I think Cameron advanced May to office because (a) he was desperate to pack his front benches with wimmin (to the detriment of those that are genuinely capable), and (b), she was exactly the sort of unthinking drone that would blindly follow orders and policy direction.

(I expect May is actually on the autistic spectrum and this is defining her behaviours and thought processes. I don't mean to disparage autistic individuals in any way, its just that the condition drives specific character traits).

With regard to (b), I think a problem for CMD at the time and the Tories in general is that politicians are now locked into increasingly ludicrous and unsustainable liberal-socialist policies. To deliver these policies requires suspension of common sense and dismissal of hard evidence (eg economic, biological, social, historical, etc), and a willingness to stick to a storyline to beat down reasoned objection.

The Labour party finds it easy to fill office slots, as its core creed and dogma by definition have little connection with reality. Tories, on the other hand, have at least some grounding in "c"onservative realities, and thus have to dig out people like May who can be handed a plate of nonsense and who will then deliver that according to an instruction sheet.
 
I think Cameron advanced May to office because (a) he was desperate to pack his front benches with wimmin (to the detriment of those that are genuinely capable), and (b), she was exactly the sort of unthinking drone that would blindly follow orders and policy direction.

(I expect May is actually on the autistic spectrum and this is defining her behaviours and thought processes. I don't mean to disparage autistic individuals in any way, its just that the condition drives specific character traits).

With regard to (b), I think a problem for CMD at the time and the Tories in general is that politicians are now locked into increasingly ludicrous and unsustainable liberal-socialist policies. To deliver these policies requires suspension of common sense and dismissal of hard evidence (eg economic, biological, social, historical, etc), and a willingness to stick to a storyline to beat down reasoned objection.

The Labour party finds it easy to fill office slots, as its core creed and dogma by definition have little connection with reality. Tories, on the other hand, have at least some grounding in "c"onservative realities, and thus have to dig out people like May who can be handed a plate of nonsense and who will then deliver that according to an instruction sheet.
I doubt TM is on the autitstic spectrum I think the way she operates is down to her being adamant that what she believes in (at the time) is the only way and is unable to compromise. I also think she is incapable of creating the crumbs of a policy which can then get fleshed out by elected officials, relying instead on unelected SPADS which is the main reason she refuses to change tack because she cannot understand the basis of the policy.

I think Cameron advanced her career because he knew this and was confident that she would toe whatever party line he and Osbourne were trumpeting at any given time. I think this is why she underfunded the Police as HS because Osbourne refused to give her the money needed, just like Brown did to the Armed Forces under Blair.
 
I know it is the Tory hating Guardian but they are stirring the pot with claims of splits in the Tory Party.

Tory MPs vow to quit party if Boris Johnson becomes leader

Are we really heading in to an era where UK politics turns into a splintered arena and parties will spend more time managing partnerships between factions/Parties than on governing the country.

What gets me, if this is true, that we are getting a bunch of politicians who refuse a democratic vote. If BJ became leader of the Party apparently these guys will say that this democratic vote does not suit them so they are offski to set up their own splinter party!

Democracy in this country nowadays only seems to be acceptable if people agree with the democratic decision. If they don't then just ignore it. This way equals trouble and anarchy, not necessarily in that order.
If only it were that simple.

You are using 'democracy' in a particularly loaded manner.

The core issue is that, as a result of Dave's manoeuvring, we had two different, distinct, and mutually-exclusive forms of democracy in play. Representative democracy (choosing MPs who we select to use their own judgement in the various stages of the parliamentary process) and Direct democracy (a referendum). They're both valid in their own way but there's a risk (as has come to pass) that they produce a different result.

We don't have much experience in referenda and it showed.

But there's a bias in your statement - and it's a bit ironic, as you are also choosing to support the version of 'democracy' that supports your own position.

We need to be very careful in using the 'D' word. Both approaches are 'democratic' and I fear you are using it in an Orwellian 'two legs bad four legs good' manner.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
If only it were that simple.

You are using 'democracy' in a particularly loaded manner.

The core issue is that, as a result of Dave's manoeuvring, we had two different, distinct, and mutually-exclusive forms of democracy in play. Representative democracy (choosing MPs who we select to use their own judgement in the various stages of the parliamentary process) and Direct democracy (a referendum). They're both valid in their own way but there's a risk (as has come to pass) that they produce a different result.

We don't have much experience in referenda and it showed.

But there's a bias in your statement - and it's a bit ironic, as you are also choosing to support the version of 'democracy' that supports your own position.

We need to be very careful in using the 'D' word. Both approaches are 'democratic' and I fear you are using it in an Orwellian 'two legs bad four legs good' manner.
Thanks for that and I recognise my bias.

One point regarding representative democracy, we send MPs in to do their will, but on our instruction. That is what hustings are for, the potential MP listens, tells us what he/she is hearing and takes that back. This representative democracy has in turn been usurped by Party politics. I would love to see many more independents in the House, but that isn't going to happen.
 
Thanks for that and I recognise my bias.

One point regarding representative democracy, we send MPs in to do their will, but on our instruction. That is what hustings are for, the potential MP listens, tells us what he/she is hearing and takes that back. This representative democracy has in turn been usurped by Party politics. I would love to see many more independents in the House, but that isn't going to happen.
It's definitely a point of tension, especially with an unwritten constitution. As discussed in another place (SWIDT?) is the MP responsible to his constituents (including the ones who didn't vote for him), to his party, or to his own conscience? At the moment, the answer is 'yes'...
 
all parties do not come out of the current situation well at all
every time the snp stand up to speak they are just wanting to look good in the media.
whole thing has been badly handled by both main parties and a reason why people dont vote
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
all parties do not come out of the current situation well at all
every time the snp stand up to speak they are just wanting to look good in the media.(and fail)
whole thing has been badly handled by both main parties and a reason why people dont vote
As I have said before this was a binary non partisan referendum which has been turned into partisan politics where, right at the bottom of the list of priorities and only just getting lip service, is the result of the referendum!
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I have found the training video that Mrs May has been using to help her get her deal, the WA, over to parliament and the Country.


No better a role model than Sir Ian.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Mrs May is a wonderful uniting PM, after last night's speech she has united everyone against her. :rolleyes:
 
I am no fan of PMTM, but I need to go against the grain as seen in/on the media this morning.I think she has a point about blaming the MP's in the House.If they had got behind her in the first place, and all worked towards an orderly Brexit, we would not be in this current dreadful situation.
They don't need to get behind her particularly but they do need to get behind something. I think she saw that at the beginning.
 
If only it were that simple.

You are using 'democracy' in a particularly loaded manner.

The core issue is that, as a result of Dave's manoeuvring, we had two different, distinct, and mutually-exclusive forms of democracy in play. Representative democracy (choosing MPs who we select to use their own judgement in the various stages of the parliamentary process) and Direct democracy (a referendum). They're both valid in their own way but there's a risk (as has come to pass) that they produce a different result.

We don't have much experience in referenda and it showed.

But there's a bias in your statement - and it's a bit ironic, as you are also choosing to support the version of 'democracy' that supports your own position.

We need to be very careful in using the 'D' word. Both approaches are 'democratic' and I fear you are using it in an Orwellian 'two legs bad four legs good' manner.
True Representative Democracy is a different thing to what you describe, which is akin to representative tyranny.
We don't elect our MP's do do as they see fit: we elect them to express the views of their constituents.
Their failure to do this is what has brought us to where we are today.
 
The ERG have been playing politics just like everyone else, just their own brand.
They have but they also have 17.4m people behind them, which makes their brand of politics a little more weighty
 
No, they are all to blame. The PM because she has coluded with a SPAD to produce a plan that is unworkable for all sides and factions which ties us to the EU, instead of working with her Cabinet, especially the many Brexit secretaries she's had, to produce a plan to Leave the EU that can be sold to parliament and the country.

Where it all went wrong was when she allowed the EU to set the agenda which refused to engage in post Brexit trade talks until they got what they wanted from our decision to Leave. That gave the EU total control over our Leaving.
Which might have been avoided if the EU had seen a united front in Westminster, and not the infighting which they saw as weakening our position.
 
True Representative Democracy is a different thing to what you describe, which is akin to representative tyranny.
We don't elect our MP's do do as they see fit: we elect them to express the views of their constituents.
Their failure to do this is what has brought us to where we are today.
Actually what you're describing is technically known as 'delegative' democracy*. A 'delegate' is someone who is 'delegated' to pass on a point of view, much like you'd delegate a task in the military. Not what our (admittedly unwritten) constitution is about at all.
 
Which might have been avoided if the EU had seen a united front in Westminster, and not the infighting which they saw as weakening our position.
No, the EU saw a negotiating team, and strategy, that was undermined from the outset by the PM and her SPAD Ollie Robins. This undermining resulted in the loss of Brexit Secretary's, and other ministers, because they were prevented from doing their job because the EU were being sold a pup by the PM and OR instead of them being open, honest and supportive.

The shenanigans going on in parliament are also a result of this. How can parliament discuss and agree on anything to do with Brexit when they know the PM and OR are not being honest with ministers so how can they believe anything they're told?
 
No, the EU saw a negotiating team, and strategy, that was undermined from the outset by the PM and her SPAD Ollie Robins. This undermining resulted in the loss of Brexit Secretary's, and other ministers, because they were prevented from doing their job because the EU were being sold a pup by the PM and OR instead of them being open, honest and supportive.

The shenanigans going on in parliament are also a result of this. How can parliament discuss and agree on anything to do with Brexit when they know the PM and OR are not being honest with ministers so how can they believe anything they're told?
Olly is a sherpa, not a SPAD.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top