Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

On and on it goes...

...the leadership election that never ends has made another step. Conservative Party MPs have backed by 127 votes to 50 a change in party rules for electing a replacement for leader Michael Howard. The changes will give MPs the final say in the coming contest. So, in other words, MPs changing the system so that they make the decisions. Nice to see they care what their members think, isn't it? Click here for story.

Seriously, isn't all this rather boring and rather irrelevant? Boring in the sense that nobody cares. "Just choose a fucking leader, for crying out loud!", I shouted at the television in frustration last night. Irrelevant in the sense that it distracts the Tories and gives this woeful government a easy ride.

And on a side note, why do the tabloids call this a beauty contest? To me, the prospect of seeing David Davis and Michael Ancram in swimsuits is very unappetising. But that's just me. What do you lot think of all this?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it is superficially banal but very important, just as Tony Blair "abolishing" clause four was banal but important, as the Labour Party dogsbodies have realised to their cost.

    Personally I don't blame the MPs for wanting to make the decision, the grass roots have proven time and time again they can't make a simple decision correctly.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I think it is superficially banal but very important, just as Tony Blair "abolishing" clause four was banal but important, as the Labour Party dogsbodies have realised to their cost.
    I suppose what it comes down to is parties wanting to win elections. Blair abolished clause four in order to deal with this image that Labour was a party in the pockets of the trade unions, with union barons pulling the strings, soon went on to win. The Tories, after three defeats, they want a victory. Can't really blame them, politics is about power, after all. Time will tell on this one.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think its important for a party to have a leader the parliamentary party have faith in, because parliament is the key centre of politics in the UK. The grassroots deal more with local issues.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I think its important for a party to have a leader the parliamentary party have faith in, because parliament is the key centre of politics in the UK. The grassroots deal more with local issues.
    How strange. We agree with each other. Only question now is, who are they gonna chose? I reckon it'll be David Davis they choose in the end.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It matters not, when your party is in decline anyway.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It matters not, when your party is in decline anyway.
    Wouldn't they have said the same thing about the Labour Party during the 18 years of Tory government? Look what happened to them. Who's to say the same won't happen to the Tories?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It matters not, when your party is in decline anyway.
    It's hard to be in decline from rock bottom.

    I can't see Gordon Brown winning an election. He makes Blair look competent.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i hope that boy cameron doesn't get it, he reminds me of oliver letwin...pompous prick

    boris for leader i say :thumb: :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It matters not, when your party is in decline anyway.

    I suspect the way to halt the decline is to choose the right leader.

    Unless you belive that Labour are going to be in power for ever or that the Scots Nats are going to make a sudden play South of the border, the Tories will be in sometime.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah well Im fookin drunk in Amsterdam so I dont give flying fook.

    FOOKIN PISSED!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah well Im fookin drunk in Amsterdam so I dont give flying fook.

    FOOKIN PISSED!

    :lol:

    here he goes again...tasting any of that magic weed over there?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah well Im fookin drunk in Amsterdam so I dont give flying fook.FOOKIN PISSED!
    Where's Jim V when you need him?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah well Im fookin drunk in Amsterdam so I dont give flying fook.

    FOOKIN PISSED!

    so i stopped like, and nicked her handbag like, and then i heard t'rozzers.

    so i fucked off to get some e's and scag, and me fuckin hammer, and now im here for a fuckin kebab!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    I suspect the way to halt the decline is to choose the right leader.

    Unless you belive that Labour are going to be in power for ever or that the Scots Nats are going to make a sudden play South of the border, the Tories will be in sometime.

    I'm not convinced that it is that straight forward. The Tories don't have some divine right to be in opposition/government and just having a charismatic leader won't change the fact that they are so busy with their in-fighting that they forget that they are supposed to represent the electorate. I always get the feeling that they are just waiting for the chance to settle old scores against each other.

    It would be interesting to look at the voting ages.

    I have a feeling that it will show that Labour appealed to the 20-40 age range before Blair was elected leader, and this has carried into his time in Govt.

    I also suspect that the LibDems appeal to this range now and this could prove a disaster for the Tories as their vote dries up....
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not convinced that it is that straight forward. The Tories don't have some divine right to be in opposition/government and just having a charismatic leader won't change the fact that they are so busy with their in-fighting that they forget that they are supposed to represent the electorate. I always get the feeling that they are just waiting for the chance to settle old scores against each other.

    It would be interesting to look at the voting ages.

    I have a feeling that it will show that Labour appealed to the 20-40 age range before Blair was elected leader, and this has carried into his time in Govt.

    I also suspect that the LibDems appeal to this range now and this could prove a disaster for the Tories as their vote dries up....

    Not sure the voting system will allow the Lib-Dems in - the Tory vote would have to disintegrate to around 8-10% (with Labour staying the same) for the Lib-Dems to get in.

    I just remember conversations from the late 80s and early 90s which were whether Labour would ever get in again. They did and i suspect the tories will as well. My predicition is the introduction of ID cards will lead to the fall of Blair and the anyone but Brown camp will manage to get in a Labour version of Major - history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Sign In or Register to comment.