The UK General Politics Thread Page 82

  • Page

    of 512 First / Last

  • imamazed 15 Mar 2013 10:30:05 6,216 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Cameron is looking like the weakest PM since Callaghan.
    Are people forgetting Gordon Brown already?
    Interesting one, Brown. I'd agree with your general sentiment; I think he'll be rightly be remembers as a weak PM. His biggest problem was domestic indecisiveness, which is catastrophic for a PM. But, for some reason, he was anything but weak in foreign affairs and with the economic crisis. If he could have followed it up with an election victory or had some cohesiveness domestically, he may well have been remembered as a strong PM.
  • TheSaint 15 Mar 2013 10:36:20 15,679 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    He also came close to a couple of leadership challenges. Anyway it isn't really fair to compare the power of a coalition prime minister to one with an overall majority.
  • spamdangled 15 Mar 2013 10:37:44 27,911 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    imamazed wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Cameron is looking like the weakest PM since Callaghan.
    Are people forgetting Gordon Brown already?
    Interesting one, Brown. I'd agree with your general sentiment; I think he'll be rightly be remembers as a weak PM. His biggest problem was domestic indecisiveness, which is catastrophic for a PM. But, for some reason, he was anything but weak in foreign affairs and with the economic crisis. If he could have followed it up with an election victory or had some cohesiveness domestically, he may well have been remembered as a strong PM.
    Brown's biggest problem is that he will always be remembered as the PM no-one wanted, by virtue of being unelected.

    Yes Major was unelected too initially, but he at least survived through one GE.
  • disusedgenius 15 Mar 2013 10:37:47 6,210 posts
    Seen 40 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I don't think Cameron is in a particularly weak position - no more than any of the other leaders. Pretty much any of them could easily be got rid of after the next election. At the end of the day not every PM can (or should) be a Thatcher in that regard.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 10:38:13 15-03-2013
  • spamdangled 15 Mar 2013 10:39:33 27,911 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    I don't think Cameron is in a particularly weak position - no more than any of the other leaders. Pretty much any of them could easily be got rid of after the next election. At the end of the day not every PM can (or should) be a Thatcher in that regard.
    Cameron certainly likes to think of himself as Thatcher... lost count of how many times he's referenced her recently. He even described his government as "Thatcher's Children".
  • imamazed 15 Mar 2013 10:42:11 6,216 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    imamazed wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Cameron is looking like the weakest PM since Callaghan.
    Are people forgetting Gordon Brown already?
    Interesting one, Brown. I'd agree with your general sentiment; I think he'll be rightly be remembers as a weak PM. His biggest problem was domestic indecisiveness, which is catastrophic for a PM. But, for some reason, he was anything but weak in foreign affairs and with the economic crisis. If he could have followed it up with an election victory or had some cohesiveness domestically, he may well have been remembered as a strong PM.
    Brown's biggest problem is that he will always be remembered as the PM no-one wanted, by virtue of being unelected.

    Yes Major was unelected too initially, but he at least survived through one GE.
    You're not wrong, but that does annoy me. Less than 0.3% of the population actually vote for a "prime minister" in a general election. It's just not how the system works; the party with a majority has the right to change the PM at any time.
  • TheSaint 15 Mar 2013 10:42:44 15,679 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I also stand by my point yesterday that the vast majority of people really don't care about press reform and even if he loses on Monday it will have little effect on his standing.
  • nickthegun 15 Mar 2013 10:43:11 63,931 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    As a mouthpiece, hes fine. Radio friendly, hunky and dynamic. Its the shit hes being asked to shovel thats the problem.

    In fact, if it wasnt for dave delivering the bad news, there probably would have been civil unrest by now.
  • disusedgenius 15 Mar 2013 10:43:39 6,210 posts
    Seen 40 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Cameron certainly likes to think of himself as Thatcher... lost count of how many times he's referenced her recently. He even described his government as "Thatcher's Children".
    I don't see what that has to do with anything, really. I don't really think that was a reference to his being a dictatorial leadership.
  • Dougs 15 Mar 2013 10:47:38 72,203 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    imamazed wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Cameron is looking like the weakest PM since Callaghan.
    Are people forgetting Gordon Brown already?
    Interesting one, Brown. I'd agree with your general sentiment; I think he'll be rightly be remembers as a weak PM. His biggest problem was domestic indecisiveness, which is catastrophic for a PM. But, for some reason, he was anything but weak in foreign affairs and with the economic crisis. If he could have followed it up with an election victory or had some cohesiveness domestically, he may well have been remembered as a strong PM.
    And his indecisiveness cost him a GE. If he'd called one when his instincts said, in Nov after he took over, he'd have sailed through. Have it on good authority that he was far from weak with officials and knew his shit, just was too indecisive, as you say.
  • spamdangled 15 Mar 2013 10:48:38 27,911 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    To be fair, most of the Lib Dems saw the LD implosion :D
  • disusedgenius 15 Mar 2013 10:51:39 6,210 posts
    Seen 40 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Clegg doesn't stand for anything.
    Well the trouble is that the main thing he stands for is legitimising the Lib Dems - which he's kinda achieved, but with more of a pyrrhic victory than he intended. The Lib Dems have always been a little tough to nail down as they've never been full-on red or blue. They've got a funny mixture of both which varies a lot per member.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 10:52:52 15-03-2013
  • imamazed 15 Mar 2013 10:52:03 6,216 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    imamazed wrote:
    You're not wrong, but that does annoy me. Less than 0.3% of the population actually vote for a "prime minister" in a general election. It's just not how the system works; the party with a majority has the right to change the PM at any time.
    Everyone has the obsession with the idea that a 'party' is a codified part of the system. They exist purely for the sake of convenience.

    The idea is that all the MPs come together and select one of them to be their mouthpiece and lead them. If a majority can agree on who that is, then he goes and gets permission from the Queen. This is all muddied by the fact that candidates are nominated months and years in advance, and all the other ossified traditions (rather than rules) that hang around like leader of the opposition etc.
    Quite right actually. In fact, parliament has the right to change the PM at any point (sans election). It's just these days parties control parliament.
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 15 Mar 2013 10:55:09 42,127 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    IMO Nick Clegg stands a chance of going down in history as the man who lead the Lib Dem party to its destruction. Obviously he's not solely to blame but he's certainly made sure that myself and many other people will never vote for them again.
  • Deleted user 15 March 2013 10:56:45
    The only thing Clegg did was show the country why the Lib Dems should never be near power. It would have been no better with any other leader. Spineless party that are best served moaning about stuff they can't affect.
  • spamdangled 15 Mar 2013 10:58:44 27,911 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    IMO Nick Clegg stands a chance of going down in history as the man who lead the Lib Dem party to its destruction. Obviously he's not solely to blame but he's certainly made sure that myself and many other people will never vote for them again.
    I pretty much agree with this.
  • spamdangled 15 Mar 2013 10:59:54 27,911 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    LIberal Conservative alliance makes zero ideological sense. The Lib Dems are an offshoot of the Labour party, for a start (a whiny, flappy handed offshoot).
    Eh?

    The Liberals precede the Labour party by a good few hundred years.
  • Dougs 15 Mar 2013 10:59:56 72,203 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Pretty much. All whilst the sweet shop owner kept a close eye on them and made sure they didn't get anything they couldn't afford. Of their manifesto, the only thing they've secured is raising the income tax bracket.
  • disusedgenius 15 Mar 2013 11:00:17 6,210 posts
    Seen 40 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    LIberal Conservative alliance makes zero ideological sense. The Lib Dems are an offshoot of the Labour party, for a start (a whiny, flappy handed offshoot).
    Nah, they've always been the localist alternative to the centralist Labour. There's always been a lot more overlap with the Conservatives than they'd like to admit. I mean, Liberalism pretty much IS conservative, for the most part, just without the social anxiety.
  • Bremenacht 15 Mar 2013 11:18:30 21,632 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think those condemning Nick Clegg are forgetting just how shit and disliked the other two leaders are. People will vote LD simply because they're sick to death of the other two parties.

    No-one knows what Millibean and Labour really stand for.
    People thought they knew what Cameron stood for, but the disconnect between what Cameron claims to stand for and what he actually does, is becoming clear enough for people not to trust him.
  • glaeken 15 Mar 2013 11:39:15 11,411 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think Clegg is doing a reasonable job in the disliked stakes.

    That response he did about the Lord Rennard stuff made him look like a right cunt. It was very clear he was being very careful over what he said so as not to implicate himself. Fine if it were some sort of legal defence not so good when it's about PR and you very obviously are trying to cover your arse.

    This of course has nothing to do with his polices but it showed him to be disingenuous to my eye.

    What makes a good likeable politician is the ability to present an appearance of honesty and for me Clegg fails on that front.

    Edited by glaeken at 11:44:20 15-03-2013
  • Mr_Sleep 15 Mar 2013 11:42:27 18,174 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    I think those condemning Nick Clegg are forgetting just how shit and disliked the other two leaders are. People will vote LD simply because they're sick to death of the other two parties.
    I don't think this will happen. Look at the positive feeling towards the liberals before the last election and look at how many votes they had. People will vote safely, as they always do. It'll be either Labour or Tory and that'll depend on how much you want the current cunts out.
  • glaeken 15 Mar 2013 11:49:45 11,411 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think the next election is going to be giant cluster fuck. I mean we hate the current shower of cunts but I don't think it's been long enough to forget how much we hated the last shower of cunts. So we are in a situation where I think all the parties are pretty much despised. That should make for an interesting result.
  • imamazed 15 Mar 2013 11:51:08 6,216 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The next election will result in another hung parliament. You can pretty much count on that.
  • Deleted user 15 March 2013 11:51:51
    Live in a massive Tory safe seat so it's pretty pointless me engaging. If my vote did count I'd go Labour I think.
  • Page

    of 512 First / Last

Log in or register to reply