May has gone - ding dong the utter, utter, total failure of a prime minister is gone

1171819202123»

Posts

  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,277
    pblakeney wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I thought you wanted MPs to not be noticed. Grieve will be lucky to keep his seat if there's a GE. Boles is no longer a member of a party so will need to join another to win a seat at the next GE. He'll need to join a party, then get selected as a candidate, win that seat and then work his way up. More likely he will change career entirely.

    Anyway what is this experience you mention?
    Not made myself clear then. I simply want them to put the job at least on a par with personal gain. As per the point made earlier, it is possible to be successful without shafting everyone. They got better after the expenses scandal but are simply playing the game better. It is getting to the stage now that some don't appear to have got the memo and don't care, until it goes to court.
    Current batch of MPs will have sussed out that a coalition is most likely soon and will be positioning themselves to be active in that. Better a big fish in a small coalition party than a back bench for a big party.
    Experience? Viewing and voting from the 70s. Not got a clue who to vote for today.
    I'm not suggesting there are no MPs who fit your description, but even 40+ years of voting is only 12 general elections. If you moved constituency every few years, that's still a very small sample out of 650. The media love to portray them all as venal and dishonest, but having someone in the family who has been heavily involved in local and national politics, I just don't think that's true of most of them, most of the time. Taking the example of the expenses scandal, the reporting gave the impression that they were all at it, when the number of MPs found to have broken the rules was less than 30 (out of 650). Still too many, but less than 5%.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,832
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm not suggesting there are no MPs who fit your description, but even 40+ years of voting is only 12 general elections. If you moved constituency every few years, that's still a very small sample out of 650. The media love to portray them all as venal and dishonest, but having someone in the family who has been heavily involved in local and national politics, I just don't think that's true of most of them, most of the time. Taking the example of the expenses scandal, the reporting gave the impression that they were all at it, when the number of MPs found to have broken the rules was less than 30 (out of 650). Still too many, but less than 5%.
    All of which means nothing if you can't see a party worthy of a vote, nor a leader, nor a local.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Rolf FRolf F Posts: 16,126
    rjsterry wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I thought you wanted MPs to not be noticed. Grieve will be lucky to keep his seat if there's a GE. Boles is no longer a member of a party so will need to join another to win a seat at the next GE. He'll need to join a party, then get selected as a candidate, win that seat and then work his way up. More likely he will change career entirely.

    Anyway what is this experience you mention?
    Not made myself clear then. I simply want them to put the job at least on a par with personal gain. As per the point made earlier, it is possible to be successful without shafting everyone. They got better after the expenses scandal but are simply playing the game better. It is getting to the stage now that some don't appear to have got the memo and don't care, until it goes to court.
    Current batch of MPs will have sussed out that a coalition is most likely soon and will be positioning themselves to be active in that. Better a big fish in a small coalition party than a back bench for a big party.
    Experience? Viewing and voting from the 70s. Not got a clue who to vote for today.
    I'm not suggesting there are no MPs who fit your description, but even 40+ years of voting is only 12 general elections. If you moved constituency every few years, that's still a very small sample out of 650. The media love to portray them all as venal and dishonest, but having someone in the family who has been heavily involved in local and national politics, I just don't think that's true of most of them, most of the time. Taking the example of the expenses scandal, the reporting gave the impression that they were all at it, when the number of MPs found to have broken the rules was less than 30 (out of 650). Still too many, but less than 5%.

    Probably doesn't help that the ones that get much of the air time at the moment are so often the privileged ones with the sense of enormous personal entitlement. If you think that really, actually, obviously you should be PM and that it is only a matter of time before you are then why would you place the needs of the country ahead of your own needs? After all, by becoming PM the country is benefitting from you being PM. It should be duly grateful to you for deigning to run it. Less arrogant people would think that it is you that is being privileged to be put in that position.

    I am sure that the vast majority of MPs are decent folk whatever their political persuasion. They are people like everyone else. 10% will be really nice, 80% will be OK and 10% bad (hello Messrs Johnson, Mogg, Corbyn).
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,277
    pblakeney wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I'm not suggesting there are no MPs who fit your description, but even 40+ years of voting is only 12 general elections. If you moved constituency every few years, that's still a very small sample out of 650. The media love to portray them all as venal and dishonest, but having someone in the family who has been heavily involved in local and national politics, I just don't think that's true of most of them, most of the time. Taking the example of the expenses scandal, the reporting gave the impression that they were all at it, when the number of MPs found to have broken the rules was less than 30 (out of 650). Still too many, but less than 5%.
    All of which means nothing if you can't see a party worthy of a vote, nor a leader, nor a local.

    What's worthiness got to do with it. There's a choice of half a dozen serious candidates in each constituency - just pick which one you think is best (or least worst if you prefer). The rest is out of your hands anyway unless you want to get more involved in politics.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,832
    ^^^^^
    Which is the point. There are none worth a vote.
    And if I don’t vote then I have no say. Catch 22.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,374
    pblakeney wrote:
    ^^^^^
    Which is the point. There are none worth a vote.
    And if I don’t vote then I have no say. Catch 22.

    What constituency?
    and then the next thing you know
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 5,299
    orraloon wrote:
    There was a breakfast meeting this morning between business leaders various and de Pfeffel. (I have my sources, redacted works for redacted etc etc.) I trust said redacted went armed with a baseball bat to knock some sense into that f-wit.
    Reportedly de Pfeffel was subdued in the meeting. As he would be in the presence of people with brains.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,832
    pblakeney wrote:
    ^^^^^
    Which is the point. There are none worth a vote.
    And if I don’t vote then I have no say. Catch 22.

    What constituency?
    Try looking at Derby North.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • darkhairedlorddarkhairedlord Posts: 4,560
    pblakeney wrote:
    pblakeney wrote:
    ^^^^^
    Which is the point. There are none worth a vote.
    And if I don’t vote then I have no say. Catch 22.

    What constituency?
    Try looking at Derby North.
    scrape up a deposite on #gofuckme
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,277
    I get that Williamson is not someone anyone should want to support and IIRC you don't want to support Amanda Solloway, so what's wrong with Lucy Care? You might say she's unlikely to win, but that's not a reason not to vote for her.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,832
    A protest vote and a gander at the other thread shows a little light at the end of the rabbit hole.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,277
    pblakeney wrote:
    A protest vote and a gander at the other thread shows a little light at the end of the rabbit hole.

    Not entirely sure where your politics sit, but why does it have to be a protest vote? From the results of the 2010 election, it was a 3-way marginal not that long ago and the Lib Dems are having a resurgence. Even if your candidate doesn't win, cutting the winner's majority will keep them on their toes a bit more.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 9,832
    Your last sentence is the very definition of a protest vote.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,277
    pblakeney wrote:
    Your last sentence is the very definition of a protest vote.
    If that is your primary reason for voting and if you don't actually want that candidate to win, then yes. I meant it more as a reason to always vote for somebody. But vote for the person you want to win. Equally, I don't think party membership should be the be all and end all. I don't think people should not vote for Dominic Grieve just because his party is having a nervous breakdown.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,277
    Well that's one way to top May's achievement: ministerial resignations before he's even taken office.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,374
    If Boris can't command a majority, does May still resign?
    and then the next thing you know
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    If Boris can't command a majority, does May still resign?

    I think you will find that Leave means Leave. There doesn't need to be any forward planning, we will be fine.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,835 Lives Here
    If Boris can't command a majority, does May still resign?

    Election, no?
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 8,443
    If Boris can't command a majority, does May still resign?

    Election, no?

    Surely May goes to see the queen and resigns. Boris goes to see queen and gets permission to form Govt. JC calls motion of no confidence do the the undemocratic way he became PM. I expect all Tory MPs to cheer him to the rafters.
Sign In or Register to comment.