Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.
Can't think of anything less democratic, really.
Apparently May is behaving like a dictator... by asking parliament to vote. On whether we should have an election.
Can't think of anything less democratic, really.
I do struggle with the idea that a politician seeking maximum advantage for her party by calling an election with the permission of Parliament is somehow considered to be cheating. It smacks of 'You can't call an election because we'll lose horribly and that's not fair!'
Is the general annoyance not stemming from TM going back on an earlier claim that she would not do exactly what she has done in respect of calling an early election?
Mind you if one follows politics, which to be annoyed by it all would surely be the case, then to be annoyed by a politician making a complete U turn on an earlier claim or promise is surely not ground breaking.
It is times like this where Jorge is missed as he fumes and rages at the social injustices of a Conservative led Britain.
The Prime Minister's job is to do what she believes to be best for the country first and her party second. She can make a good case that both are best served by her calling an election, so she is entitled - even obliged - to do so. It's not like it was some sort of manifesto pledge or as if the PM has any obligation not to pīss off the opposition. The only people objecting are her opposition, who themselves are doing so for purely party political reasons themselves. Besides, they have the option of voting against this election if they're that bothered - but they're not going to do it.
In short, the objections to her calling an election are böllocks.
Ah, Cameroon. Never a bad time to remind oneself of this masterpiece of the tackler's art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeRlJJbtdHc
Of course. The problem stems from believing that the interests of party and country are the same thing. Political parties are built to gain power, not to exercise it. So while it is May's job to run the country it is the Party Chairman's job to win the next election.
This was not her decision alone.
But surely effective politics is predicated on the idea that the interests of party and country are the same thing? Otherwise you end up with Labour's situation, where the party takes a near-deliberate holiday from power in order to fight over what its different factions believe is best for it.
I mean that Labour had spent nearly 20 years getting itself into electable shape for what its leaders believed was best for the country and then spent much of its time in power ruthlessly enforcing internal party discipline in order to stay there - because they believed that was what was best for the country.
In other words, parties act in their best interests because (we must assume) they sincerely believe that is how they best serve the interests of the country.
Effective politics, perhaps. Effective government, not so much. Difficult/unpopular decisions are frequently believed to be in the best interests of the country but rarely the party. The whole point of political spin is to make these unfavourable acts seem heroic/necessary/wise etc.....
This election has very little to do with the good of the country and is designed to capitalise on Labour's weakness to strengthen the government's hand over Brexit. Call it national interest if you like. It doesn't bother me either way, if I was her I would do it as well. Her only mistake was being so clear on her refusal to do it earlier. Makes her look a bit of a ****.
The point surely is that the silly coalition fixed term act means that the decision is de facto in Compo's hands. So if anyone should be getting the blame, it's my party leader. As usual.
Still, hopefully this will kill his movement and we can elect that nice Chuka chap in his place. Sensible voice, sensible suit, sensible policies. Heaven. Once we get him as leader, power will only be ten years away.