UK Politics: The Love Song of A. B. de Pfeffel Johnson

[Hereward]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

.  I didn't think the posts in the UK threads since Brexit were very supportive of her, though.  Just that she was perhaps the best of a bad lot

UK Politics thread in anti-Tory shock!

[Chaircat Meow]

Liam Fox has got what seems to be a new department (?), international trade.

[Slick Mongoose]

55 minutes ago, mormont said:

Boris was already hung. There was no need to give him any rope. And if May wanted to make sure, there were better ideas than this. Recall that this is a guy who publicly used racial slurs in his Telegraph column just a few years ago, whose ideas about foreigners appear to the the worst kind of stereotypes. It's like appointing Prince Philip.

He's not the foreign secretary we need.

But he may well be the foreign secretary we deserve.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So let's see if I get this straight.

Johnson will become foreign secretary, but the trade and Brexit negotiation fall to Liam Fox and his new department.

What exactly is Johnson's actual job then? Representing the British abroad? I thought you had a queen for that purpose. Or is he supposed to fill in, when eventually Prince Philip kicks the bucket (which is quite possible given his age) with making outlandish remarks, when he is abroad? Or does May intend to send him to Syria for peace negotiations while secretly hoping for plane crash? 

So seriously what will be Johnson's function? 

[Which Tyler]

Here's a clue - population of the EU 0.74Bn; population of the world 7.4Bn

 

There's quite a lot out there that's both "Foreign" and "not EU".

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yes, but the EU-British relations is kinda the big elephant in the room. And Fox new department is called International Trade, which kinda cuts deep into the foreign secretary's territory. A lot of the miles for the secretary of states is with trade delegations to China or wherever you hope to land a deal for your economy. So Johnson's foreign secretary department has been cut significantly.

[Mme Erzulie]

2 hours ago, Hereward said:

He has no experience running anything. He is out of touch with large numbers of Labour voters (not members) on defence, foreign policy, the monarchy, immigration and welfare. He is out of touch with voters that don't currently vote Labour, the ones he needs to attract to actually gain seats, on all of the above, plus trade unions, taxation, aspiration and debt.

Thanks for your reply. You bring up some fair points, but I would like to question some of them.

I've seen this no experience running anything argument, and while it may be true, I'm not sure if having experience "running things" is a necessary qualification for the job. Not necessarily defending either man, but Reagan and Arnie didn't exactly have boatloads of experience "running things" either. A prime minister these days surely have a lot of advisers and a team that can assist him/her with administration etc.? 

I'm not sure he's any more out of touch than Burnham, Owen, Eagle, Cooper etc. I thought it was an established truth that Labour have already lost touch with large swathes of their traditional voters. But people seem hell bent on more of the same, harping on about centre left and immigration. Maybe the part of the electorate he's energised and could appeal to are the people who won't vote Labour anymore, but also don't feel at home with UKIP etc.?

Also, could you clarify the last sentence? Do you mean that he is out of touch with unions? And what about taxation, aspiration and debt?

1 hour ago, mormont said:

In addition, he's beholden to a tiny inner circle of advisers to an unhealthy degree: I've actually joked about John McDonnell holding him hostage, and I've seen friends do so too. He seems uninterested, despite protestations to the contrary, in the views of people who disagree with him. He seems unable to build a team or make alliances, and it really doesn't wash to blame this on Labour MPs: a leader who can only lead people who first agree to be led, is not any kind of leader.

But I've gone into all this before, in detail. To sum up: my beef with Corbyn, and the reason he's unelectable, has nothing to do with his policies. It has to do with the fact that in the last 10 months, he's shown no perceptible leadership skills. He can't run the Labour party. How can he run the country? Does anyone seriously think that a guy who can't deal with Hilary Benn can cope with Vladimir Putin?

Of course, May's now given that job to Boris, so... 

Thanks.

With all the leaking, turncoating (can that be a verb?), rug-pulling and general disloyalty within his own party, I think it's understandable that he keeps those few he does trust pretty close. Maybe not healthy, but understandable.

I think the lack of team/alliance-building is one of the best arguments against him. He doesn't seem to be much of a leader or reconciliator (can that be a noun?). As I mentioned before, it's mainly his issues I care about (and the fact that I actually trust him to fight for those issues) - if there was someone else who shared his values and was a more natural leader, I'd be all for Corbyn stepping down. I have yet to be introduced to that person, though.

For your beef, I would ask this: Do you actually, honestly think he's been given a fair chance at leading the party? Admittedly, he doesn't look like an inspirational leader with natural charisma, but having said that, my impression is that there's been a witch hunt for him since he took over, and people have not merely been waiting for him to fall, but putting out feet and trip wires, throwing spanners all into his work. I would like to see what Labour would look like if the PLP accepted his overwhelming mandate from the leadership election and put their efforts into making Labour a viable alternative to the Tories.

[Maltaran]

38 minutes ago, Notone said:

So let's see if I get this straight.

Johnson will become foreign secretary, but the trade and Brexit negotiation fall to Liam Fox and his new department.

What exactly is Johnson's actual job then? Representing the British abroad? I thought you had a queen for that purpose. Or is he supposed to fill in, when eventually Prince Philip kicks the bucket (which is quite possible given his age) with making outlandish remarks, when he is abroad? Or does May intend to send him to Syria for peace negotiations while secretly hoping for plane crash? 

So seriously what will be Johnson's function? 

Not quite - trade is for Fox, but Brexit negotiation is for Davies.

As a friend said on Facebook, with May and Hammond in the top two jobs, they needed a Clarkson and BoJo is the closest they could find.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Boris was already hung. There was no need to give him any rope. And if May wanted to make sure, there were better ideas than this. Recall that this is a guy who publicly used racial slurs in his Telegraph column just a few years ago, whose ideas about foreigners appear to the the worst kind of stereotypes. It's like appointing Prince Philip.

The ideas I'm hearing on it are that she wants to put Leavers in big positions that will catch shit as the whole leaving thing shits the bed.

[mormont]

7 minutes ago, Mmerek Hamšzulíe said:

With all the leaking, turncoating (can that be a verb?), rug-pulling and general disloyalty within his own party, I think it's understandable that he keeps those few he does trust pretty close. Maybe not healthy, but understandable.

It may be understandable. It's also a failure on his part.

7 minutes ago, Mmerek Hamšzulíe said:

For your beef, I would ask this: Do you actually, honestly think he's been given a fair chance at leading the party?

Honestly? Fair has nothing to do with it. You don't get given a 'fair chance' at being Prime Minister. You don't get given a 'fair chance' at winning a general election, for that matter. Successful leaders aren't successful because someone else gave them a fair chance.

But if you want to talk about fair chances... yes, he's had one. He's had ten months as leader, and he literally could not have wished for an easier ride.

The government has been in total disarray the entire time he's been leader of the opposition. Unpopular policies, resignations, splits, backbench rebellions, ministers openly attacking each other even before the referendum. If he was making hay with all this, he'd be leading in the polls (instead of behind), on course to win an election, and none of his internal critics would be in a position to do anything to him. But he keeps on giving his critics ammunition instead.

The problem here is that because they like what he stands for, people are looking for excuses for why this is not Corbyn's fault. Frankly, it's too late for that. Right now, there is a desperate need for a leader of the opposition who can actually lead the opposition. It no longer matters if it's Corbyn's fault, or if he wasn't given a fair chance. It no longer matters why he can't do the job, if it ever did matter. It only matters that he can't. 

The last remaining argument his supporters has is 'Jeremy's a failure but the alternatives might fail too'. Well, at this stage, it's worth giving them a try: possible failure is a better bet than proven failure.

[Maltaran]

4 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The ideas I'm hearing on it are that she wants to put Leavers in big positions that will catch shit as the whole leaving thing shits the bed.

She has apparently used "wanting to give important jobs to Leavers" as an excuse for why she hasn't appointed more women to top jobs - it seems she doesn't think the women on the Leave side are good enough (although since Amber Rudd has moved from Energy to the Home Office, I'm going to guess that Andrea Leadsom will be getting a promotion tomorrow).

I do think that she felt she had to give something important to one of Gove or Johnson - I wonder if Gove will stay at Justice or if he's going to follow Osborne out the door

[Hereward]

44 minutes ago, Mmerek Hamšzulíe said:

Thanks for your reply. You bring up some fair points, but I would like to question some of them.

Also, could you clarify the last sentence? Do you mean that he is out of touch with unions? And what about taxation, aspiration and debt?

 

No, I mean he is out of touch with people's opinions of unions. He wants to abolish all legislation on trade unions, including the requirement for ballots on industrial action, the ban on secondary action, etc, and he has never met a strike, about anything, that he didn't wholeheartedly like. That's very unpopular in the broader electorate. He's also in favour of higher taxation as a goal in itself, opposes aspiration as an alternative to working class solidarity, which has always been much more popular amongst affluent left-wingers with brothers called Piers or hereditary peerages than amongst actual working class people, and thinks deficits and rising national debt are irrelevant nuisances which can be safely ignored, which is also regarded with horror by most voters. 

[ljkeane]

31 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

I do think that she felt she had to give something important to one of Gove or Johnson - I wonder if Gove will stay at Justice or if he's going to follow Osborne out the door

Osborne was widely viewed as the likely next Prime Minister after Cameron not too long ago, he's probably still a potential threat to May's position at some point. Gove just failed spectacularly in his attempt to win the party leadership so it's probably less of a concern.

[john]

BoJo as FS - When he resigned I was sure he must have got assurances from May, but then he supported Leadsom, so it now seems like he might have fluked his way into another potential success.

Corbyn - I feel the same as ME about his politics but what he lacks is what you need to manoeuvre in Westminster.  Personally, i don't see why they don't just give him a year or two in opposition. He's hardly going to dismantle the party with his three supporters. And the public is surely going to be holding the government in close enough scrutiny without much need for a dynamic LoO.

And farewell David Cameron. What the hell did he ever do for us anyway? Military intervention in Libya and against IS. Coalition which ruined the Lib Dems. Couple of referendums. Gay marriage vote.  It was an eventful half dozen years anyway.

[Shryke]

9 minutes ago, john said:

BoJo as FS - When he resigned I was sure he must have got assurances from May, but then he supported Leadsom, so it now seems like he might have fluked his way into another potential success.

Corbyn - I feel the same as ME about his politics but what he lacks is what you need to manoeuvre in Westminster.  Personally, i don't see why they don't just give him a year or two in opposition. He's hardly going to dismantle the party with his three supporters. And the public is surely going to be holding the government in close enough scrutiny without much need for a dynamic LoO.

And farewell David Cameron. What the hell did he ever do for us anyway? Military intervention in Libya and against IS. Coalition which ruined the Lib Dems. Couple of referendums. Gay marriage vote.  It was an eventful half dozen years anyway.

Uh.....

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

Osborne was widely viewed as the likely next Prime Minister after Cameron not too long ago, he's probably still a potential threat to May's position at some point. Gove just failed spectacularly in his attempt to win the party leadership so it's probably less of a concern.

I think Osborne is toxic now because of the 'punishment budget.' He won't be leader.

[john]

9 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Uh.....

Wtf. I just clicked on a notification to read my own post again.  Stop wasting my time.

[Jeor]

I've been following a bit of this lately to help me deal with the hackneyed Australian political landscape (5 PMs in 5 years).

Making Boris the Foreign Secretary does make sense in some ways. It's the one important position (i.e. unlikely to offend him) that keeps him out of domestic politics, and May can still micromanage him a fair bit where foreign affairs are concerned (or alternatively not micromanage him, and then make him carry the can for anything that goes wrong).

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

It may be understandable. It's also a failure on his part.

Honestly? Fair has nothing to do with it. You don't get given a 'fair chance' at being Prime Minister. You don't get given a 'fair chance' at winning a general election, for that matter. Successful leaders aren't successful because someone else gave them a fair chance.

But if you want to talk about fair chances... yes, he's had one. He's had ten months as leader, and he literally could not have wished for an easier ride.

The government has been in total disarray the entire time he's been leader of the opposition. Unpopular policies, resignations, splits, backbench rebellions, ministers openly attacking each other even before the referendum. If he was making hay with all this, he'd be leading in the polls (instead of behind), on course to win an election, and none of his internal critics would be in a position to do anything to him. But he keeps on giving his critics ammunition instead.

The problem here is that because they like what he stands for, people are looking for excuses for why this is not Corbyn's fault. Frankly, it's too late for that. Right now, there is a desperate need for a leader of the opposition who can actually lead the opposition. It no longer matters if it's Corbyn's fault, or if he wasn't given a fair chance. It no longer matters why he can't do the job, if it ever did matter. It only matters that he can't. 

The last remaining argument his supporters has is 'Jeremy's a failure but the alternatives might fail too'. Well, at this stage, it's worth giving them a try: possible failure is a better bet than proven failure.

In dealing with the PLP, Corbyn had exactly two choices:

• Accommodate them. He tried that, and look how far it got him.
• Purge them via deselections. 

The PLP brought this Civil War on itself. The media was always going to hate his guts (it does that to nearly every Labour leader), but the root of this problem is the PLP's continuing refusal to accept the democratic will of the membership (to the point where it is engaging in every dirty trick it can think of to thwart democracy). If the PLP were truly acting for the good of the party, they'd have left Corbyn until 2020, when he'd resign if he lost. Instead, it was planning to off him before he even became leader - Brexit simply being the excuse.

In short, you are blaming Corbyn for failing to achieve the impossible. It's like looking at the US in 1862 and saying "goodness, there's Civil War. Must be Lincoln's fault - he clearly isn't up to the job." Moreover, allowing the PLP to get away with this is to forever destroy Labour as a democratic party - saying "it only matters that he can't lead" ignores the fact that it only matters that he (and not the PLP) enjoys the support of the membership. He has legitimacy, they do not. Frankly, your exact reasoning could be used to justify a military coup every time a democratic government faces difficulty, the principle being the same.

 

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

Boris was already hung. 

I seriously doubt it