Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    On who will make a better Prime Minister:
    T. May: 58%
    J. Corbyn: 19%
    (via ComRes)
    1468697791540.jpg

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Lol, the guy who set out the aim of "kinder, gentler politics" is considered more nasty than the leader of the nasty party.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Financier)
    Lol, the guy who set out the aim of "kinder, gentler politics" is considered more nasty than the leader of the nasty party.
    May's clearly the better poet too. Her speech in Downing Street was full of .. for you, you too, i'm new.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Would it be cynical to say Boris would welcome this, so he doesn't ever have to interact with Erdogan and explain that little poem he wrote about the President ****ing a goat?
    InB4 Boris planned the coup
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'd prefer them to have no dominant religion but it's clear that most protestant nations are far more prosperous and politically stable on average.
    Have you forgotten the fact that there are many Christian African countries...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Have you forgotten the fact that there are many Christian African countries...
    Indeed. Unfortunately they chose to jump into bed with the USSR post independence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I can't help thinking the Tories are making a big mistake allowing people to concentrate on personal attacks on Corbyn rather than Labour as a whole. Cameron had it right back when Corbyn was first elected with his tweet about how Labour were a threat to security without even mentioning his name. As it stands, unless they are planning for a snap election they face seeing their present advantage greatly diminished or even wiped out once Corbyn is replaced.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I can't help thinking the Tories are making a big mistake allowing people to concentrate on personal attacks on Corbyn rather than Labour as a whole. Cameron had it right back when Corbyn was first elected with his tweet about how Labour were a threat to security without even mentioning his name. As it stands, unless they are planning for a snap election they face seeing their present advantage greatly diminished or even wiped out once Corbyn is replaced.
    There's always the risk of a shock event allowing for a Labour government. That probability may be small but a government led by Corbyn is far less tolerable than one led by Chucka ect..

    Plus i think that at this stage of the term it's a lot more important for the government to gain votes than to worry about how many Labour have. Labour's performance starts to matter in the final year or so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    There's always the risk of a shock event allowing for a Labour government. That probability may be small but a government led by Corbyn is far less tolerable than one led by Chucka ect..

    Plus i think that at this stage of the term it's a lot more important for the government to gain votes than to worry about how many Labour have. Labour's performance starts to matter in the final year or so.
    It won't be Chucka etc though, that much is plainly obvious. The risk is you get Corbyn's policies without his branding - an Owen Smith or a Clive Lewis tacking to the left - and they seem so much more reasonable than the Boogeymonster you've created that the arguments simply don't wash. Right now there already has been a shock event - Brexit - and Labour look to be in a poor state, it would take something absolutely insane for Corbyn to win an election. But he's not going to last till 2020 and it'd be prudent to think about what happens when he goes.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Faland)
    Basically I had a really rough week where I was in hospital for partying too hard low blood pressure. It meant I was a bit befuddled, had messed up energy levels and wasn't really on top of anything, let alone MHoC. When I was back to normal after a week I just decided to let things move on since I hadn't really been enjoying the role (as Paddy accurately predicted when I was elected). Besides, my plan was to gracefully retire once I'd done a year. Since leaving I went on to a RL role in my SU that took up a tonne of time, but now that that's over I thought I'd make a dramatic return a la Gandalf post-Balrog

    This must be the MHoC's answer to Easter Monday :angel:

    I've been good, just super super busy with the ol' degree. How's yourself? I see from the wiki pages you've had quite the political journey!
    Glad you're alright now.

    Hope you're enjoying yourself! What are you studying?

    Haha, yes I've been keeping busy.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    It won't be Chucka etc though, that much is plainly obvious. The risk is you get Corbyn's policies without his branding - an Owen Smith or a Clive Lewis tacking to the left - and they seem so much more reasonable than the Boogeymonster you've created that the arguments simply don't wash. Right now there already has been a shock event - Brexit - and Labour look to be in a poor state, it would take something absolutely insane for Corbyn to win an election. But he's not going to last till 2020 and it'd be prudent to think about what happens when he goes.
    Your looking too much at the economic prism. What makes those of us on the right despise him in comparison to the mild dislike of Miliband is that Corbyn hates the institutions of this nation be it in his republicanism, his lack of belief in the union or his anti-western sympathies. I'm sure somebody with his economic policies would result but that's not the primary threat Corbyn poses.

    Truth be told i don't think Labour can be feared even with a new leader. As i said to Q and R in another thread, until you accept your past and learn the right lessons you won't be in government without a shock event.

    *Brexit was a shock event but not one which has yet impoverished or affected many peoples mentality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Your looking too much at the economic prism. What makes those of us on the right despise him in comparison to the mild dislike of Miliband is that Corbyn hates the institutions of this nation be it in his republicanism, his lack of belief in the union or his anti-western sympathies. I'm sure somebody with his economic policies would result but that's not the primary threat Corbyn poses.

    Truth be told i don't think Labour can be feared even with a new leader. As i said to Q and R in another thread, until you accept your past and learn the right lessons you won't be in government without a shock event.

    *Brexit was a shock event but not one which has yet impoverished or affected many peoples mentality.
    Well, those are exactly the things we definitely need to move on from. Most of the country is patriotic, in favour of the monarchy, pro-union and supports our armed forces - nothing controversial there or that we need to shy away from. In fact, I would say they are basic requirements for anyone we put forward as a potential Prime Minister, and a big part of the reason Corbyn is unlikely to suceed. I respect that many of our party members have different personal views, but there has to be some recognition of what's possible, practical and pragmatic: and going against the wishes of the nation in matters close to their heart which many are far more passionate about than economics isn't any of that.

    What lessons would they be, out of interest?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Only in this change since we have a unique opportunity. Outgoing Lords from then on can be replaced as they are now so long as the number is maintained. Drift from 2015 would be relatively slow.
    (quoted in bar to not derail thread)

    I was going to set the limit at, say, 500 and have an independent committee with a long list of instructions (e.g start culling from those with poorest attendance and maintain roughly the current make-up) determine which of the current lot should stay and go. Then only allow new Lords to be appointed when one had died or perhaps have a term one can sit in the House of say 20 years (10 years for those currently sitting). Crossbenchers are a valuable feature that I don't see much value in getting rid of. It would also delegitimise the House of Commons to give the Lords a greater democratic mandate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    1468710375187.jpg

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Well, those are exactly the things we definitely need to move on from. Most of the country is patriotic, in favour of the monarchy, pro-union and supports our armed forces - nothing controversial there or that we need to shy away from. In fact, I would say they are basic requirements for anyone we put forward as a potential Prime Minister, and a big part of the reason Corbyn is unlikely to suceed. I respect that many of our party members have different personal views, but there has to be some recognition of what's possible, practical and pragmatic: and going against the wishes of the nation in matters close to their heart which many are far more passionate about than economics isn't any of that.

    What lessons would they be, out of interest?
    Definitely. It's one thing to provide an economic alternative, it's quite another to destroy institutions that have lasted centuries. Those issues alone would dominate your election campaign. As i said before, its clear in hindsight that you should have kept Miliband around (he actually gained votes even if not enough).

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4200474

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    (quoted in bar to not derail thread)

    I was going to set the limit at, say, 500 and have an independent committee with a long list of instructions (e.g start culling from those with poorest attendance and maintain roughly the current make-up) determine which of the current lot should stay and go. Then only allow new Lords to be appointed when one had died or perhaps have a term one can sit in the House of say 20 years (10 years for those currently sitting). Crossbenchers are a valuable feature that I don't see much value in getting rid of. It would also delegitimise the House of Commons to give the Lords a greater democratic mandate.
    I'd be wary of a committee deciding who should stay and go because its vulnerable to party political manipulation but the rest is reasonable.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'd be wary of a committee deciding who should stay and go because its vulnerable to party political manipulation but the rest is reasonable.
    Committees have their problems but surely it's the best way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Definitely. It's one thing to provide an economic alternative, it's quite another to destroy institutions that have lasted centuries. Those issues alone would dominate your election campaign. As i said before, its clear in hindsight that you should have kept Miliband around (he actually gained votes even if not enough).

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4200474



    I'd be wary of a committee deciding who should stay and go because its vulnerable to party political manipulation but the rest is reasonable.
    I largely agree with you, but I don't think Miliband was viable - he'd have been challenged and weakened even if he survived and would lack credibility. I feel sorry for him as I don't think he really did much wrong and he was better than he was perceived, but perception counts for a lot in politics. I also believe he's said himself he regrets listening to his advisors so much and I have to agree there - I think he'd have been more sucessful had he been more consistently bold, especially on economics. When actually left to his own devices he had a broadly good instinct on policy - things like the energy prize freeze which were practically bonkers but good populist soundbites.

    Very much agree with you on putting forward a more positive view on our time in government too: our one biggest error, I'd say, was never providing an alternative to the "Labour mucked everything up" narrative. Unfortunately we've got worse at that, not better, but too many in the party now seem to considering the last Labour government the work of the devil and won't even engage with anyone who says otherwise. It's a total mess to be honest.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I largely agree with you, but I don't think Miliband was viable - he'd have been challenged and weakened even if he survived and would lack credibility. I feel sorry for him as I don't think he really did much wrong and he was better than he was perceived, but perception counts for a lot in politics. I also believe he's said himself he regrets listening to his advisors so much and I have to agree there - I think he'd have been more sucessful had he been more consistently bold, especially on economics. When actually left to his own devices he had a broadly good instinct on policy - things like the energy prize freeze which were practically bonkers but good populist soundbites.

    Very much agree with you on putting forward a more positive view on our time in government too: our one biggest error, I'd say, was never providing an alternative to the "Labour mucked everything up" narrative. Unfortunately we've got worse at that, not better, but too many in the party now seem to considering the last Labour government the work of the devil and won't even engage with anyone who says otherwise. It's a total mess to be honest.
    I think you're spot on here, but I also think the fact that he was up against Cameron didn't help. Cameron's quick and very witty and is (or at least was) perceived well in public, which didn't help. Miliband would have fared better up against a more unpopular Tory whereas someone of Corbyn's ilk has very little chance regardless of the opponent.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I think you're spot on here, but I also think the fact that he was up against Cameron didn't help. Cameron's quick and very witty and is (or at least was) perceived well in public, which didn't help. Miliband would have fared better up against a more unpopular Tory whereas someone of Corbyn's ilk has very little chance regardless of the opponent.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indeed. If it had been Miliband vs May things might have been rather different. But as annoying as it is there definitely a preference for someone who comes across as authoritative and smooth: Cameron had both, May has one, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn have neither
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Westminster voting intention:
    CON: 39% (+1)
    LAB: 29% (-1)
    UKIP: 14% (-1)
    LDEM: 9% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (-)
    (via ICM / post-Wednesday)

    Plugging that into electoral calculus has PC winning Ynys Mon from labour, the Lib dems taking back Cambridge, and the Tories taking 14 labour seats.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.