|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 20, 2024 9:25:39 GMT
I agree with an earlier poster that the Conservatives have shot themselves in the foot by not electing James Cleverly, who also seem to have shot himself in the foot. I also agree with Michael Heseltine who said that “the next Conservative Prime Minister isn’t sitting in Parliament.” Interestingly the same thing happened after 1979, 1997 & 2010. Tony Blair, David Cameron & Keir Starmer were first elected MPs at the start of their parties' 2nd term of opposition. Absolutely. If either candidate had designs on being PM this may not have been the leadership race to enter. I can't see any further reduction in seats (locally and Nationally) between now and the next election to oust the winner and put a new candidate in for the GE but certainly if any bi elections come up which the Conservatives should be able to win and they don't the party could then start to look at ousting. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 20, 2024 12:04:44 GMT
Interestingly the same thing happened after 1979, 1997 & 2010. Tony Blair, David Cameron & Keir Starmer were first elected MPs at the start of their parties' 2nd term of opposition. Absolutely. If either candidate had designs on being PM this may not have been the leadership race to enter. I can't see any further reduction in seats (locally and Nationally) between now and the next election to oust the winner and put a new candidate in for the GE but certainly if any bi elections come up which the Conservatives should be able to win and they don't the party could then start to look at ousting. Indeed, I think their fortunes will be similar to William Hague after 1997. They make some gains in local elections but insufficient gains at the next General Election to stay on. They may well win a few seats back from Labour but could lose a handful more to the LibDems and even Reform. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 2, 2024 11:43:11 GMT
Kemi Badenoch is the new Conservative leader.
I'm sure Labour HQ are going to be rubbing their hands in glee and popping a bottle of champagne after the Tories have elected someone who wants to reduce Maternity Leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by allentc on Nov 2, 2024 14:29:03 GMT
That's a poke in the eye of Labour who go on about gender inequality and racism and have themselves still not achieved a (permanent not acting) female or ethnic minority party leader, a woman Prime Minister or Asian Prime Minister. Only the other day were Labour heartily patting themselves on the back over having the first woman chancellor. A little late to the party me thinks! Much catching up to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 2, 2024 15:09:29 GMT
That's a poke in the eye of Labour who go on about gender inequality and racism and have themselves still not achieved a (permanent not acting) female or ethnic minority party leader, a woman Prime Minister or Asian Prime Minister. Only the other day were Labour heartily patting themselves on the back over having the first woman chancellor. A little late to the party me thinks! Much catching up to do. No point having one if they aren't great - the woman prime minster we've had either crashed the economy or made several decisions over 30-40 years ago that we still are paying the price for and the one prime minister from an ethinic minority background was hardly a roaring success which showed with him being handed a big election defeat and no longer leader of the Tories. So whilst the point you make in that Labour have to catch up in terms of gender equality in big positions (not really an issue beyond that party wide for any of the big three parties) is absolutely valid and a good one, it only works if they're any good in the first place - no one will remember Truss because she was a woman prime minister but because she was absolutely hopeless and lasted 45 days. Time will tell whether Badenoch will buck this trend and be remembered for being the first party leader of Black and/or African heritage though based on her past actions and words, I wouldn't hold my breath that what she'll be remembered for and your point might of been better empahiszed if it was Cleverley sitting in her place instead who seems more able to lead some what effectively in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by allentc on Nov 2, 2024 15:44:41 GMT
Their gender/ethnicity and how well they do their job are two separate things and should not be conflated. These people should be congratulated on breaking through glass ceilings some thought not possible, a major societal achievement in its own right paving a road for others to follow. You can congratulate someone for breaking through that glass ceiling and still be critical of how they perform. One is not a factor of the other.
There was fanfare when elected as the first black US President rightly so, before he even did anything. Again, rightful celebration when Diane Abbott became the first black woman MP before having done anything in the role yet. Labour were congratulating themselves on having the first woman chancellor yet she is only months into the role. Someone should tell Labour to cancel their celebrations.
Somehow I don't think you'd be saying what you said if Labour had achieved these milestones first. It strikes as goalpost moving, celebrate first woman/ethnic minority but hold on if someone else beats us to it first we must add in success in the role as an additional criteria before they can get the recognition they deserve
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 2, 2024 17:15:34 GMT
Their gender/ethnicity and how well they do their job are two separate things and should not be conflated. These people should be congratulated on breaking through glass ceilings some thought not possible, a major societal achievement in its own right paving a road for others to follow. You can congratulate someone for breaking through that glass ceiling and still be critical of how they perform. One is not a factor of the other. There was fanfare when elected as the first black US President rightly so, before he even did anything. Again, rightful celebration when Diane Abbott became the first black woman MP before having done anything in the role yet. Labour were congratulating themselves on having the first woman chancellor yet she is only months into the role. Someone should tell Labour to cancel their celebrations. Somehow I don't think you'd be saying what you said if Labour had achieved these milestones first. It strikes as goalpost moving, celebrate first woman/ethnic minority but hold on if someone else beats us to it first we must add in success in the role as an additional criteria before they can get the recognition they deserve Sorry but don't make assumptions about myself based on playing party politics - seems to be a habit with people on this forum. If Reeves ends up being as bad as the last few chancellors we've had, I'll criticise her in the same manner and I'll say that's it pretty pointless her being the first woman chancellor if she isn't any good which we'll find out one way or the other. The reason why I say that is the inevitable negative connotations that come - "oh she's bad because she is a woman" and likewise change gender for race. We see this in other parts of society - when black players miss a penalty, they get abused unlike white players. Having a diverse House of Commons would be brilliant but we must make sure the trailblazers (as well as the white males too) are competent so that the legacy not only remains but that it spurs on more people from diverse backgrounds to have the confidence to follow the same path. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 2, 2024 17:29:27 GMT
Their gender/ethnicity and how well they do their job are two separate things and should not be conflated. These people should be congratulated on breaking through glass ceilings some thought not possible, a major societal achievement in its own right paving a road for others to follow. You can congratulate someone for breaking through that glass ceiling and still be critical of how they perform. One is not a factor of the other. There was fanfare when elected as the first black US President rightly so, before he even did anything. Again, rightful celebration when Diane Abbott became the first black woman MP before having done anything in the role yet. Labour were congratulating themselves on having the first woman chancellor yet she is only months into the role. Someone should tell Labour to cancel their celebrations. Somehow I don't think you'd be saying what you said if Labour had achieved these milestones first. It strikes as goalpost moving, celebrate first woman/ethnic minority but hold on if someone else beats us to it first we must add in success in the role as an additional criteria before they can get the recognition they deserve However it's completely out of Labour's control as to whether they get an ethnic minority voted in or not, they aren't any different to the Tories in the opportunities they present however they don't have a new leader every weekend to give the whole parliamentary party a turn to run it. If Kemi can celebrate being the first black opposition leader, then Rachel Reeves has every right to celebrate being the first female chancellor. Nobody is taking the milestone away from Kemi, but saying it's because the Conservative Party is more progressive than the Labour Party is completely incorrect when both are equally as progressive. Chance has just allowed the Conservatives to reach these milestones first compared to Labour, due to them having more leaders and also more time in government. As Rishi put it, we should be glad that him being the first ethnic minority Prime Minister was 'no big deal' to show how tolerant the UK is and how people don't view these as major milestones as they may have once been as everyone has equal opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 2, 2024 21:19:05 GMT
Their gender/ethnicity and how well they do their job are two separate things and should not be conflated. These people should be congratulated on breaking through glass ceilings some thought not possible, a major societal achievement in its own right paving a road for others to follow. You can congratulate someone for breaking through that glass ceiling and still be critical of how they perform. One is not a factor of the other. There was fanfare when elected as the first black US President rightly so, before he even did anything. Again, rightful celebration when Diane Abbott became the first black woman MP before having done anything in the role yet. Labour were congratulating themselves on having the first woman chancellor yet she is only months into the role. Someone should tell Labour to cancel their celebrations. Somehow I don't think you'd be saying what you said if Labour had achieved these milestones first. It strikes as goalpost moving, celebrate first woman/ethnic minority but hold on if someone else beats us to it first we must add in success in the role as an additional criteria before they can get the recognition they deserve However it's completely out of Labour's control as to whether they get an ethnic minority voted in or not, they aren't any different to the Tories in the opportunities they present however they don't have a new leader every weekend to give the whole parliamentary party a turn to run it. If Kemi can celebrate being the first black opposition leader, then Rachel Reeves has every right to celebrate being the first female chancellor. Nobody is taking the milestone away from Kemi, but saying it's because the Conservative Party is more progressive than the Labour Party is completely incorrect when both are equally as progressive. Chance has just allowed the Conservatives to reach these milestones first compared to Labour, due to them having more leaders and also more time in government. As Rishi put it, we should be glad that him being the first ethnic minority Prime Minister was 'no big deal' to show how tolerant the UK is and how people don't view these as major milestones as they may have once been as everyone has equal opportunities. It's also not just whether parties achieve such milestones that count. It is how well represented certain minorities are. For example, Labour have 66 Ethnic minority MPs compared to 15 for the Tories. Admittedly, the ratios favour Labour but by a narrow margin. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 4, 2024 23:19:49 GMT
That's a poke in the eye of Labour who go on about gender inequality and racism and have themselves still not achieved a (permanent not acting) female or ethnic minority party leader, a woman Prime Minister or Asian Prime Minister. Only the other day were Labour heartily patting themselves on the back over having the first woman chancellor. A little late to the party me thinks! Much catching up to do. No point having one if they aren't great - the woman prime minster we've had either crashed the economy or made several decisions over 30-40 years ago that we still are paying the price for and the one prime minister from an ethinic minority background was hardly a roaring success which showed with him being handed a big election defeat and no longer leader of the Tories. So whilst the point you make in that Labour have to catch up in terms of gender equality in big positions (not really an issue beyond that party wide for any of the big three parties) is absolutely valid and a good one, it only works if they're any good in the first place - no one will remember Truss because she was a woman prime minister but because she was absolutely hopeless and lasted 45 days. Time will tell whether Badenoch will buck this trend and be remembered for being the first party leader of Black and/or African heritage though based on her past actions and words, I wouldn't hold my breath that what she'll be remembered for and your point might of been better empahiszed if it was Cleverley sitting in her place instead who seems more able to lead some what effectively in comparison. Trouble is it shows Labour as a farce. They do not trust anyone from a none white background or a female to lead top roles.. You also forgot Theresa May. And Corbyn and Ed Milliband were a roaring success on your basis then. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 5, 2024 9:08:02 GMT
No point having one if they aren't great - the woman prime minster we've had either crashed the economy or made several decisions over 30-40 years ago that we still are paying the price for and the one prime minister from an ethinic minority background was hardly a roaring success which showed with him being handed a big election defeat and no longer leader of the Tories. So whilst the point you make in that Labour have to catch up in terms of gender equality in big positions (not really an issue beyond that party wide for any of the big three parties) is absolutely valid and a good one, it only works if they're any good in the first place - no one will remember Truss because she was a woman prime minister but because she was absolutely hopeless and lasted 45 days. Time will tell whether Badenoch will buck this trend and be remembered for being the first party leader of Black and/or African heritage though based on her past actions and words, I wouldn't hold my breath that what she'll be remembered for and your point might of been better empahiszed if it was Cleverley sitting in her place instead who seems more able to lead some what effectively in comparison. Trouble is it shows Labour as a farce. They do not trust anyone from a none white background or a female to lead top roles.. You also forgot Theresa May. And Corbyn and Ed Milliband were a roaring success on your basis then. Or maybe the person that was elected was based on merit and not the colour of their skin? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 5, 2024 12:34:28 GMT
No point having one if they aren't great - the woman prime minster we've had either crashed the economy or made several decisions over 30-40 years ago that we still are paying the price for and the one prime minister from an ethinic minority background was hardly a roaring success which showed with him being handed a big election defeat and no longer leader of the Tories. So whilst the point you make in that Labour have to catch up in terms of gender equality in big positions (not really an issue beyond that party wide for any of the big three parties) is absolutely valid and a good one, it only works if they're any good in the first place - no one will remember Truss because she was a woman prime minister but because she was absolutely hopeless and lasted 45 days. Time will tell whether Badenoch will buck this trend and be remembered for being the first party leader of Black and/or African heritage though based on her past actions and words, I wouldn't hold my breath that what she'll be remembered for and your point might of been better empahiszed if it was Cleverley sitting in her place instead who seems more able to lead some what effectively in comparison. Trouble is it shows Labour as a farce. They do not trust anyone from a none white background or a female to lead top roles.. You also forgot Theresa May. And Corbyn and Ed Milliband were a roaring success on your basis then. Corbyn & Milliband are white males - the conversation is about those who are of different genders & backgrounds. And no, they weren’t roaring successes either just to be clear |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 5, 2024 13:02:00 GMT
Trouble is it shows Labour as a farce. They do not trust anyone from a none white background or a female to lead top roles.. You also forgot Theresa May. And Corbyn and Ed Milliband were a roaring success on your basis then. Corbyn & Milliband are white males - the conversation is about those who are of different genders & backgrounds. And no, they weren’t roaring successes either just to be clear Hang on, so if you’re white and male you can be mediocre but if you’re from an ethnic background or a woman you have to be and do great things? That’s why Labour aren’t selecting diverse or alternative leadership? I wouldn’t have selected Badenoch as leader of the party for a multitude of reasons which ultimately boils down to her basic principles but gender or ethnicity have nothing to do with it. But I am interested to see what she does and how she chooses to challenge Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 5, 2024 13:07:49 GMT
Corbyn & Milliband are white males - the conversation is about those who are of different genders & backgrounds. And no, they weren’t roaring successes either just to be clear Hang on, so if you’re white and male you can be mediocre but if you’re from an ethnic background or a woman you have to be and do great things? That’s why Labour aren’t selecting diverse or alternative leadership? I wouldn’t have selected Badenoch as leader of the party for a multitude of reasons which ultimately boils down to her basic principles but gender or ethnicity have nothing to do with it. But I am interested to see what she does and how she chooses to challenge Labour. But I don't believe any of Labour's leaders have been mediocre, Starmer has obviously won a 400 seat majority while the others while poor appealed to a voter base. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 5, 2024 13:14:38 GMT
Hang on, so if you’re white and male you can be mediocre but if you’re from an ethnic background or a woman you have to be and do great things? That’s why Labour aren’t selecting diverse or alternative leadership? I wouldn’t have selected Badenoch as leader of the party for a multitude of reasons which ultimately boils down to her basic principles but gender or ethnicity have nothing to do with it. But I am interested to see what she does and how she chooses to challenge Labour. But I don't believe any of Labour's leaders have been mediocre, Starmer has obviously won a 400 seat majority while the others while poor appealed to a voter base. Okay, mediocre may be the wrong term to use. I don’t believe that Starmers 400 odd seats have anything to do with likability or mediocrity. He has quickly become the most disliked PM in recent years with his approval rating plummeting faster than a Boeing 737Max. It was a rock and a hard place for many voters, clearly reflected in a lower overall turnout estimated to be around 60%. Starmer has already proved to flop like a fish on dry land dropping the overwhelming majority of his rhetoric and promises from the last few years. Given what has become evident since July I don’t believe the party would win that majority again. But that doesn’t mean the conservatives would either. |
|
