Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Competitive insanity

I am pleased that we will have a new PM in place tomorrow and the country can start to move forward. I believe that many people, particularly in the Conservative party, will find that they miss David Cameron more than they currently expect but I understand why he felt that after the Brexit vote his arguments had been too directly rejected by the voters to enable him to continue.

But I think Theresa May was far and away the best of the candidates who stood (or nearly stood) to replace him and she will make a good Prime Minister.

I am also relieved that none of the other three main national parties is in power since they seem to be having a competition to see which is the biggest joke.

1) Labour

I hardly need to go on - what other party could demand a snap general election within six minutes of announcing that it is having a leadership election of its own because 80% of its MPs believe its leader to be unelectable?

2) The Lib/Dems

Yesterday Tim Farrom, Lib/Dem leader also demanded a snap general election. This came from the leader of a party which, according to reports of the Coalition Agreement negotiations such as the study here, "demanded that fixed-term parliaments be a part of any deal."

Whether or not the study I have just linked to is correct to state that this policy was a Lib/Dem demand, it is certainly true beyond doubt that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was duly passed into law by the Coalition with the full voting support of the Liberal Democrats.

So the Lib/Dem leader is now demanding that a law which his party were instrumental in passing less than six years ago should be ignored.

I don't expect this to happen or think it should, but if Theresa May were to attempt to repeal the FTPA so that she could call a snap election, that repeal would have to get through the House of Lords, where I am certain the combined Labour and Lib/Dem majority of peers would find some excuse to block it.

It would be hysterically funny to see what excuses those Lib/Dem and Labour peers came up with for voting to block the necessary change in the law to facilitate the snap general election which both parties have called for but both would be horrified to see.


Following the departure of Nigel Farage UKIP are having their own leadership election. I gather that UKIP's National Executive Committee has voted to ban candidates from standing who have been members of the party for less than five years.

Among the people this excludes are their one MP, their former deputy leader who is probably their best media performer, several of their MEPs, and their largest donor who although I am not a fan of his (or any of the other candidates) appears to have a strong case to be eligible to stand since he certainly played a huge part in the referendum campaign.

Personally I think Leave won in spite of most of these people rather than because of them, but surely that should be for UKIP members to assess as part of their decision on how to cast their votes in an election.

I am not going to tell UKIP who they should elect as leader as I was beginning to get rather cross with kippers trying to bully Conservative members about who we should elect in the contest which finished yesterday.

But since UKIP members felt entitled to comment on our election, I feel equally entitled to say that any party which adopts arbitrary leadership election rules that bar several of their strongest potential candidates from being able to stand is not in a good position to lecture everyone else about democracy.


Jim said...

Oh you are leaving them out.

You see you could do like another political party and decide that since no body in your house voted to leave the EU, then your house should inherit the UK membership and you can remain a member with all its opt outs intact.

Chris Whiteside said...

Fair comment: now that you mention it, the SNP is equally mad but as that it a normal condition for them I didn't notice ...