Tory leader - place your bets

[reohn2]

....?That said, their current policy position is the only sane one remaining amongst mainstream parties. Question is whether you trust them to stick to it, or its principles, when presented with the enticing whiff of a ministerial limo.

I won't.

[bovlomov]

....?That said, their current policy position is the only sane one remaining amongst mainstream parties. Question is whether you trust them to stick to it, or its principles, when presented with the enticing whiff of a ministerial limo.

I won't.

If there is no one we trust, do we 1) not vote, or 2) vote for the least untrustworthy? Not voting could be seen as irresponsible, while a vote for the untrustworthy is likely to be taken as unalloyed support.

There's no easy answer to that, I think.

[661-Pete]

All these doubts being expressed about the LibDems, are one of the reasons why Mrs P and I espoused the Greens instead.

It may well be, that there are some amongst the Greens who hanker after power at any cost, but that does not appear to be Green policy in general. Rather, we would like to see other, more mainstream parties, adopt Green-facing policies. Even if it means those other parties retaining power. Indeed that has been happening already, to some extent.

Of course Brex**it is a great stumbling block, seeing as Green policy is unarguably Remain, and the two biggest parties won't play. Green opts for Remain for the very good reason that much EU legislation is oriented towards preserving the environment (and ultimately, the planet) - whereas USA policy on the whole is not.

Of course none of this means that Greens are implacably hostile to the other parties. In our local Town Council elections, and also in the local wards of the District Council elections (but not across the entire District alas!), we Greens entered into an informal electoral pact with the LibDems, assuring that we would not compete against each other for the same seats.

It worked - both LibDems and Greens scored an incredible breakthrough - at the expense of both Labour and the Tories.

But this is a long way from saying there's an 'alliance' between the parties. I don't think that will ever happen.

[Tangled Metal]

What stuff they curb during their coalition with tories? I read that a lot but curious where your evidence is. I'm not doubting you have good evidence backing that up but joining a supply type agreement with DUP when under a different leader isn't IMHO a good piece of evidence. For all his major faults "just call me Dave" isn't May and tories weren't under the thrall of the right wing quite so strongly.

I am honestly hoping to read the evidence but expect a random comment is free piece from a left circling journo hack. I personally believe it but can't see the evidence. I thank anyone in advance who can give me closure on this matter since I only read LibDems claiming it and others with their own reasons to claim it. Nothing evidenced yet.

TBH it's quite hard to quantify and I can't point to specifics,only to say that Osborne's austerity plan may have been even more cutting than it was and that LibDems as was perhaps had a more moderate effect on that Tory government.
To judge that moderation perhaps we could look at the swing more to the right of the Tories since the 2015 GE.
Of course you'll sleight me for not being specific but I'll have to put up with that

Was the swing straight after our after the referendum? If you recall (with hindsight after Cameron was caught admitting this) the tories didn't expect to get in then hence stuff like the referendum in their manifesto. I can't actually recall the swing until after referendum when the rush to declare A50 seemed to give the further right more credence than they should have.

All feelings and half remembered things. I was hoping for some cutting analysis from some half decent source. Even a Grauniad article reporting the tempering effect and the after effects of not needing it. As I said probably right but nothing seems to be out there supporting it of any more quality than opinion pieces.

[Tangled Metal]

The green party worry me deeply. Their political aim at best is to win enough seats to get into coalition where they can influence. I've seen some very questionable local council decisions and indecisions due to green party gaining sufficient seats to disrupt. Once they had sufficient seats they had to be dealt with by the main parties (whichever had the most seats). Sounds undemocratic but one seat here can not stop much but 5-10% of the, seats in a committee they're holding a balance of power. They did that locally with really wasteful decisions.

[reohn2]

Was the swing straight after our after the referendum? If you recall (with hindsight after Cameron was caught admitting this) the tories didn't expect to get in then hence stuff like the referendum in their manifesto. I can't actually recall the swing until after referendum when the rush to declare A50 seemed to give the further right more credence than they should have.

All feelings and half remembered things. I was hoping for some cutting analysis from some half decent source. Even a Grauniad article reporting the tempering effect and the after effects of not needing it. As I said probably right but nothing seems to be out there supporting it of any more quality than opinion pieces.

The swing back to the Lib Dems was later IIRC,when their members and other forgave them after realising that they tempered the Tories IMO.
As for newspaper articles to support my thoughts,you're asking the wrong man as I don't read any of them.

[Debs]

In some places it pays to tactically vote Lib Dem simply to prevent the Tory git from winning; to prevent one Tory MP getting in after voting Lib Dem can even better the chance for a Labour majority. So voting Lib Dem can actually help Labour in the big scheme of things.

This has been the situation in the Powys electoral ward of 'Montgomery' for years.Fringe Party votes are merely dustbin votes and in Montgomery ward this includes Labour, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, Respect et al, all with the exception of the Green Party which differs slightly being a recycle bin vote; other Parties do observe the Green support strength to some effect of incorporating some token green policies to win over support, but usually too trivial to really account for. IMO far better to simply vote tactfully against the Tory Toff because in power they can and will inflict the most damage to the prosperity and liberty of most ordinary peoples.

Actually it might just work well to have a Labour & Lib Dem coalition (?) should definitely achieve a Public Vote to confirm if the people really do want to get screwed by Brexit, and the Lib Dem influence could neutralise any too radical looney idealism

[reohn2]

If there is no one we trust, do we 1) not vote, or 2) vote for the least untrustworthy? Not voting could be seen as irresponsible, while a vote for the untrustworthy is likely to be taken as unalloyed support.

There's no easy answer to that, I think.

Sorry Bov missed this post.
To answer the question,it all depends.
If the least untrustworthy is a Tory,UKIP I'll spoil the paper.
Should the least untrustworthy candidate be of another more central or leftwing party then I'll most likely vote for them or spoil the paper.
To be clear I will never vote Tory,and firmly believe anyone who does after the past ten years of lunacy must be mentally or politically deranged in some form or another.

[bovlomov]

If the least untrustworthy is a Tory,UKIP I'll spoil the paper.
Should the least untrustworthy candidate be of another more central or leftwing party then I'll most likely vote for them or spoil the paper.
To be clear I will never vote Tory,and firmly believe anyone who does after the past ten years of lunacy must be mentally or politically deranged in some form or another.

I vote according to personality rather than party - though often neither criterion produces a palatable option.

[reohn2]

If the least untrustworthy is a Tory,UKIP I'll spoil the paper.
Should the least untrustworthy candidate be of another more central or leftwing party then I'll most likely vote for them or spoil the paper.
To be clear I will never vote Tory,and firmly believe anyone who does after the past ten years of lunacy must be mentally or politically deranged in some form or another.

I vote according to personality rather than party - though often neither criterion produces a palatable option.

I fully understand that,though TBH living in an constituency where a donkey wearing red rosette will be elected,voting any other way is a protest.

[Cugel]

If the least untrustworthy is a Tory,UKIP I'll spoil the paper.
Should the least untrustworthy candidate be of another more central or leftwing party then I'll most likely vote for them or spoil the paper.
To be clear I will never vote Tory,and firmly believe anyone who does after the past ten years of lunacy must be mentally or politically deranged in some form or another.

I vote according to personality rather than party - though often neither criterion produces a palatable option.

The personality of a public figure is generally a media construct - often a construct of his or her PR agent since much newspap content is just a regurgitation of some PR. Such constructs are "acts". You will have no idea, probably, of the actual personality or character of the politician portrayed. Consider the revelations about some past politicians for details of the disjoint between "the act" and the reality of such folk. COnsider many current Tories as examples of the vast chasm between the act and the reality.

Another issue with paying attention to the personality of a public figure, even if you could discern the real personality, is that it's irrelevant to what you actually want from a politician. What you want is for them to support a range of policies and be against another range of policies - for example, for those that are in your wider interests (i.e. including the interests of many others, underpinning a civil and tolerant society of equal opportunities) and against those that promote oligarchs and similar at the expense of the vast majority.

Frankly, if the politician pharts in public, dislikes kittens and is inclined to insult old ladies I don't care when it comes to voting as it's what he or she will support or be against in the way of law, policy and outcomes that matters in the role of politician.

Of course, we can't trust what they say they're for or against either. You can only judge them on their past acts. Perhaps this is bringing me full circle to your notion of examining their personality?

Put another way, what do you mean by "personality" in the context of politics and politicians?

Cugel

[PDQ Mobile]

So Johnson has waded into to British American Ambassador row.

Stating:-
"I have got a good relationship with the White House and I have no embarrassment in saying that."
"I think it's very important that we have a strong relationship with our most important ally.
"The United States is, has been, will be and for the foreseeable future our number one political military friend."
(Source BBC)
-------
I for one disgaree with this sentiment.
I feel ever more ill at ease with aspects of American culture and feel more at home with Europeans by and large.
Trump's brash and ill tempered comments merely reinforce my view.

I note Mr Johnson's inclusion of the word "military" in his list of likes.

I think I am becoming a peacenik!!

[bovlomov]

Put another way, what do you mean by "personality" in the context of politics and politicians?

It's certainly an imperfect method, there's no denying.

I'm not sure our Parliamentary candidates are media constructs however. Mostly, I know little to nothing about them until they knock at the door. The exception might be the Green candidate or an independent, who I might have seen manning a stall or wandering up and down the high street. So what can I do? I look at their faces, judge their smiles, find out what I can about their record - and the rest is intuition and guesswork.

My angle is this. The world changes very fast, and a manifesto often has a short shelf life. An MP votes on scores of issues that emerge during the course of a parliament and that were absent from the manifesto. Parties change their positions. National emergencies and newspaper headlines demand action. I'd prefer to rely on my imperfect judgement of the candidate's personality than depend on a list of party policies that are vague and/or meaningless, and in any case might be irrelevant after three weeks.

One year I voted for a Monster Raving Loony candidate. It wasn't a protest vote. He was by far the best candidate, and would have been an asset to Parliament. On the one hand, he had a long list of joke policies. On the other, he had been running an engineering company, a tool hire company, and he had a wide range of personal interests. Having met him in the local hardware shop, I decided to vote for him ahead of the bunch of creepy candidates put up by the other parties. We'll never know if I was right. He got about 300 votes. The winning candidate was useless though.

EDIT. It has occurred to me that my method is almost never put to the test. As my chosen candidate almost never wins, I can only speculate about how much better they would have been than the person who was elected. Nevertheless, usually I'm safe in saying 'they could hardly have been worse'.

[Cugel]

Put another way, what do you mean by "personality" in the context of politics and politicians?

It's certainly an imperfect method, there's no denying.

I'm not sure our Parliamentary candidates are media constructs however. Mostly, I know little to nothing about them until they knock at the door. The exception might be the Green candidate or an independent, who I might have seen manning a stall or wandering up and down the high street. So what can I do? I look at their faces, judge their smiles, find out what I can about their record - and the rest is intuition and guesswork.

My angle is this. The world changes very fast, and a manifesto often has a short shelf life. An MP votes on scores of issues that emerge during the course of a parliament and that were absent from the manifesto. Parties change their positions. National emergencies and newspaper headlines demand action. I'd prefer to rely on my imperfect judgement of the candidate's personality than depend on a list of party policies that are vague and/or meaningless, and in any case might be irrelevant after three weeks.

One year I voted for a Monster Raving Loony candidate. It wasn't a protest vote. He was by far the best candidate, and would have been an asset to Parliament. On the one hand, he had a long list of joke policies. On the other, he had been running an engineering company, a tool hire company, and he had a wide range of personal interests. Having met him in the local hardware shop, I decided to vote for him ahead of the bunch of creepy candidates put up by the other parties. We'll never know if I was right. He got about 300 votes. The winning candidate was useless though.

EDIT. It has occurred to me that my method is almost never put to the test. As my chosen candidate almost never wins, I can only speculate about how much better they would have been than the person who was elected. Nevertheless, usually I'm safe in saying 'they could hardly have been worse'.

It's difficult bordering on impossible to know whether a particular politician will be any good or not at promoting the national interest, the interest of the whole public, the interests of his constituents etc.. Sometimes a long-serving politician can be so-judged on their past record. But many don't really have much of a record other than their voting record. This tends to follow the party whip so is often fairly meaningless.

And, as you say, things can change radically, with Black Swans flying about all over, so the past doings of a politician is no longer a guide to their likely future behaviour.

On top of that is the fact that policies and the political direction of the nation, along with the associated laws and regulations, are effectively decided by The Cabinet and, at times, by one dominating individual (example Thatcher). The great majority of MPs are "just there" rarely making any contribution to policy other than as whipped voters in Parliament.

*****
So, when it comes to examining politicians it probably only really matters when we consider those in charge of a Party. At the moment we're seeing something of an old-fashioned media response to the current Tory tussle for leadership, with a relatively clear view via media of the disjoint between the past doings of Bojo and Runt and their PR "acts". The disjoint between JBojo's personality (real and PR) is also being made rather more clear than he would like.

If only the media would do this all the time. If only the newspap rags were not partisan and inclined to hide various truths about politicians from their readers....

If only the electorate had not become a polarised demi-mob unable to consider anything other than the PR horn blares and hoots playing the Brexit Tune in a discordant cacophony of jarring point-counterpoint.

Cugel

[windmiller]

So Johnson has waded into to British American Ambassador row.

Stating:-
"I have got a good relationship with the White House and I have no embarrassment in saying that."
"I think it's very important that we have a strong relationship with our most important ally.
"The United States is, has been, will be and for the foreseeable future our number one political military friend."
(Source BBC)
-------
I for one disgaree with this sentiment.
I feel ever more ill at ease with aspects of American culture and feel more at home with Europeans by and large.
Trump's brash and ill tempered comments merely reinforce my view.

I note Mr Johnson's inclusion of the word "military" in his list of likes.

I think I am becoming a peacenik!!

What happened in a nutshell is that our Ambassodor has been proven to be somewhat lax with security and confidentiality. What he really thought about Trump and Co. was an unintentional back stab. Trump replied as only he can with zero upfront diplomacy.
After several hours of heroic stoic silence Darroch threw in the towel and then basks in the giant wave of sympathy that anyone who opposes Trump and loses can expect.