Alla-BritsFollow

True. He lacks any ability to appeal to the media or those voters who place personality before governmental skills.

/nod

Most of us rumbled that within a few days.

Our options are limited.

There's nobody left in the Labour ranks with sufficient acumen or credibility to lead into an election.

Cameron has yet to specify any policies - all aspirational "We will reduce unemployment/lower taxes/improve public services etc." without telling us specifically what decisions/actions will bring them about.

The other parties continue to be irrelevant.

I'm in the "There's the Devil You Know" camp - until someone offering more credible policies comes along, I'll put up with what we have.

Interestingly, the European Press are all slagging off their own leaders (Sarkozy, Zapatero, Merkel & lolBerlusconi) for failing to offer decisive action like Brown. Yes, he's a charmless git, but he'll do for now.

Incidentally, the only person I can see across the spectrum who has anything like the knowledge and personality to lead us (I can hardly say it) Ken Clarke.

If Portillo had rehabilitated himself a few years ago, he would have the potential for a strongly led Tory party.

As it is, Cameron's likely to sneak in simply by finding flaws with labour policies, not by having any of his own.

Watching the recent Thatcher programmes on TV showed up well why Portillo left the political scene. It was enthralling to watch events that I remember as a child, this time examined with an adults understanding.

As for Cameron and policies, thats why we have a General Election. I just hope he manages more than policies than William Hague

Um yes I do.





You missed the point. If Brown had vision and leadership he would have called a General Election already (he had the chance remember). He would then have the right to govern, not by backdoor politics but by earning it from the people he serves - You and me (no one else mind you, especially not that Nobby )

The Tories will likely win the next election on the basis of a good looking leader with a half hearted bag of policies. People are just sick of Labour and need something new. New Labour is looking more than a little Passe right now.

With due respect Nobby, What a load of hogswash.

We elect the party based on the prime minister that leads it. Maybe the part appoints the prime minister but that decision is made on the major issue of "can this person win us the election". Does this person have the vision and leadership to win votes?
We vote for the head of the party and their policies and direction. We vote for the person that we trust. The party backs the person they feel that WE the electorate will vote for.
So we do not in strict terms elect the leader of the party, but as the Tories found out in the end, we do not vote for a party without a clear driving force behind it, a visionary leader.

Another point is that John Major went to the country and won a term in his very grey and boring way

Cite

Quoting the key point from my friendly non PC Boris (he is such a cutey)

FUcking Idiots do, I'll grant you.

If you don't even grasp the basics of our constitutional democracy, then I think I can hear Emmeline Pankhurst crying into her hankie.

No. You are.

I'm dealing with facts. You're dealing with a twisted populism passed off by the tabloids to sell newspapers.

Mug.

The fact that you neither remember, or have bothered to find out about the regular "Will she/Won't She?" phoney-elections throughout the '80s tells me you need to move to the shallower end of debating.

No surprises, but you're simply demonstrating that you have no fUcking clue what you're talking about, but are soothed by the tabloid editors confirming your ignorant, bigoted, puerile, over-simplistic view of politics.

That people who have no understanding of the context and can be swayed by populist ***** comments are allowed to vote?

Yep.

I support the Universal Franchise, even when it allows the intellectually challenged to cast a vote with no clue what it means.

If we are talking about Governments we would like to see in the future, I'll throw my support behind a Noocracy. But I don't think that's what we are talking about.

You pissant old fart, you think I did not know that? You are still voting for the party you wish to represent you in parliament, even if they may lose in your particular area. You are still voting for the party and its leader in a general election.
The reason we keep a first past the post system is to avoid the visible mess that is proportional representation.

Again, TECHNICALITY

How many election cadidates are not members of a party? How many do not have backing and support and a party whip to snap them into the party line?

Your pissy replies may have merit technically but the reality is that MPs are for the most part funded, supported and representatives of their supporting parties. When most of the UK population votes, we vote for representatives of a party so we gain a concensus and consistent approach on issues that we find important to us. General Elections are fought nationally by the main political parties to gain a controlling stake in parliament. Independants barely feature on the horizon.

In the future to avoid a conflict of interest, I suggest you avoid voting in the next general election for any candidate that proudly displays the logo of a political party. Oh, have you done that in the past?

China has a truth about voting too. Technically everyone has a vote and can stand for election. On paper it looks fair. Shame about the reality.

Do you need lessons in paper law v's reality? At your age? Shame on you Nobby

Would you enlighten the Asylum if you have ever voted for a candidate that was affiliated to a political party?