Easy to say but we do need government to er, govern. So who do you think could do a decent job and why? I'm going to propose Martin Lewis. Talks well, has a passion to understand issues and sort them out and in the next few years going by this article not out of the realms of possibility https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61869649
He would be very foolish to align himself closely to any party, unless he absolutely feels he has to. He’s one of the most popular and trusted people in the Country, not words usually associated with politicians. As he would be likely to align with the Lib Dems or even Labour, the Tory press would do the Wokey Cokey all over him.
To be fair, they only tend to do that when someone actually is woke. Modern 'woke', contradicting one cause or ideal with another but doing so with utter conviction, is analogus to mental health issues. The fact that the left's previous cause celeb, feminism, has now been usurped by a new cause that completely undercuts it (men make just as good or better women than women do), and that is not an issue of politics, it is an issue of gaslit fever dreams. Back to the OP though. I don't think it matters who you put in charge. I genuinely believe that Tony Blair believed he would make that type of difference, and I trusted and supported him to do so. But power corrupts, no matter how 'good' you try to be with it. See Tolkein's ring of power, in which he explains the concept, and the frailties of good people who might wield power, in a very entertaining fashion. Introducing checks and balances, coming from public groups (similar to a jury) unaffiliated with political parties, seems like a good direction to go in. Though I agree with Parliament that it is down to the voters to decide if an MP is acceptable or not.
Sure, but you were suggesting him for Government and that means a Party, unless something hugely radical happens.
The unfortunate thing is that he has a narcisists ego (nothing wrong with that, provided it is not given unfettered reign), and that is the the problem for most would be leaders. It has served well in the past, but it has never been perfect. See Attlee, Churchill, Thatcher and Blair. Nor, I imagine, would any individual appear perfect. I have no problem with him as a leader, any more than any other would be PM. Unless he starts acting in a manner that suggests a disconnection with reality. Personally, I do not think it is the individual that we should worry about, but our own ability to hold them individually, and universally, accountable. Hence this idea of public "juries" assessing checks and balances as a way forward, rather than choosing someone because they have a nice media personality, which, no offence, would appear to be the main argument for Lewis. That said, I see no less reason for him to stand than Boris or whoever. Let's assume they are all going to be crap, and put in place a truly independent body that can hold them to account.
The country desperately needs someone like Macron and his En Marche! party to arrive on the scene and blow the current Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem career politician shysters away. But hopefully if such a person does come along they won't turn out to be an even bigger turd than the old lot... unlike Macron
It would help both Labour and the Libdems to acknowledge how tactical voting helped them win last night imho. If they want to get rid of the current Tory government in the next GE they need tactical voting. They will turn people off doing it if they claim that the vote is all about endorsing them rather than a percentage of the vote they got being "on loan" to get rid of the Tories.
Yes, it could be a real factor at the next election if done at this scale. There are pitfalls with this approach, particularly if pitched by the Tories and their press as ‘vote LibDem to get a Labour/SNP Government’, when usually it’s vote LibDem to get a Tory one. Also easier to choose at a by-election. Labour had significant support to offer in Tiverton. They were second in 2019 with 11k votes. May have to provide a more serious offering at a GE. Lib Dems had nothing in Wakefield, so all the same to them.
It'll be interesting to see the Tories campaign at the next GE - I'm assuming that it will be the most expensive and dirty campaign ever. The money's going to be 'problematic' as the usual spigots have been turned 'offski'.
I think the line about voting Libdem and get a Labour government is not as powerful as it perhaps once was. Obviously most tactical votes for Libdems would be natural Labour voters anyway. But I really think it's got to the stage that most people who are not core Tory voters want anyone but Johnson right now. If the Tories do get rid of him before the GE they might persuade some of the swing voters back but, if they stick with him, I suspect tactical voting will be quite a big factor in the next GE. I'm hoping that Labour and the Libdems actually do a deal that involves promising a PR system should they form government. Probably a step too far for most though.
If a change to PR is in both their manifestos then I don't see why a referendum would be necessary. But if they promised a referendum then that would be a start. It would have to require a super majority though. I think we've all learnt that simple majorities in referendums for major constitutional change doesn't work well!
Its a shame the tory vote from a few weeks back wasnt happening today, BJ would be gone along with the rest of his facist cabinet.
But, then we would not have the pleasure of de Pfeffel's 'live' and 'unplugged' performance in front of the Commons Select Committee. A piece of TV that will be as seminal as Nirvana's set for MTV Unplugged.
