?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The PM program - Sex and Sums and a Controlled Dose of Rock and Roll [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Richard Clegg

[ website | Castle Gormenghast ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The PM program [May. 10th, 2010|02:43 pm]
Richard Clegg
I'm trying to work but I'm mainly just pressing refresh on the BBC website to see if we have a government yet. Well the result could have been worse but not much. A Lib-Conservative pact would look like a total disaster to me with eroded Lib Dem support (how many people are already "never lib dem again" even before this), not much chance of any actual electoral reform and a very small number of LD MPs trying to claim they are "influencing" policy. Also is it really likely that any kind of electoral reform bill would get through given I reckon many tories would defy the party whip on such a matter. In a way the nicest possible result would be a minority Tory government which would quickly turn in on itself as the Tory party typical habit of eating its young in times of stress. What are the rest of you hoping/fearing from this?
link

Comments:
[User Picture]From: moral_vacuum
2010-05-11 05:10 pm (UTC)
The bully thing is not remotely "fluff", it goes to the heart of his competence and suitability for leadership. Bullies with raging tempers (as opposed to strong, demanding leaders) in positions of authority in any workplace lead to bad decision-making and it fucks up the performance of staff - is that really what you want from the Cabinet and senior civil servants? Bullies in Government lead to incredibly bad policy and bad legislation because no-one dares tell truth to power in those circumstances.

The McBride thing demonstrated a willingness - indeed eagerness - to engage in incredibly dirty politics beyond the normal level of shenanigans (attacking spouses? Not on). Goes to character. If you say character isn't important, look at the cock-ups Gordon made because he was temperamentally unsuited to the job.

Ed being a deeply divisive figure in the party goes directly to whether or not he could run a government - if you lose half your back bench, you're fucked, so therefore unable to do the job.

I know YOU might not care about whether or not they have a good presence, but the majority of the electorate are incredibly shallow and to them it DOES make a difference. Consider Nixon vs Kennedy.

Re: Gordon's man from day one. Yes, but it's HOW he was Gordon's man. Not "I am a supporter and on his side of the fence on issues" but "I am his homunculus who will brief against the PM" - the factionalism of New Labour was part of the reason for its disintegration. . Plus even if you agree with Gordon's policies (although I would suggest that the debt timebomb of PFI outweighs many of the other things he achieved) the things he did), Ed did not have the chops to be Chancellor - during a crisis you need a cool head like Alastair Darling.
(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: steer
2010-05-12 02:34 pm (UTC)
The bully thing is not remotely "fluff", it goes to the heart of his competence and suitability for leadership.

At a management level maybe -- wouldn't want to work for him.

look at the cock-ups Gordon made because he was temperamentally unsuited to the job.

The thing is I don't think he did make cock ups. Not compared with say... oooh, Major, Blair, Thatcher, ... I think he was actually doing a good job with a very very hostile press. The majority of things he did "wrong" were fluff -- calling an election at the wrong time were chief. Not to say he did not pass laws I hated.
(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread)