War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Yup they both fucked up horribly and tragically. They should be nowhere near the party leadership.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Yup they both fucked up horribly and tragically. They should be nowhere near the party leadership.
anyone else concerned what is happening to the Labour party, they seem to be imploding...
Scottish Labour all but gone, UK Labour no one really seems to want the fucking job, well no one half decent..
Strong opposition is vital to any government, but the way things are going it is going to be a cakewalk this 5 years for the Tories
Scottish Labour all but gone, UK Labour no one really seems to want the fucking job, well no one half decent..
Strong opposition is vital to any government, but the way things are going it is going to be a cakewalk this 5 years for the Tories
Black Republican
Member
merge with SNP, welcome the takeover
SymbiantXenos
Member
I'd buy that for a dollar.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So... Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall and Mary Creagh. Gosh. That's uh... slim pickings. I wish Lammy would throw his hat in, he'd be my first choice from that bunch. I know he was considering it. Still, I guess Burnham > Kendall > Cooper > Creagh, I think.
I have said it before, but I honestly feel Chuka and him are playing the long game, they I reckon are thinking another loss 2020, real fight is in 2025
PJV3
Member
I feel this was going to happen at some point anyway.
It will end up like the Libdem's, a good chunk of membership isn't going to campaign for what's going to be on offer. Tristram Hunt leading the Labour party, how can this even be a fucking option.
Imagine appointing a neocon as leader of Labour in Scotland. No one can be surprised it ended in tears.
PJV3
Member
Towards the end they overspent, without the crisis it was manageable, they got caught out by events, the end.
They need to postpone the leadership thing, stop making speeches and just talk and listen to members and try to find some common purpose.
The Tories are going to love facing this lot.
Black Republican
Member
Tory will be running shit for another 10 years the way labour's acting
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He really should. Labour could ride the Jarviswagon all the way to Westminster. Activists are desperate at this point, they've even been in last ditch talks to try and persuade Keir Starmer to stand and he's been in Parliament all of a week.
it's funny as I think he is the only one that can unite them, they need to offer him a team of nannies or whatever he wants.... all the other candidates will split the party
The tories are even scared of this guy, he is like the all American hero, but British
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Jarvis really needs to change his mind, no country does well having as weak an opposition as the uk would if one of these never-was-beens became leader.
PJV3
Member
Just promise to give him time for his children.
Starmer for shadow home secretary, god knows who for shadow chancellor.
Sometimes I think I might like to go into politics one day. Then I realise that eventually some journalist is going to dig up my GAF account and find all the jokes I made about Prince Harry obviously not being Prince Charles' son and so on. Or they'll find that picture of me on Facebook when I was 17 passed out with a bra on my head and a Hitler moustache drawn on in mascara.
I can't imagine how anyone in my generation will ever have a clean enough past to be a politician. I kind of think Chukka had the same revelation this week.
I can't imagine how anyone in my generation will ever have a clean enough past to be a politician. I kind of think Chukka had the same revelation this week.
brain_stew
Member
Do Labour want to tarnish Jarvis with a potential defeat by throwing him in the deep end already? It's going to be one hell of a task for Labour to win a strong majority at the next election but 5 years of steady rebuilding could set then up for a slam dunk in 2025 with Jarvis as a strong united leader without the stench of failure.
The worry of course is with the current shambles they could capitulate again again come 2020 and leave him with an insurmountable task.
The worry of course is with the current shambles they could capitulate again again come 2020 and leave him with an insurmountable task.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Are you telling me that people would frown upon my waifu obsession? D:
I don't actually have a waifu obsession.
Lol. I had this exact line of thinking the other day. There's definitely some horrendous photos of me fear and loathing around. Never harmed Osbourne though!
brain_stew
Member
Over time it will gradually be accepted as the norm and eventually it won't be a big deal. It will be a long and dirty road to get there though.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Starmer is slippery as hell, but not good at covering his tracks. His article on the Human Rights Act in the Guardian on Wednesday has a great gaping logic hole between paragraphs 7 and 8. Now he either believes that line of logic, which means he is deluded; or he doesn't, which makes him duplicitous. Not a great start in my book.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm sorry, I don't see the problem? The gist of his argument is:
1. The HRA doesn't force us to listen to European courts.
2. What does force us to listen to European courts is the ECHR.
3. Therefore, to get out of the European court system, we'd have to exit the ECHR, not just repeal the HRA.
Which of those is wrong?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Let me fill in the detail ...
Actually yes it does. Section 2(1) says that a court MUST take into account ANY judgment of the ECHR, whenever made or given, that is relevant to the proceedings.
I assume that by ECHR here you mean the Treaty (that's what Starmer means)? Proceeding on that basis ...
Actually no it doesn't. To quote Starmer "Article 46 states that: The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
That is a completely different thing. That just says that if the UK is a party to a case before the ECHR then it must abide by the court's decision. Which is kind of obvious. It has nothing to do with what section 2 of the HRA says, which is to do with taking account of relevant ECHR rulings in completely unrelated cases. Such as cases against Germany, or Belgium, or the European Commission.
So, for example, if the ECHR rules in a German case that, say, an accused person has the right to be present at their own trial then the HRA says, but the Treaty does not say, that that will also apply in the UK.
So this conclusion does not follow, because he is talking about two different and mostly unrelated things.
Now, Starmer is supposed to be a lawyer - he is a QC dammit. And this is an elementary mistake to make, if it is a mistake that is.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I did mean the Treaty, yes - was abbreviating. Unfortunately, not being a lawyer I don't know enough to comment. All I can say is that I have heard from other people outside Starmer and from different political alignments that it is the European Convention on Human Rights is what means European courts have influence on us, and that the HRA is merely an addendum. I'll ask them to have a brief look at your post and get an explanation.
I do know that prior to the HRA, European courts were still the ultimate arbiters, you just had to take your case to Strasbourg rather than being able to use the British courts as an intermediary.
I do know that prior to the HRA, European courts were still the ultimate arbiters, you just had to take your case to Strasbourg rather than being able to use the British courts as an intermediary.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think the problem is that rather loose wording (which corresponds to a rather loose common understanding) that I've bolded. The Treaty gives the ECHR binding power over the UK in cases to which the UK is a party. The HRA gives the UK courts the power to take rulings from the ECHR without having to bring a separate case before them. They are tackling the problem from different ends, with the net result that (a) justice is swifter and cheaper and (b) that the ECHR doesn't get clogged up with duplicate cases.
Oh, sorry for misunderstandin your abbreviation. I tend to read ECHR as meaning the Court, rather than the Convention.
I actually believe Jarvis when he says he doesn't want the job for family reasons. His 1st wife died in 2010 and although he's recently remarried he's just had another child this year. He's got 3 young children, at 42 he's got plenty of time for front line politics when his children are older.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Okay, but suppose a particular case happened under the ECHR to which the UK wasn't a party, before the HRA was implemented. Some similar case THEN happens in the UK (to which the UK is a party), and British courts rule opposite to what the ECHR did - as they are allowed to do pre-HRA. Even before the HRA, people had the ability to appeal to the ECHR however; and the ECHR itself does have to take into account the ruling it made on the first case, where the UK wasn't a party. So, in this case, where the UK is a party, it will rule the same as it did when the UK wasn't - over-ruling British courts, as it was allowed to do pre-HRA. Therefore, even prior to the HRA, the ECHR had de facto binding power over the UK, it was just a matter of people actually pursuing them to get that result. So, isn't Starmer's argument therefore still right - to get full independence from European courts, we'd have to withdraw from the European Convention?
On a side note, having the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights makes this acronym business rather complicated.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Problem there is the word "just". We're talking several orders of magnitude delay and a lot of cost, so in practical terms it mostly wasn't defacto at all and it wasn't retrospective to other cases either. So while that case was going through the courts you'd have seven years or so of other affected people not getting justice.
Now, with the HRA, you can get a Convention right decision made even in a magistrates court pretty well on the spot. Most people would not have the time, energy, money or legal aid to take it to Strasbourg.
Well, that takes us back to para 3 of Starmers article, which is also at least disingenuous. It is a strawman of the Conservative position which is, not just to repeal the HRA but to replace it with something else. I'm not aware of any proposal to get complete independence from the ECtHR or to withdraw from the ECvHR (which would also mean withdrawing from the EU).
If the aim were complete independence from the ECtHR then yes, you'd be right. But I don't believe it is.
And if that were the case then Starmer's conclusion would be right, but that doesn't make his argument stand up any the more. I have a deep distrust of bad arguments deployed in good causes, it makes me suspicious.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, I don't deny this. I'm just saying that the key point of the argument - full autonomy of European courts being only acheived by exiting the ECHR, not the HRA - is true, no?
Okay, I agree he's simplifying it but I still don't see how that's wrong. If the Conservatives do want to replace the HRA with a BBoR... what on earth would be in it? If you don't withdraw from the ECHR, it can't contravene the ECHR or if it does it can be overturned by the ECHR after an arse-ache of a process. How would a BBoR actually be different from an HRA? It's not like the HRA is particularly prescriptive Also, I do actually think a fair amount of the Conservative talk about replacing the HRA *is* about not being subject to European courts at all, or at the very least giving British courts final say which is tantamount to not being subject to European courts at all. That's not to say they're for exiting the ECHR (because they don't realize that would be necessary), but they seem to think exiting the HRA has that effect - which it doesn't, which is what Starmer is arguing.
EDIT: I should have been a lawyer.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well, that's the zillion-dollar question isn't it!
Beats me. I think the HRA is a damn good Act and should stay the way it is. I think the Torys have made all sorts of unnecessary political bluster over it, have painted themselves into a corner over what it might mean, don't themselves really understand what they are supposed to be doing with it, that the BBoR - whatever it is - will look nearly exactly the same as the HRA and if it doesn't then the House of Lords will chuck it out. Useful like that, the House of Lords.
EDIT: I suspect what really happened was they cobbled this idea together to pacify their right wing, fully expecting that the Opposition and the Tory's Coalition partners would chuck it out in the Commons - then they accidentally got a majority and are stuck with it! I hope the idea dies a quiet death.
PJV3
Member
The Libdem's blocked any work being done by civil servants, at the moment it's a tory party document. This thing won't see the light of day til Cameron is gone.
CyclopsRock
Member
I wonder if we will get back into a position where leaders can withstand a loss? I mean, Kinnock ran as leader twice. I feel like right now it's a combination of level of defeat and expectation management for leaders of Labour and Tories. If, like Steve McLaren, whoever is leader in 2020 basically states that their goal is to improve their position, could they stay on? But it seems like a hard political message to sell, that even your own leader's not expecting to win.
Does anyone know how legit this story is? A independent candidate in local election got no votes but obviously he, his family and friends must have voted for him. Claiming some sort of election fraud?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-know-voted-me-angry-5703584
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-know-voted-me-angry-5703584
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's probably a true story. In the grand scheme of things I'm not sure it's wildly important - he wasn't going to win and the Conservative candidate for that ward won by such a large amount that to change the result the fraud would have to have been on such a scale a lot more people would have noticed something. Obviously not good, but I'd be surprised if there weren't minor fuck-ups on this level around most of the country, particularly at council level.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Eh...if a mate of mine was running as an independent candidate, I'd probably say I'd vote for him but not actually do so.
It's a bit suspicious that he didn't get one vote from himself. Though I'm reminded of that Simpsons episode where Bart runs for class president and doesn't bother voting for himself.
Nicktendo86
Member
Fascinating insight into the Tory campaign here, the parts that got me were that the Tories turned up to work at HQ two hours before labour did and that they knew their ground campaign was superior to labour but kept quiet about it!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11609570/Secrets-of-the-Tories-election-war-room.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11609570/Secrets-of-the-Tories-election-war-room.html
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Crosby did a good job with the campaign, though I do wonder how much of that was down to discipline and control rather than electoral brilliance (or maybe they are one and the same). Any competently run campaign should have triumphed over Labour if we are being honest.
However, I do find it slightly disturbing how much control Crosby had over the running of government. Ousting Gove, for example.
EDIT: Also that article reads like masturbatory fantasy. Crosby is very skilled, but suggesting things like the koala of the day as something amazing is ludicrous.
The key points are using social media data for 'direct mail' ads, polling methodologies and the general micro-targeting approach.
However, I do find it slightly disturbing how much control Crosby had over the running of government. Ousting Gove, for example.
EDIT: Also that article reads like masturbatory fantasy. Crosby is very skilled, but suggesting things like the koala of the day as something amazing is ludicrous.
The key points are using social media data for 'direct mail' ads, polling methodologies and the general micro-targeting approach.
Nicktendo86
Member
And here is some commentary from the other perspective. Incredible that Miliband didn't seems to entertain the idea that he would not be prime minister at all. Did arrogance blind them?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/win-next-labour-leader-needs-master-fundamentals
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/win-next-labour-leader-needs-master-fundamentals
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It doesn't at all say that...
If anything it implies that they were being optimistic in the face of bad internal polls, which realistically is the only thing that they could do. This election was lost by Labour a long time ago. They never rehabilitated the party's economic record (which was falsely maligned and spurred on by the shameful use of the note by Cameron) and as good as he was in the campaign, Milliband simply did not have the correct image (not entirely his fault).
Nicktendo86
Member
It sounds like they gave up on being the largest party some time ago but it seems they were convinced they would be in a position to govern, I can't help but get the impression Miliband surrounded himself in a bubble of yes men who were caught completely off guard by the exit poll.
I still feel there will be so much to be written about this election, what a fascinating last few weeks.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It even says in the part you quoted that they 'clung' to 'hope'. That sounds like desperation to me. You can't run an election campaign on resigned defeat (well the Lib Dems did but hey ho), it just doesn't make any sense. I don't know where you get the idea that Milliband surrounded himself with yes men when he's spent the last five years being sniped at internally.
Whatever you say about his public persona, he is far from an idiot. He's highly educated and intellectual and having grown up the son of a marxist intellectual I imagine he's used to dissenting opinions. Obviously that doesn't mean he's immune to arrogance, but I think most people would say that that is nowehere near a relevant characteristic of his.
Whatever you say about his public persona, he is far from an idiot. He's highly educated and intellectual and having grown up the son of a marxist intellectual I imagine he's used to dissenting opinions. Obviously that doesn't mean he's immune to arrogance, but I think most people would say that that is nowehere near a relevant characteristic of his.
Everything I have heard from the labour people I know says that Ed ran an incredibly closed shop. His unit was very much comprised of "yes people", and they were very separate from the rest of the party - and incredibly inexperienced at running a major political party.
Nicktendo86
Member
This is what I have heard/read as well, admittedly just from outside press.
Why is this just coming out now? I suppose because Labour have already lost the election and don't see the point in keeping tight-lipped about the man who 'cost' them it?
I think this is unfair - the Lib Dems ran their campaign on the basis that they'd be a junior party in a coalition, which seemed reasonably realistic at the time. In a time when there are now more than two parties of any significance, I think it's only reasonable that most of these parties stop with the implication that they're ever going to have a parliamentary majority.
I think this is unfair - the Lib Dems ran their campaign on the basis that they'd be a junior party in a coalition, which seemed reasonably realistic at the time. In a time when there are now more than two parties of any significance, I think it's only reasonable that most of these parties stop with the implication that they're ever going to have a parliamentary majority.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked