Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Britain’s Conservatives are wrong to stick with Theresa May

Clinging on to a discredited leader who has failed in the election is simply setting up the Conservatives for electoral disaster.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

475 Views

Still shell-shocked by an election result they never expected Britain’s Conservatives are doing everything they can to ensure Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party wins the next election by a landslide.

The election left Britain’s Conservatives seven seats short of a majority in the British Parliament, but still the biggest party, with the biggest share of the vote (42.5% to Labour’s 40%) and the largest number of seats (318 to Labour’s 262).

There is an anti-Labour majority in the British Parliament consisting of the Conservatives and the right wing Northern Irish Protestant Democratic Unionist Party (the DUP), which makes it impossible for Labour to form a government.  The only possible government therefore is a Conservative government surviving with the support of the DUP.

The Conservatives have been widely criticised for negotiating with the DUP to give some formality to what would otherwise be a tacit arrangement.  Several commentators including the former Conservative Prime Minister John Major have argued that the Conservative government could continue in office without a formal arrangement with the DUP since it is inconceivable that the DUP – which detests Jeremy Corbyn because of the sympathy he has expressed in the past for the cause of a united Ireland – would ever vote into power.

In my opinion the Conservatives are right to ignore these arguments.  Whilst it is surely true that the DUP would never willingly act so as to bring Jeremy Corbyn to power, any government if it is to function efficiently needs to minimise the uncertainty it faces, and that points to the need for some sort of arrangement with the DUP so that the government can be sure of its support on crucial votes.

However what makes the optics of this arrangement so terrible is that Theresa May remains Prime Minister.

I have been pointing out since September that Theresa May is a weak and indecisive leader lacking in ideas.  What in September was a unique view is today the universal one.

Whatever view is taken of the election it was certainly not the resounding mandate for Theresa May she sought when she called it.  Whilst it is true that she polled more votes than Jeremy Corbyn (13,667,213 to 12,874,985), the election is universally seen as a refusal of the mandate Theresa May asked for from the voters.  That taken together with her now acknowledged deficiencies as leader should seal her fate.

There have been some claims that Theresa May will ‘learn from her mistakes’ and emerge a better, stronger and more collegiate leader after the election than she was before.

Believing that is a triumph of hope over experience.  A leader who was weak, indecisive and lacking in ideas when the politically tide seemed to be surging overwhelmingly in her favour is not going to become strong, decisive and brimming with ideas when it has turned against her.  Far more likely is that she will start before long to unravel under the pressure.

By clinging on to Theresa May the Conservatives are managing to give the impression of an arrogant and discredited leader clinging on to power by doing a deal with a Northern Irish party with conservative social views which are rejected by the majority of British voters.  Meanwhile they are sticking with a leader who is universally derided as inadequate.

The iron law of British politics is that minority governments – ie. governments with no majority in the British Parliament, and which therefore have to lead a hand to mouth existence surviving from vote to vote – quickly lose authority, setting themselves up for a heavy election defeat.

That is what happened to the Labour government of 1974 to 1979, and it is what also happened to the Conservative government of 1992 to 1997, which began with a small majority, which however it eventually lost by losing parliamentary bye-elections.

The best strategy for the Conservatives is to get themselves a new leader immediately and to work towards a new election as soon as possible, before too much damage is done.  In such a case, whilst it is now highly likely Jeremy Corbyn and Labour will win, the Conservatives would have a real hope of limiting the size of his majority.

Instead the Conservatives are not only keeping Theresa May as their leader; but seem to be digging in, talking ridiculously of continuing in government under her leadership for a full term of five years.

Not only is that not going to happen – even the tiny majority the Conservatives have with the DUP will soon vanish because of bye-elections – but it is absolutely the wrong strategy, which is setting the Conservatives up for disaster.

I understand the Conservatives’ problem.  Though Theresa May’s inadequacies as leader are now painfully obvious, the Conservative Party is startlingly lacking in convincing alternative leaders to put her in place.

The Conservative politician best known internationally apart from Theresa May herself is Boris Johnson.  That clownish character looked like a serious prospect for Conservative leader and Prime Minister last summer.  However his behaviour during the leadership election last summer – when he dithered for days before announcing he was a candidate – and his bungling performance as Foreign Secretary, has – one presumes – put paid to his hopes.

However none of the other alternatives looks convincing.  Michael Gove is said to be brilliant but in ways that put off far more people than he attracts.  Whether he is actually as brilliant or even as clever as he thinks is actually open to doubt.

Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, and Philip Hammond, the Chancellor (ie. Finance Minister), are both grey and incompetent (Hammond was a truly dreadful Foreign Secretary, worse if possible than Boris Johnson).

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, only just retained her seat in the election with a majority of 346, which is hardly a rousing endorsement from the people who know her best.  She looks anyway too much like a repeat of Theresa May.

The fact however remains that even if all the alternatives to Theresa May are bad, the option of clinging on to her is worse.  She after all has been rejected by the voters, which none of the others has.

As discussed, the Conservatives’ best strategy is to work towards holding  the next election as soon as possible under a temporary leader, whose job will be not to win the election but to limit the size of Jeremy Corbyn’s majority.  The Conservatives would then be in a stronger position to mount a challenge to Corbyn later under a new more convincing leader.

Theresa May is the worst possible candidate to do that, and Boris Johnson is not much better.  Ideas of clinging on to power under Theresa May’s leadership for five years through a deal with the DUP are fantasy, and can only lead to disaster.

The Conservatives need to rethink their strategy fast.  If they do, they will realise that Theresa May is completely the wrong person to continue as Prime Minister.  They should follow their traditions by getting rid of her, and do so without delay.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending