0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Him or Thatcher would be strong enough.
Thatcher pretty much came up with the idea of the Single Market. Shows how batshit the current Tory party is that the Single Market is now seen as some plot to enrich the EU at the expense of Britain. Oh aye. Churchill was all for a United States of Europe too. He also proposed the UK and France merging as a single country. But I'm sure our friends in here know all that.
TommyYou've got to be careful here. There are right wingers who immortalise Thatcher and ignore the fact that she failed badly at the end of her term and became a liability. Labour supporters tend to do the same with Attlee. Yes, he put the country onto another path (a much better one in my opinion, but that's just my opinion). But within 5 years he'd lost his massive majority, and within another year he was in opposition. Churchill stands above everyone else because he was the person that defined what was required to galvanise the country in the most dangerous moments of our history. Yes Attlee was in the coalition cabinet, and yes it was a collective effort of Govt during the War. But Churchill transcended that and defined the spirit of the nation at a time when it might have broken. If Lord Halifax had become PM in 1940 (and he very nearly did) there would have been a very different outcome to WWII.
I wonder when was the last time the government lost a major vote on a major party policy by more than 100 votes?
Id go for 80 defeat - and no resigning (pure guess on the first bit - not the second)
FiloInteresting list. MacDonald and Callaghan of course ended up seeing their administration's fall after those votes. Neville Chamberlain resigned after WINNING a vote by 81 votes after the Norway disaster in 1940, because a large number of his own party voted against him. I'd forgotten about Cameron losing the Syria vote. In normal times, that should have been a resignation issue. It's interesting that the dynamics in Parliament have changed. For many, many years, the ruling party had huge majorities so it was almost impossible for them to lose votes. That's very bad for democracy, as the House of Commons is supposed to act as a check on the unlimited power of the Government. We're in different times now. We regularly have small majorities (Major 92-97, Cameron/May 15-17) or coalitions/minority Govts (Wilson/Callaghan 74-79, Cameron 10-15, May 17-). In those circumstances, the HoC really does have power and can restrict the PM's authority.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on January 15, 2019, 02:56:04 pmFiloInteresting list. MacDonald and Callaghan of course ended up seeing their administration's fall after those votes. Neville Chamberlain resigned after WINNING a vote by 81 votes after the Norway disaster in 1940, because a large number of his own party voted against him. I'd forgotten about Cameron losing the Syria vote. In normal times, that should have been a resignation issue. It's interesting that the dynamics in Parliament have changed. For many, many years, the ruling party had huge majorities so it was almost impossible for them to lose votes. That's very bad for democracy, as the House of Commons is supposed to act as a check on the unlimited power of the Government. We're in different times now. We regularly have small majorities (Major 92-97, Cameron/May 15-17) or coalitions/minority Govts (Wilson/Callaghan 74-79, Cameron 10-15, May 17-). In those circumstances, the HoC really does have power and can restrict the PM's authority. Can't quite remember, what made 2013 not normal times?
the even more worrying consequence of all of this (as a Labour supporter) is when Labour call a general election, even though May is universally seen as a rubbish PM, even more people don't want Corbyn as PM, so no single party will be able to continue in government with a majority. If only Corbyn would give way to a more electable leader, Labour could win a general election with a huge majority. Very weird times.