Why does opposition self destruct

[Denny Crane!]

Typically this is the COnservatives in Britain at the moment. Every time they get a points lead they decide to attack their leader and ruin any hope of gaining an actual winning chance.

It seems typical of the opposition, a similar thing happened with the Lib Dems.

Has any non UK residents seen this phenemonon in the political system?

[Medicus]

Afraid not. In Australia, its the opposite. If the Opposition Leader's losing points, the party kicks him out, which causes a rise in the party's approval rating. Unfortunately, it doesn't always equate to success in an actual election.

[CarbEast]

Has any non UK residents seen this phenemonon in the political system?

No. Most political system are just fine with some minor lies rather than so complicated ones to make people think these shows really deciding something...

[Radulf Heimiric]

Labour hasn't done much wrong yet since Brown took over, so the conservatives have panicked and pressed the self destruct button again.

Brown has also been helped by things like the flooding and Foot and Mouth. Nobody can really say they're his fault, so what they do is take away the focus from anything controversial that Labour might do. In this sort of situation the Conservatives need to get positive publicity, instead of hoping that Labour will destroy themselves.

Cameron has very few real policies, however, so it is difficult to attract any positive publicity. To combat this he tried introducing a few ideas, such as the grammar schools policy a month or two ago. But the problem is that members of the Conservatives have a huge range of conflicting views, so you will always get people within the party attacking Cameron on any policy announcements.

Labour is the same, but since they are in government and ahead in the polls it is much easier for them as the party members are generally more satisfied. Blair going has appeased traditionalists, while Brown still retains many of the more right wing policies of the government. There are also no clear contenders for Labour leader other than Brown, so he is in a much more secure position.

I don't think the Conservatives are attacking their leader because they are making gains. They are just attacking him every so often as they believe they aren't gaining fast enough. These attacks then make them lose ground, increasing the likelihood of another attack, though there will be a short period before the next attack. In this intervening time the party starts to recover in the polls, so this would explain why the attacks come when the Conservatives are making some (though not much) progress.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Typically this is the COnservatives in Britain at the moment. Every time they get a points lead they decide to attack their leader and ruin any hope of gaining an actual winning chance.

It seems typical of the opposition, a similar thing happened with the Lib Dems.

Has any non UK residents seen this phenemonon in the political system?

You are applying something in a blanket style to opposition when in fact Cameron has just made poor leadership decisions, whilst Gordon Brown's ten years as practically second in command of the entire country mean he knows exactly what he is doing.

[Denny Crane!]

You are applying something in a blanket style to opposition when in fact Cameron has just made poor leadership decisions, whilst Gordon Brown's ten years as practically second in command of the entire country mean he knows exactly what he is doing.

Smith, Kennedy, Hague? Opposition parties inevitably attack their own when faced with stiff opposition.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Smith, Kennedy, Hague? Opposition parties inevitably attack their own when faced with stiff opposition.

No. Hague lost an election... had to go. Kennedy couldn't control his drinking.

[Radulf Heimiric]

Hague lost an election... had to go.

Losing an election doesn't mean you have to go. Churchill lost the 1945 election, yet remained conservative leader and won the 51 election. Nixon lost in 1960 but went on to win two elections. These are the only two examples I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are far more. There would certainly be more examples if it wasn't standard to kick the leader after the first election loss.

Kennedy couldn't control his drinking.

He was receiving treatment. When he admitted to having had a drinking problem he had been dry for two months (according to him anyway).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Losing an election doesn't mean you have to go. Churchill lost the 1945 election, yet remained conservative leader and won the 51 election.

And also won World War II. Sort of a special scenario and utterly unique in post war politics.

He was receiving treatment. When he admitted to having had a drinking problem he had been dry for two months (according to him anyway).

So? This is politics, you don't get to have human flaws.

[rathelios]

There is no need to despair. Politicians lack loyalty. That is fundamental to their nature. When you win you do so as a party representative. When you lose, you lose alone.
Wait and see how things go for Gordon when some of his poor decisions come home to roost. Labour doesn't have enough campaign funds to call an election soon because they can't get party donations. There is still time for the tide to turn.

[Gary88]

yeah but hague was bollocks though suprisingly good as a host on HIGNFY

[Denny Crane!]

They left through the relentless pressure of their own parties.

[Radulf Heimiric]

yeah but hague was bollocks though suprisingly good as a host on HIGNFY

IMO Hague was a talented and intelligent politician (though I disagree with a lot of things he said), but his timing was wrong. He became leader of the Conservatives at a young age while Tony Blair was extremely popular. After a couple of publicity errors he never stood a chance. If he'd waited another 5 or 10 years he might well be PM by now.

[Muagan_ra]

Kennedy couldn't control his drinking.

... and presided over the most significant electoral gains the LibDems have had in a long time. They replaced a popular politican like Kennedy with an irrelevant reptile, it's simply incredible.



Despite what that delusionary David Cameron would like us to think, the Conservative party has not moved on. They're still at their happiest when loafing around a meeting of the Eton Alumni, staining their smoking jackets with Cuban tobbaco and the finest Sherry this side of the Raj, while :wub: before her Majesty's latest swimsuit calender.

The problem for him is that he's trying to reorganise tribal politics - if the upper class toffs in England can't vote for the Tories, who the **** else can they vote for?

He's trying to go into natural Labour territory, but the problem is that while Blair inherited a political culture that was well disposed towards the policies he took, Cameron did not.

I for one am happy for the Tories to be destroyed, because Gordon Browns done pretty bloody well so far.

[Father Jack]

Despite the fact that i am not a Labour supporter i do think Brown is doing an excellent job, but i suppose it is too early to judge him.
The problem with the Conservatives is that they have elected a Blair look alike, hoping that this will make the population think that the Conservatives have a young charismatic leader who will hopefully win elections like Blair did. However IMO the majority of UK citizens do not want another Blair considering his many disasterous decisions (Iraq etc).

[Gary88]

you know i couldnt tell you a single conservative policy. i'm 18 and an election will be held quite soon, the party i vote for first may well be the party i support for alot of my life. maybe telling me what they represent might be a good idea, otherwise i will simply conclude that i've had a pretty good life and none of my misery has been caused by the government. i think i'll vote for Labour

[removeduser_487563287433]

Charles Kennedy does not even have the self-control to obey the law and not smoke on trains.

[Radulf Heimiric]

That is hardly relevant; it came after his resignation.

[removeduser_487563287433]

And how exactly does that make a difference? It shows his addictive personality and the fact that he is an MP unwilling to obey the laws that the Parliament he is a part of passes!

[Radulf Heimiric]

It didn't make a difference on how people perceived his drinking problem because it came later, so it did not affect his position as leader of the party. Whether he actually has an addictive personally is unimportant from a political perspective, as long as people don't find out about it - and I bet he wouldn't have smoked on a train if he was still Lib Dem leader.