That's something I'd never thought of. The cabinet has to be drawn from a limited pool of people. Limited numbers wise. If that pool is full of people with limited talent you have no choice but to form a poor government. Arguably a big majority gives you more choice.
If the tories can see they. Might have just a hundred MPs. Do they allocate the bluesest seats to the few they feel will make a good opposition. Or do the best ones just contest the areas they are in. The best of them might be in areas that are most likely to turn.
I can see why they lean heavily on the civil service, and doing that thing they did with Cameron isn't a bad idea. Ie if you have a talented politician with no seat, you bend the rules to get them in govnt.
Not sure I'd put the words "Cameron" and "talented politician" in the same sentence, but you do you.
It's like when Bozo's entire government resigned from underneath him, and he was frantically trying to appoint ministers to the point they were holding several different offices at once. I think Corbyn was doing something similar at one point?
Bozo already purged the party of common sense. The government benches are currently naught but sycophants and ideologues. They have no vision, no plan. They want power simply for the sake of having power - and denying that power to others. Political squatters.
Doesn't matter if they have over 300 MPs or just 90 MPs, they're all too incompetent to even be in politics, much less in government. A heavy defeat might actually see off some of their crazies; but it will likely see the hardest of the hard core nut jobs in place.
Recent Posts