Snap General Election called

[Which Tyler]

I was pretty sure it was 50%+1 to dissolve the government.
After that, anyone who (thinks they can, with some cause) can command a majority has 2 weeks to form a government, failing that, or if no-one tries, we go to the polls.



Elsewhere, luckily there's no angst in NI about their place in the Union...

[Sandydragon]

I was pretty sure it was 50%+1 to dissolve the government.
After that, anyone who (thinks they can, with some cause) can command a majority has 2 weeks to form a government, failing that, or if no-one tries, we go to the polls.



Elsewhere, luckily there's no angst in NI about their place in the Union...

Oops. Im amazed that the new ministers can even find NI on a map; they are scraping the barrel.

[Puja]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

[Banquo]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

Lol, quite the reversal; before it was good on principle, sh*te on politics. Frankly turning round and saying no business case for rejoining Europe is a tad worse than no principles.
It comes to something when someone gets praise for having no principles, but that's where we have got to.

[Puja]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

Lol, quite the reversal; before it was good on principle, sh*te on politics. Frankly turning round and saying no business case for rejoining Europe is a tad worse than no principles.
It comes to something when someone gets praise for having no principles, but that's where we have got to.

He is the anti-Corbyn isn't he - the complete reverse of someone who might've meant well, but just couldn't stop walking into rhetorical landmines even when he knew they were there. And of course, that's exactly how Starmer defused the anti-semitism meme, by waiting until Corbyn said something that wasn't particularly controversial but still should've been kept behind his teeth, and then slamming the banhammer down on him.

Brings up the age-old left-winger question - would you rather have someone in favour of real change, or someone capable of winning the power needed to effect it.

Puja

[Banquo]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

Lol, quite the reversal; before it was good on principle, sh*te on politics. Frankly turning round and saying no business case for rejoining Europe is a tad worse than no principles.
It comes to something when someone gets praise for having no principles, but that's where we have got to.

He is the anti-Corbyn isn't he - the complete reverse of someone who might've meant well, but just couldn't stop walking into rhetorical landmines even when he knew they were there. And of course, that's exactly how Starmer defused the anti-semitism meme, by waiting until Corbyn said something that wasn't particularly controversial but still should've been kept behind his teeth, and then slamming the banhammer down on him.

Brings up the age-old left-winger question - would you rather have someone in favour of real change, or someone capable of winning the power needed to effect it.

Puja

I give up, what's the answer . Livingstone answered it to me in person once- mind he was pi55ed.

Starmer has certainly learned on the job, whether he has any ideas or execution skill remains the question.

(by the way, the question should be/is a false dichotomy, but remains until someone great turns up)

[Sandydragon]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

A surprise to no one. If Boris only got one FPN for all of his transgressions then for Starmer to get one for that would have been idiotic.

At the moment I'll settle for a PM who is competent and doesn't make us look like any more of a basket case than we actually are. Its a low bar but after this current bunch of quarter wits its a step in the right direction.

[Mellsblue]

Which makes you (well, me) feel all the more sorry for Sunak who received a fpn for turning up to a meeting early and therefore walking in to a birthday cake eating sesh. To think, if it was one of his fasting days he’d have had the perfect excuse to leave.

The other reaction, of course, would be to claim it was a cover up by the unions or that the former gaffer of the CPS brought his brought his influence and power to bear… or some other conspiracy theory.

[Puja]

The other reaction, of course, would be to claim it was a cover up by the unions or that the former gaffer of the CPS brought his brought his influence and power to bear… or some other conspiracy theory.

I went on the website of the Daily Heil out of morbid curiosity - the actual paper reporting is surprisingly lacking in bias (actually used the words "no case to answer") suggesting they're considering changing horse, but the comments section is rampant with outrage that the PCC for Durham is Labour and the entire thing was a fix.

Puja

[Banquo]

The other reaction, of course, would be to claim it was a cover up by the unions or that the former gaffer of the CPS brought his brought his influence and power to bear… or some other conspiracy theory.

I went on the website of the Daily Heil out of morbid curiosity - the actual paper reporting is surprisingly lacking in bias (actually used the words "no case to answer") suggesting they're considering changing horse, but the comments section is rampant with outrage that the PCC for Durham is Labour and the entire thing was a fix.

Puja

cripes, you think the heil will support Starmer? I'll have some of that stuff.

[Mellsblue]

The other reaction, of course, would be to claim it was a cover up by the unions or that the former gaffer of the CPS brought his brought his influence and power to bear… or some other conspiracy theory.

I went on the website of the Daily Heil out of morbid curiosity - the actual paper reporting is surprisingly lacking in bias (actually used the words "no case to answer") suggesting they're considering changing horse, but the comments section is rampant with outrage that the PCC for Durham is Labour and the entire thing was a fix.

Puja

Loonies to the left of me,
loonies to the right,
Here I am stuck in the middle with 80% of the population wondering what the hell has happened to politics.

The syntax is a bit off but you get the idea.

[Puja]

The other reaction, of course, would be to claim it was a cover up by the unions or that the former gaffer of the CPS brought his brought his influence and power to bear… or some other conspiracy theory.

I went on the website of the Daily Heil out of morbid curiosity - the actual paper reporting is surprisingly lacking in bias (actually used the words "no case to answer") suggesting they're considering changing horse, but the comments section is rampant with outrage that the PCC for Durham is Labour and the entire thing was a fix.

Puja

cripes, you think the heil will support Starmer? I'll have some of that stuff.

Not very likely perhaps, but I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility. Their horse has gone down and if Labour win at the next election, they don't want to be active enemies. They might be bigots, but they've got no interest in being on the losing side and it's hardly like Starmer's too radical for them. I'd be surprised if he hadn't put out feelers to them (and the Sun as well) - as we discussed, he is the archetypical pragmatist.

This goes doubly so if the Conservatives go for someone as leader that the Heil have previously turned on - they'd not want to support Gove, for example.

Puja

[Banquo]

I went on the website of the Daily Heil out of morbid curiosity - the actual paper reporting is surprisingly lacking in bias (actually used the words "no case to answer") suggesting they're considering changing horse, but the comments section is rampant with outrage that the PCC for Durham is Labour and the entire thing was a fix.

Puja

cripes, you think the heil will support Starmer? I'll have some of that stuff.

Not very likely perhaps, but I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility. Their horse has gone down and if Labour win at the next election, they don't want to be active enemies. They might be bigots, but they've got no interest in being on the losing side and it's hardly like Starmer's too radical for them. I'd be surprised if he hadn't put out feelers to them (and the Sun as well) - as we discussed, he is the archetypical pragmatist.

This goes doubly so if the Conservatives go for someone as leader that the Heil have previously turned on - they'd not want to support Gove, for example.

Puja

well, not sure they've ever backed labour, even under Blair- they've endorsed the Tories in every GE since 1945- bar 74, when they backed a coalition. The Sun are the turniest of turncoats.

[Sandydragon]

If Labour look like winning the Sun will change sides. They like to think the election result is the result of their headlines after al.


The Mail and Express were consistently Tory (trending UKIP) throu GB out new Labour.

[Son of Mathonwy]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

I agree he's played this one well, and the not touching Brexit with a bargepole thing is pretty wise. But he's got a hell of a way to go before he's incredibly good at playing politics - compare him with Blair: love him or hate him (and I do so hate him) he was the master of playing politics. By contrast, Starmer's a poor speaker, and he generally fails to make an impression, let alone a positive case for voting Labour. What he's good at is presenting no target. He's a stealth politician.

Within a month or two there'll be a new Tory PM, and probably a safer pair of hands than Johnson (how could it not be?). Well see how Starmer does then, in the long run into the next GE.

[Puja]

In a shocking turn of events, it turns out that "Beergate" was in fact entirely the imagination of Conservative MPs and newspapers and there was absolutely no case to answer. I am stunned.

Starmer's played this one pretty well, I think. Whatever you can say about him (and I generally have a lot to say), I have to give him credit for the skill with which he avoids Tory slurs, whether by pithy responses or by getting ahead of attack lines with decisive (if not particularly principled) pre-emptive actions, like declaring Labour against rejoining Europe or ruling out coalition with the SNP. He might not have principles, but he is incredibly good at playing politics.

Puja

I agree he's played this one well, and the not touching Brexit with a bargepole thing is pretty wise. But he's got a hell of a way to go before he's incredibly good at playing politics - compare him with Blair: love him or hate him (and I do so hate him) he was the master of playing politics. By contrast, Starmer's a poor speaker, and he generally fails to make an impression, let alone a positive case for voting Labour. What he's good at is presenting no target. He's a stealth politician.

Within a month or two there'll be a new Tory PM, and probably a safer pair of hands than Johnson (how could it not be?). Well see how Starmer does then, in the long run into the next GE.

Good point; well made - he's a very good defensive politician is more accurate.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour's lead in the polls has widened to about 12% (15 in the best poll). Not too surprising I guess.

[Puja]

Labour's lead in the polls has widened to about 12% (15 in the best poll). Not too surprising I guess.

I don't see that lasting once a new leader is in place. They'll get the bounce of "not Boris Johnson" and people keen to support them just to have leadership again, plus it looks like every one of them will be chucking some form of economic incentive to try and buy popularity (and/or stoking a culture war in the case of several of them).

Starmer needs to define what he is and what his Labour party stands for, pronto. I understand not offering policies too early, but he needs to have a brand of some kind as "NotBoris" is going to become somewhat crowded soon.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour's lead in the polls has widened to about 12% (15 in the best poll). Not too surprising I guess.

I don't see that lasting once a new leader is in place. They'll get the bounce of "not Boris Johnson" and people keen to support them just to have leadership again, plus it looks like every one of them will be chucking some form of economic incentive to try and buy popularity (and/or stoking a culture war in the case of several of them).

Starmer needs to define what he is and what his Labour party stands for, pronto. I understand not offering policies too early, but he needs to have a brand of some kind as "NotBoris" is going to become somewhat crowded soon.

Puja

Agreed they're benefitting from a complete shambles which will settle into something in a little while. But what will it be? There are several candidates I could imagine winning, so it's pretty uncertain, and I imagine there's big spread between the most and least popular of the bunch (from the perspective of the electorate). Unfortunately for the Tories, the final choice will be down to their insane senile old and out of touch members.

Given that they have yet to set out a clear vision, Starmer's Labour will hold off until the dust settles and they know what they're up against. (And then they'll probably still not reveal anything till the GE. Or later. Well, if it worked for Blair....)

They can, and no doubt will, continue to attack the Tories as corrupt, out of ideas and incompetent, no matter who wins.

[Stom]

Labour's lead in the polls has widened to about 12% (15 in the best poll). Not too surprising I guess.

I don't see that lasting once a new leader is in place. They'll get the bounce of "not Boris Johnson" and people keen to support them just to have leadership again, plus it looks like every one of them will be chucking some form of economic incentive to try and buy popularity (and/or stoking a culture war in the case of several of them).

Starmer needs to define what he is and what his Labour party stands for, pronto. I understand not offering policies too early, but he needs to have a brand of some kind as "NotBoris" is going to become somewhat crowded soon.

Puja

Well, if Liz Truss gets in...then that'll make life easier. I sincerely hope she wins. Shame Dorries isn't standing. I want the worst possible PM to show how utterly awful the Tories are. I need leaks about the money laundering laws that the UK avoided with Brexit. Starmer better be hunting for those leaks like hell. There must be some staffer willing to put them out there.

The UK needs to kill off the current Conservative party for a generation.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour's lead in the polls has widened to about 12% (15 in the best poll). Not too surprising I guess.

I don't see that lasting once a new leader is in place. They'll get the bounce of "not Boris Johnson" and people keen to support them just to have leadership again, plus it looks like every one of them will be chucking some form of economic incentive to try and buy popularity (and/or stoking a culture war in the case of several of them).

Starmer needs to define what he is and what his Labour party stands for, pronto. I understand not offering policies too early, but he needs to have a brand of some kind as "NotBoris" is going to become somewhat crowded soon.

Puja

Well, if Liz Truss gets in...then that'll make life easier. I sincerely hope she wins. Shame Dorries isn't standing. I want the worst possible PM to show how utterly awful the Tories are. I need leaks about the money laundering laws that the UK avoided with Brexit. Starmer better be hunting for those leaks like hell. There must be some staffer willing to put them out there.

The UK needs to kill off the current Conservative party for a generation.

Totally.

And with the backing of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries, Truss is Continuity Boris.

[Puja]

Just been reading into the Conservative party leadership candidates and Kemi Badenoch has swiftly gone from "Who?" to "I think I would legitimately take Priti Patel over her."

capture2.jpg

This photo is from her campaign launch - she TERFs so hard that she has got her people to put paper signs over the doors of the (single occupancy) toilets so that they can be segregated into "Men" and "Ladies". Her economic plan involves reducing international aid and cutting the Civil Service budget by getting rid of diversity and equality officers. She views Critical Race Theory as "dangerous" and something she is "unequivocally against." And she managed to combine a Bible quote with a TERF dogwhistle by saying that she would be a Prime Minister who wouldn't "cave in to every campaign with a moving message", but would speak the truth, "because the truth will set you free." I suspect that truth is based on a GCSE Combined Sciences level knowledge of biology.

She is currently near the top of the polls on the Conservative Home website, just behind Penny Mordaunt. Worst of all possible worlds when you're reduced to supporting Sunak or Hunt.

Puja

[Stom]

Just been reading into the Conservative party leadership candidates and Kemi Badenoch has swiftly gone from "Who?" to "I think I would legitimately take Priti Patel over her."

capture2.jpg

This photo is from her campaign launch - she TERFs so hard that she has got her people to put paper signs over the doors of the (single occupancy) toilets so that they can be segregated into "Men" and "Ladies". Her economic plan involves reducing international aid and cutting the Civil Service budget by getting rid of diversity and equality officers. She views Critical Race Theory as "dangerous" and something she is "unequivocally against." And she managed to combine a Bible quote with a TERF dogwhistle by saying that she would be a Prime Minister who wouldn't "cave in to every campaign with a moving message", but would speak the truth, "because the truth will set you free." I suspect that truth is based on a GCSE Combined Sciences level knowledge of biology.

She is currently near the top of the polls on the Conservative Home website, just behind Penny Mordaunt. Worst of all possible worlds when you're reduced to supporting Sunak or Hunt.

Puja

Surely it’s our aim to get the worst possible candidate in the door? The more of a shit they are, the better, no?

[Mellsblue]

Just been reading into the Conservative party leadership candidates and Kemi Badenoch has swiftly gone from "Who?" to "I think I would legitimately take Priti Patel over her."

capture2.jpg

This photo is from her campaign launch - she TERFs so hard that she has got her people to put paper signs over the doors of the (single occupancy) toilets so that they can be segregated into "Men" and "Ladies". Her economic plan involves reducing international aid and cutting the Civil Service budget by getting rid of diversity and equality officers. She views Critical Race Theory as "dangerous" and something she is "unequivocally against." And she managed to combine a Bible quote with a TERF dogwhistle by saying that she would be a Prime Minister who wouldn't "cave in to every campaign with a moving message", but would speak the truth, "because the truth will set you free." I suspect that truth is based on a GCSE Combined Sciences level knowledge of biology.

She is currently near the top of the polls on the Conservative Home website, just behind Penny Mordaunt. Worst of all possible worlds when you're reduced to supporting Sunak or Hunt.

Puja

Surely it’s our aim to get the worst possible candidate in the door? The more of a shit they are, the better, no?

Which door, ladies or mens?