RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:That's a huge swing, and as ever, voting is down for a byelection versus general; but it's worth noting that the leftish vote (Lab + LD + Green) still saw a frank increase in numbers compared to the the GE19 (by about 20%), despite overall votes dropping.

Of course it's a protest vote, and will almost certainly return to blue at a GE with a new leader - but it's still one hell of an indication of the dissatisfaction in the country.

And there’s no way to blame ReformUK or UKIP for this one. Quite clearly this is a huge protest vote.

Not that it’s a great result either for Labour but one thinks there’s a lot of tactical voting going on here. Perhaps at hint at maybe an agreement between Labour and the Liberals in English and Welsh seats might not be such a terrible idea? The next election could be surprising close if the fixed term parliaments are revoked and Johnson continues like this.

I think a lot of Labour supporters were voting for their second preference. Perfect tactical voting, and great to see.

Labour should definitely make an agreement with the Libdems and Greens next time. But they won't. I just hope the public vote tactically anyway - although this did NOT happen in 2019, despite the easily accessible info on the best tactical vote.

Which Tyler wrote:

Spot on.

Can you imagine a world where the Met's own anti-corruption unit investigated this?

Or where it wouldn't be a career-ending move for one of the Downing Street police to email Commissioner Dick a list of the party invitees?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:That's a huge swing, and as ever, voting is down for a byelection versus general; but it's worth noting that the leftish vote (Lab + LD + Green) still saw a frank increase in numbers compared to the the GE19 (by about 20%), despite overall votes dropping.

Of course it's a protest vote, and will almost certainly return to blue at a GE with a new leader - but it's still one hell of an indication of the dissatisfaction in the country.

And there’s no way to blame ReformUK or UKIP for this one. Quite clearly this is a huge protest vote.

Not that it’s a great result either for Labour but one thinks there’s a lot of tactical voting going on here. Perhaps at hint at maybe an agreement between Labour and the Liberals in English and Welsh seats might not be such a terrible idea? The next election could be surprising close if the fixed term parliaments are revoked and Johnson continues like this.

I think a lot of Labour supporters were voting for their second preference. Perfect tactical voting, and great to see.

Labour should definitely make an agreement with the Libdems and Greens next time. But they won't. I just hope the public vote tactically anyway - although this did NOT happen in 2019, despite the easily accessible info on the best tactical vote.

The Corbyn threat put paid to that. Plus Brexit. Hopefully a return to normal next time

Late candidate for "worst article of the year", in defence of Maxwell/Epstein (or Andrew Windsor, at least)



Daily Heil, of course.

Starmer continues to disappoint by approving of Blair's recent knighthood:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... knighthood

I really struggle with this. I'm not sure if it means Starmer approved of the Iraq war, or merely that causing hundreds of thousands of deaths through an illegal war isn't reason enough to diminish Blair's record. Either way I'm in a completely different place from the Labour leader on this, which worries me when I wonder which way he'd go on future decisions.

Having said that, I still have more confidence in Starmer than Johnson. Obviously.

Tony Muthafucking Blair. Knighted. When does chinless David "I'm outta here, you deal with it" Cameron get his? The Royal Family are such an asset to the UK, nay, the whole world.

morepork wrote:Tony Muthafucking Blair. Knighted. When does chinless David "I'm outta here, you deal with it" Cameron get his? The Royal Family are such an asset to the UK, nay, the whole world.

They'll all get their knighthood (and not just any old knighthood either), unless they turn it down or die first. Yes, Johnson will get his too, unless long Covid takes him out.

I once thought there was an outside chance that Labour might change the system. I don't any more.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Starmer continues to disappoint by approving of Blair's recent knighthood:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... knighthood

I really struggle with this. I'm not sure if it means Starmer approved of the Iraq war, or merely that causing hundreds of thousands of deaths through an illegal war isn't reason enough to diminish Blair's record. Either way I'm in a completely different place from the Labour leader on this, which worries me when I wonder which way he'd go on future decisions.

Having said that, I still have more confidence in Starmer than Johnson. Obviously.

I think Starmer is making the point that Blair had a lot of accomplishments as PM that we’re very positive for this country. Iraq overshadows everything but we shouldn’t ignore the positive.
Starmer isn’t stupid. He’s coming across very reasonably in an age of idiot politicians and will pick up support from the centre as a result.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Starmer continues to disappoint by approving of Blair's recent knighthood:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... knighthood

I really struggle with this. I'm not sure if it means Starmer approved of the Iraq war, or merely that causing hundreds of thousands of deaths through an illegal war isn't reason enough to diminish Blair's record. Either way I'm in a completely different place from the Labour leader on this, which worries me when I wonder which way he'd go on future decisions.

Having said that, I still have more confidence in Starmer than Johnson. Obviously.

I think Starmer is making the point that Blair had a lot of accomplishments as PM that we’re very positive for this country. Iraq overshadows everything but we shouldn’t ignore the positive.
Starmer isn’t stupid. He’s coming across very reasonably in an age of idiot politicians and will pick up support from the centre as a result.

Agreed that Iraq overshadows everything, which is why Blair doesn't deserve such a high honour.

Obviously IMO he deserves punishment, not honour. I wouldn't expect Starmer to go that far, but for a human rights lawyer to actually approve of Blair's record is disappointing, to say the least.

I'd argue he is being stupid on this. He continually fails to make any strong position, to make a positive case for Labour or himself. This would be one position he could take which might get him noticed - especially by Lib Dem voters. It would hardly be a turn-off for centrist Tory voters either.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Starmer continues to disappoint by approving of Blair's recent knighthood:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... knighthood

I really struggle with this. I'm not sure if it means Starmer approved of the Iraq war, or merely that causing hundreds of thousands of deaths through an illegal war isn't reason enough to diminish Blair's record. Either way I'm in a completely different place from the Labour leader on this, which worries me when I wonder which way he'd go on future decisions.

Having said that, I still have more confidence in Starmer than Johnson. Obviously.

I think Starmer is making the point that Blair had a lot of accomplishments as PM that we’re very positive for this country. Iraq overshadows everything but we shouldn’t ignore the positive.
Starmer isn’t stupid. He’s coming across very reasonably in an age of idiot politicians and will pick up support from the centre as a result.

Agreed that Iraq overshadows everything, which is why Blair doesn't deserve such a high honour.

Obviously IMO he deserves punishment, not honour. I wouldn't expect Starmer to go that far, but for a human rights lawyer to actually approve of Blair's record is disappointing, to say the least.

I'd argue he is being stupid on this. He continually fails to make any strong position, to make a positive case for Labour or himself. This would be one position he could take which might get him noticed - especially by Lib Dem voters. It would hardly be a turn-off for centrist Tory voters either.

Maybe except we all know Corbyn would be making that point vey loudly and Starmer is making it clear he isn’t Corbyn.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I think Starmer is making the point that Blair had a lot of accomplishments as PM that we’re very positive for this country. Iraq overshadows everything but we shouldn’t ignore the positive.
Starmer isn’t stupid. He’s coming across very reasonably in an age of idiot politicians and will pick up support from the centre as a result.

Agreed that Iraq overshadows everything, which is why Blair doesn't deserve such a high honour.

Obviously IMO he deserves punishment, not honour. I wouldn't expect Starmer to go that far, but for a human rights lawyer to actually approve of Blair's record is disappointing, to say the least.

I'd argue he is being stupid on this. He continually fails to make any strong position, to make a positive case for Labour or himself. This would be one position he could take which might get him noticed - especially by Lib Dem voters. It would hardly be a turn-off for centrist Tory voters either.

Maybe except we all know Corbyn would be making that point vey loudly and Starmer is making it clear he isn’t Corbyn.

It would be incredibly weak to decide ones position on what Corbyn might say. Anyway it's not possible for Starmer to distinguish himself from Corbyn in every single policy position. He could easily position oneself as anti-Blair/Iraq War without becoming hard Left: look at the Lib Dems.

I'm coming around to the view that Starmer, despite his background in human rights, is actually something of a Blairite. I find this troubling as I see the Iraq war as the worst single act by a UK government in decades. It's a red line.

.................. this is me getting disillusioned.

Peace and Justice
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ed-labour/

Johnson has apologised for attending a No 10 party, although he insists that he didn't know it was a party. Just a work gathering. In the garden. With alcohol.

Sandydragon wrote:Johnson has apologised for attending a No 10 party, although he insists that he didn't know it was a party. Just a work gathering. In the garden. With alcohol.

Erm.... not quite.
He's admitted to being there (but that it doesn't count because he thought it was a work do, and was only there for half an hour or so)
He apologised that people are unhappy about it, not for what was done. "I'm sorry that you feel that way" not "I'm sorry for what I did".
Equally, the closest he got to "it shouldn't have happened" was "in retrospect, I should have sent them home when I discovered that it wasn't a works do"

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Johnson has apologised for attending a No 10 party, although he insists that he didn't know it was a party. Just a work gathering. In the garden. With alcohol.

Erm.... not quite.
He's admitted to being there (but that it doesn't count because he thought it was a work do, and was only there for half an hour or so)
He apologised that people are unhappy about it, not for what was done. "I'm sorry that you feel that way" not "I'm sorry for what I did".
Equally, the closest he got to "it shouldn't have happened" was "in retrospect, I should have sent them home when I discovered that it wasn't a works do"

Obviously not a party then

Sandydragon wrote:Obviously not a party then

Yep, that's all okay then, nothing to see here; it's all water under the bridge; let's not go around investigating crimes that have already happened...

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Obviously not a party then

Yep, that's all okay then, nothing to see here; it's all water under the bridge; let's not go around investigating crimes that have already happened...

Quite right too. He may make the laws but they don't apply to him!

I suppose the big question is how many days before a big Tory MP breaks cover and goes for the top job?

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Obviously not a party then

Yep, that's all okay then, nothing to see here; it's all water under the bridge; let's not go around investigating crimes that have already happened...

Quite right too. He may make the laws but they don't apply to him!

I suppose the big question is how many days before a big Tory MP breaks cover and goes for the top job?

Do any of them want it at the moment?

Let the scandals break first, and hang them on BJ.
I guess if one of them thinks that Omicron is the end of the pandemic, then that'll influence things, trying to get into #10 to take the plaudits, even if our stats end up in the bottom 5 nations globally (you just know they'll get credit for "making the best of a bad hand" - however badly they play their hand)

I thought Starmer's response at PMQs was pretty good: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59967930 . Succinct, direct, well worded, and showing emotion that will resonate with those of the public who are angry at being taken for fools. Will play well on the news and social media.

Puja

Torygraph has a slightly... leftfield take.

It's all a remoaner conspiracy, apparently...

Which Tyler wrote:Torygraph has a slightly... leftfield take.

It's all a remoaner conspiracy, apparently...

The Torygraph lost the plot a long time ago. He will ever be St Boris, deliverer of Brexit to that constituency.

On the bright side, Prince Andrew is about to have his day in court so thats one way of burying bad news.

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives has called on Boris to resign.