Snap General Election called

[Puja]

Starmer is somehow missing another open goal by sitting on the fence over the Rwanda policy for fear of being seen to be "not tough on immigration":



Let's ignore the fact that this policy is Evil with a capital E and that anyone with a functioning soul can see that it is wicked to pander to anti-immigration nuts by outsourcing our obligations to refugees fleeing oppression by deporting them to a repressive psuedo-dictatorship (and, really, what even do you want to become Prime Minister for if not to stand against wilful acts of evil such as this?), let's ignore the fact that it is solely red meat for a small group of Tory faithful as it achieves absolutely none of the stated objectives and is just about making a statement, let's even ignore the fact that it's woefully inefficient in terms of value for money. Let's leap straight to the fact that, rather than taking a moral stance that people can respect, proposing alternatives that might show he's got ideas of his own and is a man worth voting for, or even agreeing with the policy that would at least get him the respect of the anti-immigation nutjobs, Keir Starmer is once again offering... nothing. Just an absolute dead bat. Not a reason to vote for, just making sure not to provide a reason to vote against.

What an utter mendacious tosser.

Puja

Hard to argue with that.Maybe he is worried about traditional Labour voters who aren't that keen on immigration themselves. Maybe he doesn't want to suggest something for fear of it getting nicked, but I agree that he should be making a comment on this as its utterly ludicrous.

Would it be that hard to suggest that he would scrap this and instead open immigration application centres in UK embassies overseas (and probably at various locations in Northern France) where claims could be assessed? Most who apply are let in so arguably they could then just travel legitimately which would destroy the smugglers (who are utterly evil bastards themselves) business model and reduce the potential unlawful immigration to a trickle, which could be managed.

I've been thinking on this policy and I've come to the conclusion that it has been specifically designed for the purpose of giving illiterate racist yahoos the idea that we're punishing immigrants. Everything has been designed to have a top layer and an undertone. It's ostensibly about deterring people smugglers, but the yahoos hear "deterring small boat crossings" and think "yeah, we're showing those foreigners we're not a soft touch!". Rwanda is actually a growing economy and it's argued that there will be jobs and opportunities there, but yahoos hear Rwanda and think immediately of the war and the famine and think "good, we're sending those horrible foreigners back to a horrible country so it's basically sending them back where they came from."

It's despicable and I can't trust anyone who offers a neutral reaction to this for political gain.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I completely agree that the policy is despicable.

[Puja]

I completely agree that the policy is despicable.

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying that you didn't. I assume that everyone here is against the policy, because I'm fairly certain none of you are Satan incarnate or, worse, Priti Patel.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I completely agree that the policy is despicable.

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying that you didn't. I assume that everyone here is against the policy, because I'm fairly certain none of you are Satan incarnate or, worse, Priti Patel.

Puja

No worries. I did listen to some Labour front bencher on the Times Radio today who was condemning the plan. Not sure if labour are employing a tactic of Starmer keeping quiet whilst his shadow cabinet take up the popular view. It feels like an abdication of leadership though.

[Zhivago]

Do you ever rwanda when this madness will end?

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ied-to-mps

[Stom]

Nothing about the--expectable--Tory by-election losses yet?

Big swings.

[Puja]

Nothing about the--expectable--Tory by-election losses yet?

Big swings.

I'd forgotten those were coming back today. Massive swings and Dowden resigning. Hard to see how Boris can continue, but I've no doubt that he will.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMN6Loqbg/?k=1

Puja

[Puja]

On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I'd forgotten those were coming back today. Massive swings and Dowden resigning. Hard to see how Boris can continue, but I've no doubt that he will.

He can continue because the "rebels" shot their bolt early, and didn't wait for the by-election; largely because it seems to be a load of individuals, rather than any concerted effort.
Either way, it means that there's no existing mechanism to get rid of him - though they are talking about changing the rules so that they can, which is... just... so Boris Johnson.

BJ won't be going anywhere unless forced out, and he can't be forced for another 11 months.
The only "mechanism" I'm aware of now, is if the party donors have a quiet word that they will NOT be offering him boardroom appointments and after-dinner speaking gigs is he stays on - hit him where it hurts - his retirement fund. But the donors don't seem to be unhappy with him, he's allowing them unparalleled levels of corruption from the public purse.

[Stom]

On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

[Puja]

On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

I'd be okay with him having no policies if I was convinced he had principles and I knew he stood for something other than, "What would you like me to stand for?"

Puja

[Sandydragon]

On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

[Stom]

On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

Exactly. It might not be what I would do, but keeping his powder dry is probably the best thing Starmer can do.

[Sandydragon]

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

Exactly. It might not be what I would do, but keeping his powder dry is probably the best thing Starmer can do.

And Boris is just a shit magnet. The illusion has well and truly burst and his unique personality is no longer the vote winner it once was. He will retain some support from Brexit and people who feel that he had a hard time through Covid but more and more now just see him as a clown. Starmers best tactic is to hold back any policies until a few months before the election then hit the ground running. If Boris clings on for the maximum term then its too soon anyway - no one will remember anything Starmer says now in 2 years time. Just be competent, continue to embarrass Boris but not enough that the Tories actually ditch him.
Meanwhile, this is very good.

[Which Tyler]

[Puja]

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

Exactly. It might not be what I would do, but keeping his powder dry is probably the best thing Starmer can do.

I'm not asking for a full manifesto. I'm not asking for anything much of anything really - I just want to know a single quality or belief of his that isn't either "I'm not Boris Johnson" or "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn."

I mean, FFS, refusing to evince an position on whether the Rwanda policy is good or not is appalling. There's playing it coy and then there's, "No, I won't comment on whether I'd continue the government's policy to punish people fleeing war and oppression by ferrying them a repressive pseudo-dictatorship at enormous cost."

Puja

[Mellsblue]

He’s evinced pretty unequivocally here:

[Puja]

He’s evinced pretty unequivocally here:

Ah - I was working from the one at the top of this page, where he refused to commit if he'd stop the policy if he came to government and refused to comment on the ethics of it. I'm glad he has come out with something, although I note it did take nearly 2 minutes of waffle about logistics and the interviewer repeating the question for a yes or no answer before he managed to come out with, "Yes, it is unethical."

I appreciate that he's being super careful not to lose the xenophobe Mail reader vote by appearing to be "soft on dirty foreigners immigrants," but that appears to be his entire personality - being super careful not to say anything that might lose a vote.

Mind, he led the Labour voters down the garden path in the leadership election and has since gone on to do as he likes without care for anything he said then, so maybe he's doing the same with the xenophobes and will actually pivot to principles after he's got into government.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

He’s evinced pretty unequivocally here:

Ah - I was working from the one at the top of this page, where he refused to commit if he'd stop the policy if he came to government and refused to comment on the ethics of it. I'm glad he has come out with something, although I note it did take nearly 2 minutes of waffle about logistics and the interviewer repeating the question for a yes or no answer before he managed to come out with, "Yes, it is unethical."

I appreciate that he's being super careful not to lose the xenophobe Mail reader vote by appearing to be "soft on dirty foreigners immigrants," but that appears to be his entire personality - being super careful not to say anything that might lose a vote.

Mind, he led the Labour voters down the garden path in the leadership election and has since gone on to do as he likes without care for anything he said then, so maybe he's doing the same with the xenophobes and will actually pivot to principles after he's got into government.

Puja

It’s easy to see that this policy is a sop to the Tory right, but it’s also very popular in the red wall seats. It would be a mistake to see this as only a right wing problem, a dislike of immigration is also present in many traditional working class areas who you would never describe as right wing.

[Mikey Brown]

Bonzer

https://www.desmog.com/2022/06/27/clima ... tory-peer/

[Sandydragon]

Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

[Banquo]

Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

that would be colossally stupid.

[Puja]

Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

that would be colossally stupid.

Probably agreed, although it would depend on how Labour selected a new leader. They'd have to have a pared down process and, if Starmer is fined and resigns, you'd expect that Rayner would likely be in the same boat.

There's a reasonable chance that Labour pick someone else boring and staid and take an age over doing it, which is probably what the Tories are thinking. However, I think a lot of people would see it as cynical, Boris is the least popular man in the country, and there's the start of a huge recession and cost of living crisis, so it's a terrible time for an election even without the risk that Labour quickly select someone vaguely charismatic and willing to go with some popular socialist policies that play well in an era when it seems like the government is protecting the few, not the many (to coin a phrase).

I can't see how they will fine Starmer though. Any decision to do that is going to be horrendously partisan, given the background of Boris only getting one fine for waaaay worse, plus Starmer heaping on the pressure by emphasising the consequences. I don't see them having the minerals.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

that would be colossally stupid.

Probably agreed, although it would depend on how Labour selected a new leader. They'd have to have a pared down process and, if Starmer is fined and resigns, you'd expect that Rayner would likely be in the same boat.

There's a reasonable chance that Labour pick someone else boring and staid and take an age over doing it, which is probably what the Tories are thinking. However, I think a lot of people would see it as cynical, Boris is the least popular man in the country, and there's the start of a huge recession and cost of living crisis, so it's a terrible time for an election even without the risk that Labour quickly select someone vaguely charismatic and willing to go with some popular socialist policies that play well in an era when it seems like the government is protecting the few, not the many (to coin a phrase).

I can't see how they will fine Starmer though. Any decision to do that is going to be horrendously partisan, given the background of Boris only getting one fine for waaaay worse, plus Starmer heaping on the pressure by emphasising the consequences. I don't see them having the minerals.

Puja

If I got fined for that I would appeal. Starmer has done nothing wrong (nor Rayner) from what I can read in the press.

But, I do see the logic of a quick poll. Labour will be in confusion and it would have to elect someone very quickly or else the public might not want to take a risk on Corbyn mark 2.