RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: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...

Puja wrote: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 wrote:

Puja wrote: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 wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote: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

Puja wrote: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

Mellsblue wrote: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 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: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

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: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 wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: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.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
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

Puja wrote: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

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: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.

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

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

Puja wrote: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 wrote:

Puja wrote: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?