RugbyRebels

Once/if we have a transition agreement in place, is there any reason for May et al to keep their jobs?

The quality of the replacements? It’s sort of like the American situation, you can get rid of the blithering, spineless, incompetent one in charge, but potentially replace them with a real malicious piece of shit.

But no, that’s not really a good reason.

I can't see a seasonable argument for keeping May, Corbyn or Cable, all three are miles off any sensible standard

Digby wrote:I can't see a seasonable argument for keeping May, Corbyn or Cable, all three are miles off any sensible standard

Yet who is there who is better?

I mean, we don't really know loads about Starmer yet. There's always Boris. Or Rees-Mogg. Are there actually any other Lib Dems?

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I can't see a seasonable argument for keeping May, Corbyn or Cable, all three are miles off any sensible standard

Yet who is there who is better?

I mean, we don't really know loads about Starmer yet. There's always Boris. Or Rees-Mogg. Are there actually any other Lib Dems?

The Lib Dems may indeed simply not have the numbers to present a better option. Labour and the Tories are seemingly far too spit on their aims for any sensible candidate to emerge who could possibly hold power. Basically we're in the poop

If you get rid of May et al before Brexit is sorted I suggest you have the very real possibility of the likes of Rees-Mogg, Brigden and their ilk taking over the reins of the country. Let that sink in.

Mellsblue wrote:If you get rid of May et al before Brexit is sorted I suggest you have the very real possibility of the likes of Rees-Mogg, Brigden and their ilk taking over the reins of the country. Let that sink in.

More likely Corbyn et al. I think the Tories will implode (even more) sooner rather than later- the constituency MP's I think would rather not sink with the govt ship, and be happier preserving their own futures as opposition to the clusterfck any government will be in the middle of.

Once/if we have a transition agreement in place, is there any reason for May et al to keep their jobs?

Well, I for one find the question poorly put with too much room for ambiguity about what he is actually asking, so I am taking my ball home and not playing.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If you get rid of May et al before Brexit is sorted I suggest you have the very real possibility of the likes of Rees-Mogg, Brigden and their ilk taking over the reins of the country. Let that sink in.

More likely Corbyn et al. I think the Tories will implode (even more) sooner rather than later- the constituency MP's I think would rather not sink with the govt ship, and be happier preserving their own futures as opposition to the clusterfck any government will be in the middle of.

Can’t see it myself within this electoral cycle, baring an absolute disaster. The Conservative MP’s are terrified of a Corbyn govt and what it would mean for the country. It’s pretty much the only thing keeping May in no10.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If you get rid of May et al before Brexit is sorted I suggest you have the very real possibility of the likes of Rees-Mogg, Brigden and their ilk taking over the reins of the country. Let that sink in.

More likely Corbyn et al. I think the Tories will implode (even more) sooner rather than later- the constituency MP's I think would rather not sink with the govt ship, and be happier preserving their own futures as opposition to the clusterfck any government will be in the middle of.

Can’t see it myself within this electoral cycle, baring an absolute disaster. The Conservative MP’s are terrified of a Corbyn govt and what it would mean for the country. It’s pretty much the only thing keeping May in no10.

...but as we have seen, there is zero discipline. When Patel is sacked, it will get worse. Self preservation will kick in.

I'm struggling to get my head around just how foolish and irresponsible Patels conduct has been.
Arranging the meetings, not telling anyone, not going through proper channels, disregarding established protocols, ignoring the ministerial code, putting herself in potentially compromising positions and risking the credibility of her govt. Oh, and of course lying through her teeth. Its utterly breathtaking that a) she would even consider doing any of this and b) that she has not been instantly dismissed. That she would not offer her resignation is now par for the course.
May is in a hopeless bind, having to keep the madcap brexiteers on side, even though they all seem to be the most dishonest, incompetent and self serving of her piss poor cabinet.
I loathed Thatcher, but right now, I'd take her back over this lot in a heartbeat.

fivepointer wrote:I'm struggling to get my head around just how foolish and irresponsible Patels conduct has been.

I think it's fairly straight forwards.
She thought Boris was going to get the push and she was genuinely under the impression it was her next promotion.
Sadly her stratospheric rise since being elected has given her the idea she's there on ability....and not because she's an attractive, female, right wing ethnic minority.
Also, Tel Aviv are more than happy to encourage gruesome ambition and to manipulate it for their own benefit.
She should have been sacked last week let alone today. Shameless fudge from May.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I can't see a seasonable argument for keeping May, Corbyn or Cable, all three are miles off any sensible standard

Yet who is there who is better?

I mean, we don't really know loads about Starmer yet. There's always Boris. Or Rees-Mogg. Are there actually any other Lib Dems?

I’d look outside he current cabinet. Ruth Davidson of course, and a number of MPs fm the last 2 elections who could probably step up.

To be fair, they can’t be any worse.

The safe pair of hands option is probably aRudd at the moment, but her majority it too small.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I can't see a seasonable argument for keeping May, Corbyn or Cable, all three are miles off any sensible standard

Yet who is there who is better?

I mean, we don't really know loads about Starmer yet. There's always Boris. Or Rees-Mogg. Are there actually any other Lib Dems?

I’d look outside he current cabinet. Ruth Davidson of course, and a number of MPs fm the last 2 elections who could probably step up.

To be fair, they can’t be any worse.

The safe pair of hands option is probably aRudd at the moment, but her majority it too small.

They could always move Rudd to a safer seat, although her majority would likely increase if her profile went up.

And I'd be happy with Davidson, but I don't see how she holds power in the Tory party, just as I don't see how David Milliband would wrest and hold control of the Labour Party. A shame on both counts, but it is what it is

Mellsblue wrote:[
The Conservative MP’s are terrified of a Corbyn govt and what it would mean for the country.

They don't give a toss about what is good or bad for the country......just what is good for them.
That's the problem.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Yet who is there who is better?

I mean, we don't really know loads about Starmer yet. There's always Boris. Or Rees-Mogg. Are there actually any other Lib Dems?

I’d look outside he current cabinet. Ruth Davidson of course, and a number of MPs fm the last 2 elections who could probably step up.

To be fair, they can’t be any worse.

The safe pair of hands option is probably aRudd at the moment, but her majority it too small.

They could always move Rudd to a safer seat, although her majority would likely increase if her profile went up.

And I'd be happy with Davidson, but I don't see how she holds power in the Tory party, just as I don't see how David Milliband would wrest and hold control of the Labour Party. A shame on both counts, but it is what it is

Why would David Milliband be a good thing for the Labour party? If his more socialist brother couldn't manage it, why could he?

To find a solution, you should not dilute the basic concept of the Labour party. Blair may have won elections, but he destroyed the party for whoever came after him.

The clue is in the phrase "for the people". Don't just try to get elected at any cost. Fight for something. A strong concept.

Which is one reason why, and someone said it earlier, Thatcher would be so good right now, even if she was a power crazed right wing loon. May has no concept except power. Thatcher had one.

Stom wrote: Which is one reason why, and someone said it earlier, Thatcher would be so good right now, even if she was a power crazed right wing loon. May has no concept except power. Thatcher had one.

Thatcher's legacy is exactly why the Tories are in such deserved disarray.
She believed she could trust the business leaders to do the right thing. Denis almost certainly convinced her she could trust his business mates because they were 'Gentlemen'.
But they robbed the pension surplus to buy Porsches. Exploiting the pension surplus paid for the excesses of the 80's. They considered it to be dead money they could utilise.

Now, as a result, we have crooks running the show. Those yuppie years have fecked us all to an extraordinary extent.
She was a strident moron promoted beyond her ability by his mates.. Politics, by it's nature, is a popularity contest but to pretend ability is a tertiary concept is super-dangerous.
...and that's exactly the problem we have now. Does anyone genuinely believe Jeremy Hunt is the best leader of the NHS...?.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I can't see a seasonable argument for keeping May, Corbyn or Cable, all three are miles off any sensible standard

Yet who is there who is better?

I mean, we don't really know loads about Starmer yet. There's always Boris. Or Rees-Mogg. Are there actually any other Lib Dems?

I’d look outside he current cabinet. Ruth Davidson of course, and a number of MPs fm the last 2 elections who could probably step up.

To be fair, they can’t be any worse.

The safe pair of hands option is probably aRudd at the moment, but her majority it too small.

Ruthie is an MSP, not an MP, therefore I don't believe they could make her a cabinet member without first parachuting her into a safe seat or, more controversially, giving her a peerage.

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Yet who is there who is better?

I mean, we don't really know loads about Starmer yet. There's always Boris. Or Rees-Mogg. Are there actually any other Lib Dems?

I’d look outside he current cabinet. Ruth Davidson of course, and a number of MPs fm the last 2 elections who could probably step up.

To be fair, they can’t be any worse.

The safe pair of hands option is probably aRudd at the moment, but her majority it too small.

Ruthie is an MSP, not an MP, therefore I don't believe they could make her a cabinet member without first parachuting her into a safe seat or, more controversially, giving her a peerage.

And Amber comes from a family of corporate super-crooks.

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I’d look outside he current cabinet. Ruth Davidson of course, and a number of MPs fm the last 2 elections who could probably step up.

To be fair, they can’t be any worse.

The safe pair of hands option is probably aRudd at the moment, but her majority it too small.

Ruthie is an MSP, not an MP, therefore I don't believe they could make her a cabinet member without first parachuting her into a safe seat or, more controversially, giving her a peerage.

And Amber comes from a family of corporate super-crooks.

Surely, that's an advantage....

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Ruthie is an MSP, not an MP, therefore I don't believe they could make her a cabinet member without first parachuting her into a safe seat or, more controversially, giving her a peerage.

And Amber comes from a family of corporate super-crooks.

Surely, that's an advantage....

How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:
And Amber comes from a family of corporate super-crooks.

Surely, that's an advantage....

How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.

Did you hear a whooshing sound?

Stom wrote:
Why would David Milliband be a good thing for the Labour party? If his more socialist brother couldn't manage it, why could he?

To find a solution, you should not dilute the basic concept of the Labour party. Blair may have won elections, but he destroyed the party for whoever came after him.

The clue is in the phrase "for the people". Don't just try to get elected at any cost. Fight for something. A strong concept.

Which is one reason why, and someone said it earlier, Thatcher would be so good right now, even if she was a power crazed right wing loon. May has no concept except power. Thatcher had one.

I didn't say David Milliband could manage the Labour party I said he'd struggle to hold power. Though in that instance you might mean get elected, in which case I happen to think he'd get elected very easily right now

Also why is it only those more toward the margins can be deemed to have 'strong concepts'? Even aside from the stupidity of such assertion the arrogance isn't exactly pleasant

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why would David Milliband be a good thing for the Labour party? If his more socialist brother couldn't manage it, why could he?

To find a solution, you should not dilute the basic concept of the Labour party. Blair may have won elections, but he destroyed the party for whoever came after him.

The clue is in the phrase "for the people". Don't just try to get elected at any cost. Fight for something. A strong concept.

Which is one reason why, and someone said it earlier, Thatcher would be so good right now, even if she was a power crazed right wing loon. May has no concept except power. Thatcher had one.

I didn't say David Milliband could manage the Labour party I said he'd struggle to hold power. Though in that instance you might mean get elected, in which case I happen to think he'd get elected very easily right now

Also why is it only those more toward the margins can be deemed to have 'strong concepts'? Even aside from the stupidity of such assertion the arrogance isn't exactly pleasant

What margins?

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:
And Amber comes from a family of corporate super-crooks.

Surely, that's an advantage....

How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.

If we judge politicians on what their families get up to there would be no fecker left. Judge them on their own actions.