Snap General Election called

[Digby]

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

[kk67]

[
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.

[Stom]

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.

[kk67]

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...?.

[Stones of granite]

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.

[kk67]

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.

[Stones of granite]

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....

[kk67]

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.

[Stones of granite]

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?

[Digby]

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

[Stom]

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?

[Sandydragon]

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.

[Sandydragon]

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

I suspect that with a moderate leader, labour would be a long way ahead in the polls. Against this government any credible opposition should be out of sight.

[Stom]

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

I suspect that with a moderate leader, labour would be a long way ahead in the polls. Against this government any credible opposition should be out of sight.

Again, define moderate?

[Sandydragon]

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

I suspect that with a moderate leader, labour would be a long way ahead in the polls. Against this government any credible opposition should be out of sight.

Again, define moderate?

Blair was a moderate that most British people would see as occupying the centre ground. To you he probably looked right wing.

[Stom]

I suspect that with a moderate leader, labour would be a long way ahead in the polls. Against this government any credible opposition should be out of sight.

Again, define moderate?

Blair was a moderate that most British people would see as occupying the centre ground. To you he probably looked right wing.

He didn't look it (right wing) at the time. But that was because we'd had Thatcher framing the debate for as long as I'd lived. Which kind of moves the goalposts somewhat

My opinion is that you cannot be truly considered moderate if you're economically neo-liberal. It's a rather important point. Economic neo-liberalism is about as right wing, economically, as you can get without getting into bloody libertarianism.

So without getting into social policy or defense or anything else, I wouldn't consider David Milliband as a moderate, simply because his economic policy is neo-liberal.

[Digby]

Without doubt I'd be a neo-liberal, believing as I do in regulated market economy. And really most people anywhere are in that camp with differences to be found in what level of taxation should result, what level of regulation is required, what % of an economy should be state Vs private and so on, but there's very little support anywhere for a state controlled central command economy, just as there's very little support anywhere for a wholly unregulated or free market economy.

Are we really looking to group pretty much everyone as being immoderate on such basis, and only those on the margins of the left as being moderates? As claims go it sounds more than a little intemperate

[Mikey Brown]

What on earth are you guys even talking about? Politics is about mocking politicians’ personal appearance and funny stuff that happens on twitter.

[Tre]

What on earth are you guys even talking about? Politics is about mocking politicians’ personal appearance and funny stuff that happens on twitter.

Ed Balls

[Stones of granite]

Without doubt I'd be a neo-liberal, believing as I do in regulated market economy. And really most people anywhere are in that camp with differences to be found in what level of taxation should result, what level of regulation is required, what % of an economy should be state Vs private and so on, but there's very little support anywhere for a state controlled central command economy, just as there's very little support anywhere for a wholly unregulated or free market economy.

Are we really looking to group pretty much everyone as being immoderate on such basis, and only those on the margins of the left as being moderates? As claims go it sounds more than a little intemperate

It's nothing to do with that, it's about trying to move the goalposts and frame the language so that those on the margins of the left can describe themselves in terms that are moderate, centrist, whatever, and everyone else is extreme right. It's nothing more than a political tactic.

[Digby]

Without doubt I'd be a neo-liberal, believing as I do in regulated market economy. And really most people anywhere are in that camp with differences to be found in what level of taxation should result, what level of regulation is required, what % of an economy should be state Vs private and so on, but there's very little support anywhere for a state controlled central command economy, just as there's very little support anywhere for a wholly unregulated or free market economy.

Are we really looking to group pretty much everyone as being immoderate on such basis, and only those on the margins of the left as being moderates? As claims go it sounds more than a little intemperate

It's nothing to do with that, it's about trying to move the goalposts and frame the language so that those on the margins of the left can describe themselves in terms that are moderate, centrist, whatever, and everyone else is extreme right. It's nothing more than a political tactic.

It's not a great tactic. Not unless most of my lifetime people have been voting Tory, Labour and Lib Dem when all along they meant to be voting Socialist

[Stones of granite]

Without doubt I'd be a neo-liberal, believing as I do in regulated market economy. And really most people anywhere are in that camp with differences to be found in what level of taxation should result, what level of regulation is required, what % of an economy should be state Vs private and so on, but there's very little support anywhere for a state controlled central command economy, just as there's very little support anywhere for a wholly unregulated or free market economy.

Are we really looking to group pretty much everyone as being immoderate on such basis, and only those on the margins of the left as being moderates? As claims go it sounds more than a little intemperate

It's nothing to do with that, it's about trying to move the goalposts and frame the language so that those on the margins of the left can describe themselves in terms that are moderate, centrist, whatever, and everyone else is extreme right. It's nothing more than a political tactic.

It's not a great tactic. Not unless most of my lifetime people have been voting Tory, Labour and Lib Dem when all along they meant to be voting Socialist

Obviously the language was wrong, that's why they want to change it. Eric Blair knew what he was writing about.

[Sandydragon]

Again, define moderate?

Blair was a moderate that most British people would see as occupying the centre ground. To you he probably looked right wing.

He didn't look it (right wing) at the time. But that was because we'd had Thatcher framing the debate for as long as I'd lived. Which kind of moves the goalposts somewhat

My opinion is that you cannot be truly considered moderate if you're economically neo-liberal. It's a rather important point. Economic neo-liberalism is about as right wing, economically, as you can get without getting into bloody libertarianism.

So without getting into social policy or defense or anything else, I wouldn't consider David Milliband as a moderate, simply because his economic policy is neo-liberal.

Considerations of whether someone is right, left or centre are based on more than just economics.

[Sandydragon]

Without doubt I'd be a neo-liberal, believing as I do in regulated market economy. And really most people anywhere are in that camp with differences to be found in what level of taxation should result, what level of regulation is required, what % of an economy should be state Vs private and so on, but there's very little support anywhere for a state controlled central command economy, just as there's very little support anywhere for a wholly unregulated or free market economy.

Are we really looking to group pretty much everyone as being immoderate on such basis, and only those on the margins of the left as being moderates? As claims go it sounds more than a little intemperate

It's nothing to do with that, it's about trying to move the goalposts and frame the language so that those on the margins of the left can describe themselves in terms that are moderate, centrist, whatever, and everyone else is extreme right. It's nothing more than a political tactic.

Of course it is. Its been used on here for years.

[Sandydragon]

Without doubt I'd be a neo-liberal, believing as I do in regulated market economy. And really most people anywhere are in that camp with differences to be found in what level of taxation should result, what level of regulation is required, what % of an economy should be state Vs private and so on, but there's very little support anywhere for a state controlled central command economy, just as there's very little support anywhere for a wholly unregulated or free market economy.

Are we really looking to group pretty much everyone as being immoderate on such basis, and only those on the margins of the left as being moderates? As claims go it sounds more than a little intemperate

It's nothing to do with that, it's about trying to move the goalposts and frame the language so that those on the margins of the left can describe themselves in terms that are moderate, centrist, whatever, and everyone else is extreme right. It's nothing more than a political tactic.

It's not a great tactic. Not unless most of my lifetime people have been voting Tory, Labour and Lib Dem when all along they meant to be voting Socialist

Thats all the fault of the propaganda pushed out by MSM. That and the inability of the masses to understand the truth.