Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Michael Gove is right – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    edited May 2023

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,014
    edited May 2023
    Sean_F said:


    Interesting factoids from the NI election:

    185 Unionist (122 DUP, 54 UUP, 9 TUV) councillors (-18) (40.0% of seats)
    183 Nationalist (144 SF, 39 SDLP) councillors (+19) (39.6% of seats)
    94 "other" (67 APNI, etc.) (+4) (20.3% of seats)

    Vote share:

    Nationalist 39.6% (30.9% SF, 8.7% SDLP) (+4.4)
    Unionist 38.1% (23.3% DUP, 10.9% UUP, 3.9% TUV) (-2.3)
    "other" 22.2% (inc. 13.3% APNI, etc.) (-2.2)

    So, the Nationalists won 39.6% of seats on 39.6% of the vote!

    Four councils have a Unionist seat majority:

    Antrim & Newtownabbey (just! 20/40; 7 UUP, 13 DUP)
    Ards & North Down (22/40; 8 UUP, 14 DUP)
    Lisburn & Castlereagh (just! 20/40; 6 UUP, 14 DUP)
    Mid & East Antrim (27/40; 8 UUP, 14 DUP, 5 TUV )

    Four councils have a Nationalist seat majority:

    Derry & Strabane (28/40; 18 SF, 10 SDLP)
    Fermanagh & Omagh (24/40; 21 SF, 3 SDLP)
    Mid Ulster (24/40; 19 SF, 5 SDLP)
    Newry, Mourne & Down (28/40; 20 SF, 8 SDLP)

    I think it's the first time ever that SF have got an overall majority on any councils: 21 seats in Fermanagh, 20 in Newry (just!).

    One council has a Nationalist plurality:

    Belfast (27/60; 22 SF, 5 SDLP)

    Two councils have a Unionist plurality:

    Armagh, Banbridge & Craigavon (20/41; 6 UUP, 13 DUP, 1 TUV )
    Causeway Coast & Glens (19/40; 4 UUP, 13 DUP, 2 TUV)

    Armagh also has Paul Berry, ex DUP, Causeway Coast has one PUP, and Lisburn has one ex UUP.
    Thanks, but I don't think you can stand as an "Ind Unionist", just "Ind", so only the PUP in Causeway would count.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,084

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
    If you can’t get your economic policy accepted by the market, or you change your leader twice in 50days, I suggest your government is not stable. There is more to stability than HoC arithmetic.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
    If you can’t get your economic policy accepted by the market, or you change your leader twice in 50days, I suggest your government is not stable. There is more to stability than HoC arithmetic.
    A brief interruption that was resolved in record time. How long did Labour hang on to their Truss (Corbyn)?
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,250
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    You prove my point. The right are raging what they refer to as a 'war', no one on the left talks about culture wars.

    You are being left behind by the sweep of social progress and you don't like it. 15 years ago you would have been arguing against gay marriage. But society has moved on.

    To reiterate, 'the woke left' are not fighting a so-called 'culture war', you are. (And you're losing btw.)
    What you call 'social progress' is what those on the right call the undermining of our culture and nation and its heritage and the traditional family or indeed now notions of traditional gender. Hence we now have a birthrate well below replacement level and are reliant on ever increasing levels of immigration.

    Now I have nothing against homosexual marriage in civil law or immigration where it brings needed skills but the balance has gone too far for many. Sometimes power for its own sake is worthless and it is better to be in opposition where you are at least true to your principles and values
    We may not always like it but social change is going to happen. 100 or even 50 years ago people were bemoaning the breakdown of the traditional family caused by women working but none of that moaning made one iota of difference.
    Not always in a socially liberal direction, the Victorian era for example was more socially conservative than the Restoration or even the Georgian eras.

    If conservatives are prepared to fight for it social liberals won't always get their own way
    That's not a position most historians would support. It was a period of huge social change, emancipation, and liberalisation.

    On the other hand it was quite politically conservative (as the obverse of the conservative/revolutionary coin.)
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,084

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
    If you can’t get your economic policy accepted by the market, or you change your leader twice in 50days, I suggest your government is not stable. There is more to stability than HoC arithmetic.
    A brief interruption that was resolved in record time. How long did Labour hang on to their Truss (Corbyn)?
    The collapse of the government’s economic policy is more than a brief interruption, and we’re still paying for it.

    To my knowledge Corbyn didn’t make it to government.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,088

    FPTP is so broken that the only reason the Government didn't collapse in 2019 was because we'd put in a stupid law to maintain FPTP in the event of a minority government, which was something FPTP was supposed to prevent.

    That's rubbish. FPTP isn't meant to prevent minority governments. If it has a defining characteristic it's that it maintains a strict link between the constituency and the MP, so anybody can be voted out directly by their constituents.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,659
    The thing with FPTP is it’s exceptional globally. Vanishingly few democracies have such a system. The norm is something more proportional. One obvious other exception is the US presidential system, with all its odd distortions.

    If FPTP is so great then its proponents really need to show how it delivers better government than the myriad proportional systems in our near neighbourhood. The evidence is not particularly compelling.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,862

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
    If you can’t get your economic policy accepted by the market, or you change your leader twice in 50days, I suggest your government is not stable. There is more to stability than HoC arithmetic.
    A brief interruption that was resolved in record time. How long did Labour hang on to their Truss (Corbyn)?
    FPTP produces coalitions as much as PR. It’s just the coalitions take the form of uneasy big tent groupings called the Tory and Labour Parties. And an uneasy small tent grouping like the LDs. Should Blair have been in the same party as Corbyn? Should Ken Clarke and…well virtually anyone in today’s Conservative Party?
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
    No I think everything I have read confirms the same. Perhaps your liking of him has clouded yours?

    Corbyn was just as bad in how he managed his centre, I've read Left Out.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    edited May 2023
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    You need an Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon or at least a Joe McCarthy to sort these "culture warriors" out once and for all.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,425
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
    If you can’t get your economic policy accepted by the market, or you change your leader twice in 50days, I suggest your government is not stable. There is more to stability than HoC arithmetic.
    A brief interruption that was resolved in record time. How long did Labour hang on to their Truss (Corbyn)?
    The collapse of the government’s economic policy is more than a brief interruption, and we’re still paying for it.

    To my knowledge Corbyn didn’t make it to government.
    You are referring to Brown's collapse of the Economy... and the ruination of the nastions finances one assumes.....
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,706

    nico679 said:

    Braverman must have something on Sunak given she seems to think she’s unsackable.

    I’m surprised though that she hasn’t done the martyr routine and resigned in protest at the cabinets stance on immigration .

    That way she can position herself as the darling of the right and hope to become leader when Sunak loses the GE.

    Seems Sunak is to consult his independent ethics advisor on his return to London

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1660355541187588096?t=ioEabeA9XlREWVk-PpmRrA&s=19
    I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
    I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?

    I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,858

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
    I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    Chris said:

    nico679 said:

    Braverman must have something on Sunak given she seems to think she’s unsackable.

    I’m surprised though that she hasn’t done the martyr routine and resigned in protest at the cabinets stance on immigration .

    That way she can position herself as the darling of the right and hope to become leader when Sunak loses the GE.

    Seems Sunak is to consult his independent ethics advisor on his return to London

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1660355541187588096?t=ioEabeA9XlREWVk-PpmRrA&s=19
    I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
    Did I miss something? Is Johnson still prime minister?
    It took long enough, and he's on his way back.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,084

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
    If you can’t get your economic policy accepted by the market, or you change your leader twice in 50days, I suggest your government is not stable. There is more to stability than HoC arithmetic.
    A brief interruption that was resolved in record time. How long did Labour hang on to their Truss (Corbyn)?
    The collapse of the government’s economic policy is more than a brief interruption, and we’re still paying for it.

    To my knowledge Corbyn didn’t make it to government.
    You are referring to Brown's collapse of the Economy... and the ruination of the nastions finances one assumes.....
    I’ll take AAA Labour over AA-,run on the pound Tories, any day.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Brexit will never be able to be resolved in an intelligent way if every time somebody points out something they're called a Rejoiner.

    Let's be honest, Brexit isn't working. We could do a lot to resolve it short of rejoining but since the Tories are incapable of doing that despite starting the whole thing, Labour will have to. They must ignore the people calling them rejoiners at all costs, these are the same people that crashed the car in the first place.

    The problem you have is that, whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, to many of those advocating changes to 'resolve' Brexit are the same who tried so hard to stop it in the first place before it had even happened. They shoed themselves to be untrsutworthy and dishonest and are now asking to be trusted again.

    There ar many ways that the current sitiation could be improved if people had the will to do so. But there are very few politicians out there honest and trustworthy enough to be entrusted with that task.
    The picture painted by a very remainer dominated media is also misleading. Look, for example, at this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/business-secretary-welcomes-record-year-for-services-exports

    £397bn of service exports in 2022, an increase of 20% compared to 2021, and up 23% on exports in 2018. These comparators are obviously flattered by Covid but even so. The forecasts that the UK was going to be the bottom performer of the G7 are wrong. Our growth this year, whilst far from exciting, is going to be ahead of the Eurozone.

    The relentless negativity of those who want to refight the battles of some years ago now are distorting where we are and where we are going. The west as a whole are suffering from an energy shock on the back of Ukraine and we are very far from immune from that but we need as a country to focus on what we need to do now to grow quickly, improve our tax base, improve our balance of payments from the disastrous years in the SM (our own fault, not the SM's) and give better chances to our children.
    So I guess you're in 9% of the population that thinks Brexit has been a success?
    I don't think that we have made full use of it yet.

    Our current immigration policy should be a marked improvement on freedom of movement but it requires both better controls from the likes of Border Force and more active management by the government in terms of targets.

    Our existing arrangements with the EU are capable of being improved and I very much hope that the Windsor agreement will be the start of that.

    Our civil service seem very reluctant to implement changes that might cause divergence from the EU. Some of this, such as manufacturing standards, is understandable, some less so.

    But I think, on balance, we are doing ok. Economic policy is much more important than Brexit and is the job of the government. I wanted more incentives to invest and train in the budget. I want to see our education system more integrated with the industries and skills of the future. The cost of gas following on the cost of Covid has made this very difficult but I would barely give the government a pass mark to date. Again, we should be doing better but it is not Brexit that is holding us back.
    It's good to have different views.

    Picking up on a couple of your points. GDP it depends how you slice it. 2022 was a good growth year for the UK, but it has definitely done the worst of the G7 since Covid, which happens to coincide with Brexit. We only managed to not to be the last in the G7 in Q1 2023 because Germany did marginally worse.

    Our exports are also underperforming our peers with growth less than them in a booming market. Not surprising given the increase in trade barriers because of Brexit of course.

    Personally I don't think there's a lot of point in dwelling on what went wrong. We are where are. But I do think it's important to acknowledge the damage caused because only then can we start to limit it.
    We have had a major balance of payments problem since North Sea oil started to decline in the early 1990s. Nearly 30 consecutive years of trade deficits culminating in a significant quantity of our productive assets in foreign ownership and a rent paying economy.

    This happened in the SM and the EU. It wasn't the fault of either but the economic incompetence of our own governments. Trying to pretend the same problems now are caused by Brexit is not, in my view, acknowledging the damage, it is recognising that our path has been unsustainable for a long time and it has caught up with us. We need to change and the excuse of the EU not letting us (which was never more than marginally true, at best) is no longer available.
    Some problems are directly caused by Brexit; others were already present but made worse by Brexit; a third group of problems aren't related to Brexit, but Brexit is a distraction from solving them. Finally there are problems that have nothing to do with Brexit. No problems seem to be solved by Brexit.

    Current account deficits look to be in the second category. Already present but made worse by Brexit.
    I should add, I think there may be an area of agreement between us: Brexit will force us to do things differently. We're stuck with it now. I am wondering if a high immigration economy may be the way forward. At least it's different from what other countries are doing.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,368
    @PippaCrerar

    Rishi Sunak under intense pressure to launch investigation into whether Suella Braverman broke ministerial code - as Downing Street appears to distance itself from beleaguered home secretary.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1660380225203499010
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,368

    I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?

    You missed the cover up then
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
    No I think everything I have read confirms the same. Perhaps your liking of him has clouded yours?

    Corbyn was just as bad in how he managed his centre, I've read Left Out.
    I detest Johnson. He served a purpose, resolving the Brexit impasse, but was wholly unsuited to any office above whelk stall.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
    No I think everything I have read confirms the same. Perhaps your liking of him has clouded yours?

    Corbyn was just as bad in how he managed his centre, I've read Left Out.
    I detest Johnson. He served a purpose, resolving the Brexit impasse, but was wholly unsuited to any office above whelk stall.
    He did not resolve Brexit though. He negotiated a terrible deal.
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,706
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    I refer you to the thread header. I'm looking down the list of "Which issues would most determine how Britons would vote in a General Election?" and struggling to see where your culture war concerns fit into any of the definitions. 0% of 2019 Conservative voters cite "Other" as an issue so maybe it's not more than a rounding error for those on the right either.


  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    The left is not a homogenous blob.

    The left is on the whole, not fighting any sort of "war" over culture.

    Eventually some consensus of compromise will be formed and we'll argue about something else. This is gay rights all over again.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1660382808076894210

    "A government source told the BBC that Braverman had been 'concerned' about her insurance premiums..."

    What a twat she is.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
    No I think everything I have read confirms the same. Perhaps your liking of him has clouded yours?

    Corbyn was just as bad in how he managed his centre, I've read Left Out.
    I detest Johnson. He served a purpose, resolving the Brexit impasse, but was wholly unsuited to any office above whelk stall.
    He did not resolve Brexit though. He negotiated a terrible deal.
    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,706
    edited May 2023

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
    No I think everything I have read confirms the same. Perhaps your liking of him has clouded yours?

    Corbyn was just as bad in how he managed his centre, I've read Left Out.
    An excellent book. Quite a cathartic read for me.

  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    edited May 2023

    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.

    Closed what chapter? We're STILL arguing about Brexit even now.

    The problem is that his lot are useless and made it worse. They are why we are in a mess now, evidently the Brexiteers cannot be trusted with Brexit.

    It is time for Keir Starmer to give it a go as he is the only reasonable alternative. Because of the Tories anyone who tries to help is called a rejoiner or a traitor.

    Evidently the deal needs to be re-done by somebody else.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    An excellent book. Quite a cathartic read for me.

    It just confirmed to me how wrong I was and why I have moved back to my natural centre-left home.

    It is incredibly depressing that John McDonnell, who understood how damaging Salisbury was, was cast aside.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Actually John McDonnell comes out of Left Out quite well. He should have been leader.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    It produces stable governments, not necessarily good ones. It allows parties time to try to change the country. It’s not necessarily to best form of government. I’m not sure PR is either.
    You’re wrong. In the 100 years it produced stable government in the 40s, 50s, 80s and 2000s. The rest was not hugely stable. The last 13 years have been dismal from that point of view. You might also question the quality of the so called stable governments.

    Time to give something else a go.
    How was the nineties not stable? And which governments collapsed since 2010? Stable means unable to govern and thus a new election is needed.
    You’re confusing stability for ‘has a majority’. They are not the same thing, as the last few years demonstrate. Boris won a majority, but no one thinks this government is remotely stable.

    From the poll tax riots the two Tory leadership election, black Wednesday and the Maarstricht rebellions , the 1990s weren’t very stable.
    I think we have a different definition of stability then. The ability to pass legislation, to win a vote of no confidence equals stable for me, but clearly not for you.
    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?
    Yes. See all the rather pathetic ‘general election now’ posters. The Tories remain in power, can pass legislation and can call the next election when they choose, up to Jan 2025.
    So yes.
    Unstable governments cannot pass laws, lose votes of no confidence and require fresh elections to try to achieve stability.
    If you can’t get your economic policy accepted by the market, or you change your leader twice in 50days, I suggest your government is not stable. There is more to stability than HoC arithmetic.
    A brief interruption that was resolved in record time. How long did Labour hang on to their Truss (Corbyn)?
    Johnson was your Corbyn, and he was PM for an horrifically long three years.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,301
    Ukraine will soon unleash a stealthy exploding robotic submarine against the Russian Navy.

    The Toloka TLK-150 is the first underwater drone to be designed and built entirely in Ukraine and is the product of a new military-civilian partnership called Brave1.

    Brave1 was tight-lipped when asked by The Telegraph about the capabilities of its new weapon but naval analysts said that it represents a major technological upgrade for Ukraine.

    “Russia has a new problem in the Black Sea,” said HI Sutton, a naval analyst, who described the Toloka TLK-150 as a “loitering torpedo”.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/20/exploding-underwater-drone-ukraine/
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,862

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
    No I think everything I have read confirms the same. Perhaps your liking of him has clouded yours?

    Corbyn was just as bad in how he managed his centre, I've read Left Out.
    I detest Johnson. He served a purpose, resolving the Brexit impasse, but was wholly unsuited to any office above whelk stall.
    He did not resolve Brexit though. He negotiated a terrible deal.
    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.
    We left the EU in 2020 and the transitional arrangements at the end of the same year. Putting any blame on anyone but Johnson and his merry band of incompetents is sophistry. Leaders are supposed to lead not follow. Saying “oh, it’s what the people wanted” is pathetic. Promising what cannot be delivered unforgivable.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Quite evidently the Brexiteers have failed to get Brexit working. Nobody can now deny it.

    Let's get somebody in to take a more pragmatic approach, clearly that man is now Keir Starmer.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103
    edited May 2023

    nico679 said:

    Braverman must have something on Sunak given she seems to think she’s unsackable.

    I’m surprised though that she hasn’t done the martyr routine and resigned in protest at the cabinets stance on immigration .

    That way she can position herself as the darling of the right and hope to become leader when Sunak loses the GE.

    Seems Sunak is to consult his independent ethics advisor on his return to London

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1660355541187588096?t=ioEabeA9XlREWVk-PpmRrA&s=19
    I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
    I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?

    I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
    Someone is briefing very heavily against Braverman. Question is who and why. The who looks to be the Prime Minister's office. The why is unclear. It may be that they have decided she's a liability and are using this as an excuse to get rid of her. I think likely they are trying to bring her to heel and stay on message. But if she refuses it may come to the same thing.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,301

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Braverman will probably resign the day the net migration figures come out brandishing the government’s immigration policy a failure, saying that the leadership has betrayed Brexit & the will of the people etc which will kick off her big campaign to be leader of the opposition

    https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1660381252317315074
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Welsh Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 49% (-4)
    CON: 19% (=)
    PLC: 10% (-2)
    RFM: 9% (+1)
    LDM: 8% (+4)
    GRN: 4% (+1)

    Via @YouGov, 12-17 May.
    Changes w/ 17-23 Feb.

    30 point lead! In Wales lol
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.

    Closed what chapter? We're STILL arguing about Brexit even now.

    The problem is that his lot are useless and made it worse. They are why we are in a mess now, evidently the Brexiteers cannot be trusted with Brexit.

    It is time for Keir Starmer to give it a go as he is the only reasonable alternative. Because of the Tories anyone who tries to help is called a rejoiner or a traitor.

    Evidently the deal needs to be re-done by somebody else.
    We left the EU. That’s the chapter. We agreed terms of trade and cooperation. The planes kept flying, the ferries kept sailing.
    The deal was a bit shit, free trade isn’t the same as being in the single market.

    Of course we are arguing over Brexit - the effects will ripple for decades. Doesn’t mean that the Johnson government didn’t at least get the first stage over the line.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103

    Braverman will probably resign the day the net migration figures come out brandishing the government’s immigration policy a failure, saying that the leadership has betrayed Brexit & the will of the people etc which will kick off her big campaign to be leader of the opposition

    https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1660381252317315074

    Good point! A third possibility of the briefing against Braverman is that the PM's office expect Braverman to flounce off and are getting their retaliation in first.
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,706
    Scott_xP said:

    I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?

    You missed the cover up then
    Did I? Well I don't think I'm the only one. I really couldn't give a monkeys about the whole thing.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 50,014

    Welsh Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 49% (-4)
    CON: 19% (=)
    PLC: 10% (-2)
    RFM: 9% (+1)
    LDM: 8% (+4)
    GRN: 4% (+1)

    Via @YouGov, 12-17 May.
    Changes w/ 17-23 Feb.

    30 point lead! In Wales lol

    Broken, sleazy Labour and PC on the slide!
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    Where have you been?
    Which bit are you saying is wrong?
    FPTP has largely produced poor governments. It persists not because it is good, it persists because it is in the vested interest of the two biggest parties.
    PR of course produced a government led by one Adolf Hitler in 1930s Germany. Not sure we have ever had as dangerous a government as that!
    Well, Hitler's rise to power was a lot more to do with the popularity of the message, the exaggerated fear of social democracy, the failure of the social democrats to work with other parties, the unseriousness which which some people on the moderate conservative side treated Hitler's stated goals, and not inconsiderable fact that the Nazis were happy to use political violence as well as the electoral politics to achieve power.

    It's funny how selective you are in drawing lessons from fascism. In fact, your attitude, expressed on here more than once, about "at least they kept the socialists from power" is much closer to the nexus of an explanation for the rise of Nazis. That attitude is still with us, and the risk of fascism today remains not in the electoral system but in the acceptance of extremism within the mainstream.

    A glance at the USA and India is enough to show that FPTP has vulnerabilities. No electoral system is a sufficient bulwark against fascism.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.

    Closed what chapter? We're STILL arguing about Brexit even now.

    The problem is that his lot are useless and made it worse. They are why we are in a mess now, evidently the Brexiteers cannot be trusted with Brexit.

    It is time for Keir Starmer to give it a go as he is the only reasonable alternative. Because of the Tories anyone who tries to help is called a rejoiner or a traitor.

    Evidently the deal needs to be re-done by somebody else.
    We left the EU. That’s the chapter. We agreed terms of trade and cooperation. The planes kept flying, the ferries kept sailing.
    The deal was a bit shit, free trade isn’t the same as being in the single market.

    Of course we are arguing over Brexit - the effects will ripple for decades. Doesn’t mean that the Johnson government didn’t at least get the first stage over the line.
    But you concede that they did not resolve Brexit itself and that they ultimately presided over the mess we are in now, yes?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,073
    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Rishi Sunak under intense pressure to launch investigation into whether Suella Braverman broke ministerial code - as Downing Street appears to distance itself from beleaguered home secretary.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1660380225203499010

    They have had a flood of angry letters about it from a Mr. Sishi Runak.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894
    DougSeal said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Do you honestly think Boris Johnson's administration was in any way stable?
    For most of its run yes. The last weeks no, clearly.
    Then I think you're dead wrong. All the stuff that has come out since says it was a travesty.
    I think your view is clouded by hatred (understandable) of Johnson.
    No I think everything I have read confirms the same. Perhaps your liking of him has clouded yours?

    Corbyn was just as bad in how he managed his centre, I've read Left Out.
    I detest Johnson. He served a purpose, resolving the Brexit impasse, but was wholly unsuited to any office above whelk stall.
    He did not resolve Brexit though. He negotiated a terrible deal.
    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.
    We left the EU in 2020 and the transitional arrangements at the end of the same year. Putting any blame on anyone but Johnson and his merry band of incompetents is sophistry. Leaders are supposed to lead not follow. Saying “oh, it’s what the people wanted” is pathetic. Promising what cannot be delivered unforgivable.
    I’m sorry but that ignores the history of the times. People like Alastair Meeks were driven mad by the idea that a no deal Brexit might mean medicines not arriving in the U.K. The EU were bargaining hard to their advantage (why wouldn’t they?) Getting some kind a deal over the line was hugely significant.
    I don’t expect everyone to agree, but I do think it was an achievement of sorts. Go back and look at the politics of 2017 to 2019 to see the fix the country was in.

    Now we are past this and the government or the next is at liberty to create a new relationship with the EU at their leisure, with no time pressure. I’m pretty sure that we will end up very closely aligned with SM.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,706

    An excellent book. Quite a cathartic read for me.

    It just confirmed to me how wrong I was and why I have moved back to my natural centre-left home.

    It is incredibly depressing that John McDonnell, who understood how damaging Salisbury was, was cast aside.
    Yes, I had and still have some time for McDonnell. He is at least a pragmatist. I note that he has broken with Corbyn over the latter's tankie stance on Ukraine.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,088
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Whatever the cause, we should not pretend it's otherwise.

    I would also argue that the electoral system is an important component of the culture.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,096
    DougSeal said:

    A third thing I learned on Twitter this morning (via Nick Timothy) is that 22% of study visas went to dependants, compared to 6% in 2019.

    You can see what the government is *trying* to do about economic growth.

    I cannot fathom it. I suspect it's to get more medical staff into the NHS quick-ish but it's one hell of a brave way to do it.

    44% of the dependent visas are going to Indian nationals and 30% to Nigerian nationals. And it's expected to have gone from c.16k to 150k in the last year. That's on top of Indians being the biggest in boat crossings last month.

    It's clear to me that student visas, as well as boat crossings, are simply a way to circumvent work permits to economically migrate - and the combined population of India and Nigeria is nearly 1.7 billion, so there will be no end to it.
    To me, this is a greater “loss of control” than even the volumes we saw under FOM (against which, successive governments made no effective mitigation).
    I can't think of a better way to kill off Brexit than pursuing this policy.
    Brexit is already dead, as a governing philosophy.
    The wave function collapsed over Christmas 2021, after Frost’s resignation.

    Fewer people think Brexit has gone well than believe the moon landings were faked.

    The incoming government has no interest in maintaining Brexit, only in mitigating it. Brexit is now short-hand for arrant stupidity, bordering on suicide. They should probably rename the Darwin Awards the Brexit Awards.
    And, yet, the pomposity of Rejoiners could be more than enough to keep it in the frame for years to come.
    We’re not going to fix anything if you simply insult the people who are pointing out the problems as “pompous Rejoiners”
    I've been insulted on here several times this evening. I think that's pretty pompous. And if you have only one eye to see then you're part of the problem.

    Don't forget that it's sneering attitudes by self-regarding self-serving types that people were voting against in the first place.

    If they've learned nothing from it then we will go precisely nowhere, and voting to continue to annoy them will be a strong motivator.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.

    Closed what chapter? We're STILL arguing about Brexit even now.

    The problem is that his lot are useless and made it worse. They are why we are in a mess now, evidently the Brexiteers cannot be trusted with Brexit.

    It is time for Keir Starmer to give it a go as he is the only reasonable alternative. Because of the Tories anyone who tries to help is called a rejoiner or a traitor.

    Evidently the deal needs to be re-done by somebody else.
    We left the EU. That’s the chapter. We agreed terms of trade and cooperation. The planes kept flying, the ferries kept sailing.
    The deal was a bit shit, free trade isn’t the same as being in the single market.

    Of course we are arguing over Brexit - the effects will ripple for decades. Doesn’t mean that the Johnson government didn’t at least get the first stage over the line.
    But you concede that they did not resolve Brexit itself and that they ultimately presided over the mess we are in now, yes?
    Brexit will never be ‘resolved’ - our relationship will continually evolve, as it did when we were in the common market and then the EU.

    As to the mess we are in - of course the Tories own that,
    The caveat is the scale of the challenges in the last few years. The covid pandemic is in danger of being forgotten (as Leon predicted) as on the whole we prefer not to dwell on bad stuff, and things are, for most, back to normal now. The huge energy crisis has not been seen since the early 70s. Both of these would have scuppered ANY government. You can argue that the choices made in 2010 were wrong. I think we need more money and better ideas into health for a start. We need to find a way to better economic growth, and that probably is best approached by embracing green technologies and trying to lead rather than follow.

    For what it’s worth I think the nation needs a majority Labour government that’s prepared to do hard things. We may well have it in less than year.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,621

    Actually John McDonnell comes out of Left Out quite well. He should have been leader.

    Amen. I think he would have won 2017.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    An excellent book. Quite a cathartic read for me.

    It just confirmed to me how wrong I was and why I have moved back to my natural centre-left home.

    It is incredibly depressing that John McDonnell, who understood how damaging Salisbury was, was cast aside.
    Yes, I had and still have some time for McDonnell. He is at least a pragmatist. I note that he has broken with Corbyn over the latter's tankie stance on Ukraine.
    John McDonnell said "we have lost the fucking election" when he found out what Seumus had told Corbyn to say about Russia's poisoning. He was right.

    If only Corbyn had gone with somebody sensible as his press secretary. Kevin Maguire was available
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,911
    If anyone here is suffering from Imola withdraw, F1 have put the full 2005 & 2021 races up on their Youtube Channel
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Corbyn and McDonnell barely talk any more, they fell out over Russia and haven't really been friends since.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917

    DougSeal said:

    A third thing I learned on Twitter this morning (via Nick Timothy) is that 22% of study visas went to dependants, compared to 6% in 2019.

    You can see what the government is *trying* to do about economic growth.

    I cannot fathom it. I suspect it's to get more medical staff into the NHS quick-ish but it's one hell of a brave way to do it.

    44% of the dependent visas are going to Indian nationals and 30% to Nigerian nationals. And it's expected to have gone from c.16k to 150k in the last year. That's on top of Indians being the biggest in boat crossings last month.

    It's clear to me that student visas, as well as boat crossings, are simply a way to circumvent work permits to economically migrate - and the combined population of India and Nigeria is nearly 1.7 billion, so there will be no end to it.
    To me, this is a greater “loss of control” than even the volumes we saw under FOM (against which, successive governments made no effective mitigation).
    I can't think of a better way to kill off Brexit than pursuing this policy.
    Brexit is already dead, as a governing philosophy.
    The wave function collapsed over Christmas 2021, after Frost’s resignation.

    Fewer people think Brexit has gone well than believe the moon landings were faked.

    The incoming government has no interest in maintaining Brexit, only in mitigating it. Brexit is now short-hand for arrant stupidity, bordering on suicide. They should probably rename the Darwin Awards the Brexit Awards.
    And, yet, the pomposity of Rejoiners could be more than enough to keep it in the frame for years to come.
    We’re not going to fix anything if you simply insult the people who are pointing out the problems as “pompous Rejoiners”
    I've been insulted on here several times this evening. I think that's pretty pompous. And if you have only one eye to see then you're part of the problem.

    Don't forget that it's sneering attitudes by self-regarding self-serving types that people were voting against in the first place.

    If they've learned nothing from it then we will go precisely nowhere, and voting to continue to annoy them will be a strong motivator.
    I don't know why you're whining about being insulted. You yourself said you give as good as you get.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,621
    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Rishi Sunak under intense pressure to launch investigation into whether Suella Braverman broke ministerial code - as Downing Street appears to distance itself from beleaguered home secretary.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1660380225203499010

    Intense pressure from whom?

  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894
    viewcode said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Rishi Sunak under intense pressure to launch investigation into whether Suella Braverman broke ministerial code - as Downing Street appears to distance itself from beleaguered home secretary.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1660380225203499010

    Intense pressure from whom?

    The usual - the media…
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Farooq said:

    I don't know why you're whining about being insulted. You yourself said you give as good as you get.

    Casino cancels everyone he doesn't agree with. Just ignore him and he'll go away hopefully
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,301

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    viewcode said:

    Actually John McDonnell comes out of Left Out quite well. He should have been leader.

    Amen. I think he would have won 2017.
    He would have got a Hung Parliament that Labour could have done something with.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,301
    viewcode said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Rishi Sunak under intense pressure to launch investigation into whether Suella Braverman broke ministerial code - as Downing Street appears to distance itself from beleaguered home secretary.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1660380225203499010

    Intense pressure from whom?

    Why? - from Pippa of course

  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
    But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,054
    ...

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Should Johnson prevail once again, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, will you be supporting his coalition of chaos at his next GE as PM?
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,894

    ...

    Jonathan said:

    Is the Tory administration 2019-2023 stable?

    Tubbs is confusing stable with majority.
    No, I’m not. I simply differ on what stability means.
    Should Johnson prevail once again, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, will you be supporting his coalition of chaos at his next GE as PM?
    Hell no - I despise the man. I hope he never gets near power again.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,621
    geoffw said:

    viewcode said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Rishi Sunak under intense pressure to launch investigation into whether Suella Braverman broke ministerial code - as Downing Street appears to distance itself from beleaguered home secretary.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1660380225203499010

    Intense pressure from whom?

    Why? - from Pippa of course

    I keep confusing her with Pippa Middleton. The mental images conjoured by this juxtaposition are...odd
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,088
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
    But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
    But unlike in a PR system, it doesn't have to be that way. There's nothing to stop people electing a parliament full of Martin Bell-style candidates.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103

    The deal might have been terrible but it closed the chapter. The deal will continue to change and evolve, hopefully to a much better place.
    You forget the disaster our parliament that led to the 2019 election. Too many tried to overturn the Brexit vote. They were probably in the right in terms of the nations future, but the population as a whole didn’t see it that way.

    Closed what chapter? We're STILL arguing about Brexit even now.

    The problem is that his lot are useless and made it worse. They are why we are in a mess now, evidently the Brexiteers cannot be trusted with Brexit.

    It is time for Keir Starmer to give it a go as he is the only reasonable alternative. Because of the Tories anyone who tries to help is called a rejoiner or a traitor.

    Evidently the deal needs to be re-done by somebody else.
    I suppose.both things can be true. The UK had to exit the EU because people voted for it. AND the whole thing's a mess, nothing is resolved and it's all the fault of the Conservatives and Johnson in particular.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
    I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
    I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    There is nothing about the last 13 years the Tories can blame on Labour. And the fact they are trying is really a sad state of affairs for them.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,301
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
    But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
    Well the first of those is simply wrong. And that is because the parties maintain that fiction. And the second is a joke. We already know from court cases that the manifesto has absolutely no legal standing and from political reality that the parties will ditch anything they really didn't want as soon as they are actually elected. Of course coalition just gives them the political cover to do it in the name of forming 'stable Government'.

    Anyone using the excuse that people 'think' they are voting for a party as justification are simply indulging in the political equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,090

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    I refer you to the thread header. I'm looking down the list of "Which issues would most determine how Britons would vote in a General Election?" and struggling to see where your culture war concerns fit into any of the definitions. 0% of 2019 Conservative voters cite "Other" as an issue so maybe it's not more than a rounding error for those on the right either.


    The only one of the issues mentioned above that could be included as a culture war issue is immigration, which 27% still see as the pivotal issue.

    The top issue unsurprisingly is the economy. Yet as I said if Labour win the next election and fail to cut inflation or grow the economy the polls will rebound to the Tories anyway. If they do improve the economy then the Tories will lose anyway and the best they can hope for is to rally their base around the culture war
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,090
    Good drama on London Live 'Absence of War' with John Thaw in the title role based on David Hare's play about the Labour leadership in the 1992 election. I would advise Starmer and his team to watch
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    The Tories have now been in power for as long as New Labour.

    How does their record over the last 13 years compare?

    https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1659814983075495937

    At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
    But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
    But unlike in a PR system, it doesn't have to be that way. There's nothing to stop people electing a parliament full of Martin Bell-style candidates.
    There isn't anything preventing that from happening, no. Other than the fact that it's not what people seem to want.

    It feels to me like what you and Richard are saying is that voters could or should change their attitudes. That sounds to me like putting the cart before the horse.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,404
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
    But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
    Well, not the manifesto bit at least, since most people do not read them, and most of the contents are not widely reported. And we often find out afterwards that many MPs don't know a lot about what is in them, might have highly disagreed with bits, and in any case parties are highly selective about which bits they follow through on (for both good and bad reasons).

    Parties really should save a lot of effort trying to pull together a coherent narrative and just release bullet point lists of intended goals and policies - the good ones include that as a summary in the chapters anyway.

    I recall a LD one from, I think, 2017, which was quite schizophrenic as the opening and a lot of it was a pitch to be the new main opposition to a dominant Tory result which had seemed on the cards, and the rest was the standard manifesto fare of 'if we got in to power somehow then we'd do X'.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,090

    The Tories have now been in power for as long as New Labour.

    How does their record over the last 13 years compare?

    https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1659814983075495937

    At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.

    Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,103
    ..

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
    I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
    I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
    Maybe. 3 things though:

    1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed.
    2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations.
    3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,088
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
    But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
    But unlike in a PR system, it doesn't have to be that way. There's nothing to stop people electing a parliament full of Martin Bell-style candidates.
    There isn't anything preventing that from happening, no. Other than the fact that it's not what people seem to want.

    It feels to me like what you and Richard are saying is that voters could or should change their attitudes. That sounds to me like putting the cart before the horse.
    I'm just pointing out one aspect of the current system that allows for more flexibility than PR.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have now been in power for as long as New Labour.

    How does their record over the last 13 years compare?

    https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1659814983075495937

    At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.

    Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
    Brexit has been a disaster.

    Universal credit has been a disaster.

    Free schools have been a disaster.

    Unemployment is nominally reduced but more people than ever are IN WORK and claiming benefits.

    Taking lowest earners out of tax, was a Lib Dem policy!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,404
    edited May 2023

    An excellent book. Quite a cathartic read for me.

    It just confirmed to me how wrong I was and why I have moved back to my natural centre-left home.

    It is incredibly depressing that John McDonnell, who understood how damaging Salisbury was, was cast aside.
    Yes, I had and still have some time for McDonnell. He is at least a pragmatist. I note that he has broken with Corbyn over the latter's tankie stance on Ukraine.
    I had not realised until recently that McDonnell came in as an MP in 1997, so despite being of an age witrh Corbyn he has been an MP for 14 years less.

    I don't know what he did prior to becoming an MP (I'm sure he was involved in politics), but on seeing the difference in when they were first elected I did wonder if coming of political age in the Blair era contributed a lot to John being slicker, more professional, despite sharing a lot of the same politics, rather than being stewed in the politics of the early to mid 80s..
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,907

    nico679 said:

    Braverman must have something on Sunak given she seems to think she’s unsackable.

    I’m surprised though that she hasn’t done the martyr routine and resigned in protest at the cabinets stance on immigration .

    That way she can position herself as the darling of the right and hope to become leader when Sunak loses the GE.

    Seems Sunak is to consult his independent ethics advisor on his return to London

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1660355541187588096?t=ioEabeA9XlREWVk-PpmRrA&s=19
    I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
    I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?

    I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
    I can't work this out and who is benefitting from the 'leak' of this story. She is the home secretary. It looks like she needed to ask the civil service for some advice on what to do in light of her situation and she suggested a solution of her own (a 1 to 1 course), and then the civil service didn't want to help, and then leaked the whole thing with some kind of innuendo that she was acting inappropriately or had some kind of improper motivation. I'm not sure who she is supposed to ask for advice if not her own civil servants.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,260

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have now been in power for as long as New Labour.

    How does their record over the last 13 years compare?

    https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1659814983075495937

    At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.

    Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
    Brexit has been a disaster.

    Universal credit has been a disaster.

    Free schools have been a disaster.

    Unemployment is nominally reduced but more people than ever are IN WORK and claiming benefits.

    Taking lowest earners out of tax, was a Lib Dem policy!
    And the last one is steadily being reversed.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    edited May 2023

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I do think we will probably get PR under Labour but not because Labour particularly wants it.

    We wont get pr under labour for the simple reason is they will have to put it to a referendum and the result of it will be fuck no we dont want that
    Nah, no referendum. Just do it.
    Voting for our government is our choice not theirs, it is their job interview.....they dont get to tell us how to do the interview. Any party that tries to change the system without a referendum is going to land itself in the shit with voters.

    The voting belongs to us not fuckwit politicians
    If the Lib Dems demand PR and Labour agree, they should implement it. They'll have a mandate and it will be better for us all.
    Then they wont mind if we just implement lamppost protocol
    Do you honestly think PR is bad? Really?
    PR is different. Under FPTP parties are coalitions. Generally in the U.K. we have majority governments which represent the coalition of the ruling party, and broadly implements manifestos.
    Under PM parties tend to splinter, and government relies on horse trading after the election. At which point manifestos get ripped up, Pace tuition fees and the Lib Dems.
    I don’t know which is best. For minor parties FPTP is unfair. UKIP representaed a lot of people but struggled to gain representation in parliament, as does the greens etc. But many would not like the act of a coalition formation either.

    For all its faults, FPTP post has tended to deliver stable government in the U.K., which is probably why it’s lasted so long.
    FPT has delivered voting minority government for the most part, post war.

    A majority on the whole don't get a government comprising of a party or parties they voted for. Government for the 40%.
    They are not voting for parties, They are voting for an individual MP. Tocomplain that voters didn't get something they weren't voting for in the first place is illogical.
    De jure they're voting for an individual to be an MP. De facto, they're usually choosing a party and don't know or don't care about the individual standing. For most people it's just a name, and they wouldn't know their candidates if they fell over them.
    That's a product of our current political culture rather than the electoral system.
    Exactly. It serves the parties well to maintain the lie that they are the recipient of the votes. Stop those MPs getting to uppity with all that democracy bollocks.
    But it's exactly what's in the minds of most voters when they cast their ballot. The parties claiming them as a mandate for the party and its manifesto is an honest reflection of the intentions of the voters.
    Well the first of those is simply wrong. And that is because the parties maintain that fiction. And the second is a joke. We already know from court cases that the manifesto has absolutely no legal standing and from political reality that the parties will ditch anything they really didn't want as soon as they are actually elected. Of course coalition just gives them the political cover to do it in the name of forming 'stable Government'.

    Anyone using the excuse that people 'think' they are voting for a party as justification are simply indulging in the political equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
    I don't know why you're raising the legal standing of manifestos. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is what's happening in the minds of voters. Manifestos have political heft. Party's have political heft. People respond to the history and traditions of a party as much as (more) the person in the suit who's standing this time around. I think we all know this to be true.
    I think it's a little insulting to those in the electorate who want to vote for a party and don't care to scrutinise the individual to call it Stockholm Syndrome. It's perfectly fine if that's the lens people want to see politics through.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,404
    darkage said:

    nico679 said:

    Braverman must have something on Sunak given she seems to think she’s unsackable.

    I’m surprised though that she hasn’t done the martyr routine and resigned in protest at the cabinets stance on immigration .

    That way she can position herself as the darling of the right and hope to become leader when Sunak loses the GE.

    Seems Sunak is to consult his independent ethics advisor on his return to London

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1660355541187588096?t=ioEabeA9XlREWVk-PpmRrA&s=19
    I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
    I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?

    I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
    I can't work this out and who is benefitting from the 'leak' of this story. She is the home secretary. It looks like she needed to ask the civil service for some advice on what to do in light of her situation and she suggested a solution of her own (a 1 to 1 course), and then the civil service didn't want to help, and then leaked the whole thing with some kind of innuendo that she was acting inappropriately or had some kind of improper motivation. I'm not sure who she is supposed to ask for advice if not her own civil servants.
    If it was not a ministerial matter I'm not sure why she would ask her civil servants. She could perhaps seek advice from a Spad?

    As for innuendo she had some kind of improper motivation, it is hard to figurue out what other kind of motivation there could be in suggesting she get a bespoke solution rather than just taking one of the options any speeding fine letter sets out. Why would it even occur to her to ask if she could do it differently, and why did she think she should?

    The innuendo should be that it is a deeply weird response to getting a fine, never mind if it was improper.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,390
    edited May 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    TSE's thread is 100% on the money, as is Gove. The problem is, and the reason for the focus on culture issues, is that the Tories don't have a good story to tell on the economy. The economy is rubbish and they're not doing anything worthwhile about it. So what else do they have?

    You mean GDP is rubbish.

    But for many millions - oldies, GenXers who have paid off their mortgages, teenagers who want a job things are very nice.

    For other groups things aren't so good with the apogee of crap likely being a young, southern graduate.
    Not so good for young people who want to buy a house, eventually retire, raise a family, work a job above min wage and not zero hours however
    Actually it is.

    There such a shortage of skilled workers because of insufficient training during recent decades then there are good opportunities for teenagers who want to learn a skill, work hard and earn money.

    Obviously easier for them to earn enough to get a house the further north they are so southerners will have to 'get on their bikes' to find affordable housing.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,090

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have now been in power for as long as New Labour.

    How does their record over the last 13 years compare?

    https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1659814983075495937

    At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.

    Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
    Brexit has been a disaster.

    Universal credit has been a disaster.

    Free schools have been a disaster.

    Unemployment is nominally reduced but more people than ever are IN WORK and claiming benefits.

    Taking lowest earners out of tax, was a Lib Dem policy!
    It has reduced immigration from the EU at least and regained some sovereignty which is what those voted for it for.

    Universal credit has ensured it always pays more to work, no matter how few hours, than stay on benefits full time.

    Free schools have like Birbalsingh's have been a triumph, offering more choice to parents, strong disciplne and excellent exam results and top university entrance.

    In 2010 Labour unemployment was 8% when Brown left office, it is now 4%.

    It was a Tory led government that took the lowest earners out of tax, even if the LDs also took credit for it
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,404
    FF43 said:

    ..

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes the economy is key and getting the deficit and inflation down but that doesn't mean you can ignore the culture wars the woke left are raging, which the right needs to fight back on. As Meloni proved last year and Trump proved in 2016 fighting the culture wars on a conservative platform can even lead to victory

    Had to laugh at: "...the culture wars the woke left are raging..."

    You won't hear anyone on the left talking about the 'culture war'; it is entirely an invention and preoccupation of the right.
    Only if you think trashing our heritage, trans in womens bathrooms', restricting conservative speakers etc is a non issue which those on the right don't
    I would say many on the left not only think all you mention above are not only non-issues but also entirely acceptable, and indeed welcome, positions to hold. There are many on the left who would quite happily ban parties on the right for being "unacceptable" in a way that none (except on the neo-Nazi fringes) of the right would even dream of doing.
    I would certainly consider a refusal to accept a properly certified election result (eg Trump and various other Republicans) as a bar to standing in any future ones. But this isn't a left v right thing. I'd say the same if it were Dems doing it.
    I have liked your comment for the willingness to criticise both sides @kinabalu. Quick question for you though - should HRC be barred from standing for office again given her comments in 2019?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
    Maybe. 3 things though:

    1. Hillary Clinton says she thinks Trump to be an illegitimate president - because of voter fraud.- not the election process itself. I don't think she was asking him to be removed.
    2. It depends whether her allegations and Trump's allegations of malpractice are true. I think there's more evidence for her allegations.
    3. Unlike Trump Clinton isn't proposing to stand for office.
    An accusation of illegitimacy without evidence is bad form, inappropriate, and should certainly be taken into account when considering voting for that person again. I'd not be comfortable doing so.

    It's deeply sad people have gone so far beyond just sour grapes comments now though.

  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    darkage said:

    nico679 said:

    Braverman must have something on Sunak given she seems to think she’s unsackable.

    I’m surprised though that she hasn’t done the martyr routine and resigned in protest at the cabinets stance on immigration .

    That way she can position herself as the darling of the right and hope to become leader when Sunak loses the GE.

    Seems Sunak is to consult his independent ethics advisor on his return to London

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1660355541187588096?t=ioEabeA9XlREWVk-PpmRrA&s=19
    I would be highly surprised if this isn't a storm in a teacup. She shouldn't have done what she did, and in an earlier time should have been sacked. After Johnson's behaviour, why should she go?
    I would normally be the last person to defend Braverman, but I am struggling to get past the confected outrage in all this. She had the same choice as potentially all of us, to pay the fine or attend a speed awareness course, she tried to establish whether she could in light of her position attend a speed awareness course alone and after a negative answer came back she then chose to pay the fine. Where's the scandal in that?

    I would much rather the Opposition direct their focus elsewhere and only concentrate upon meaningful scandal when it really occurs. Goodness knows there's enough rotten about what this government is doing to the country daily without being sidetracked like this. And the further danger is that we are devaluing some of the appalling real scandals of the Johnson years by equating them as somehow equivalent to this. It's the equivalent of the boy who cried "wolf". When the next really bad scandal occurs and the wolf really is at the door it'll pass us by as just another routine breach of the ministerial code, words that have been reduced to be now almost devoid of meaning.
    I can't work this out and who is benefitting from the 'leak' of this story. She is the home secretary. It looks like she needed to ask the civil service for some advice on what to do in light of her situation and she suggested a solution of her own (a 1 to 1 course), and then the civil service didn't want to help, and then leaked the whole thing with some kind of innuendo that she was acting inappropriately or had some kind of improper motivation. I'm not sure who she is supposed to ask for advice if not her own civil servants.
    Labour, the Lib Dems, all the other parties, and, by extension, the country.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Tories have now been in power for as long as New Labour.

    How does their record over the last 13 years compare?

    https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1659814983075495937

    At least Labour did some stuff, the Tories have done bugger all.

    Brexit was hardly bugger all, it was probably the biggest change in Britain's foreign policy since WW2. Nor was universal credit, free schools, reducing the levels of unemployment Labour left in 2010, taking the lowest earners out of income tax etc
    Brexit has been a disaster.

    Universal credit has been a disaster.

    Free schools have been a disaster.

    Unemployment is nominally reduced but more people than ever are IN WORK and claiming benefits.

    Taking lowest earners out of tax, was a Lib Dem policy!
    It has reduced immigration from the EU at least and regained some sovereignty which is what those voted for it for.

    Universal credit has ensured it always pays more to work, no matter how few hours, than stay on benefits full time.

    Free schools have like Birbalsingh's have been a triumph, offering more choice to parents, strong disciplne and excellent exam results and top university entrance.

    In 2010 Labour unemployment was 8% when Brown left office, it is now 4%.

    It was a Tory led government that took the lowest earners out of tax, even if the LDs also took credit for it
    Wut, they literally opposed the policy
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 93,404

    Corbyn and McDonnell barely talk any more, they fell out over Russia and haven't really been friends since.

    Well, he will always have Diane at least. Now there's a true comrade.

    It's so sad when implicit support for an autocratic regime's positions comes between friends.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,907
    I don't believe the tories want to win the next election. They want a brief period in opposition, preferably when labour don't have much of a majority, so they can come up with some new ideas for government.

    I think the 'culture wars' issues will work a lot better for the conservative party when they can try and pin the problem on the labour party being in power. As things stand they are rather impotent because they are complaining about things that are basically within their control.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 11,917
    darkage said:

    I don't believe the tories want to win the next election. They want a brief period in opposition, preferably when labour don't have much of a majority, so they can come up with some new ideas for government.

    I think the 'culture wars' issues will work a lot better for the conservative party when they can try and pin the problem on the labour party being in power. As things stand they are rather impotent because they are complaining about things that are basically within their control.

    The data in the header suggests the opposite
This discussion has been closed.