Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Wasn't it Hunt who advocated a draconian Chinese style lockdown during Covid? There's no doubt he'll use his new role to angle for another failed leadership bid. Hard to see any way back for the Tories...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rangercol
For me, the only way back for the Tories is to agree quickly who will replace Truss, and get them in place fast. Sunak is the obvious choice since at least he can say to the nation that he was a voice in the wilderness against Truss's proposals. He can gain some credibility there, although no doubt Labour will bring up his wealth, wife's tax affairs and the green card. Sunak would need a Chancellor of the Exchequer who agreed with him and would work with him.
 
Last edited:
Stroller said:
Why would a GE make things more unstable? Three PMs in a few months is instability. We need a government with a mandate from the country. Truss doesn't have one and nor will her replacement.
Click to expand...
The instability of the last few months has nothing to do with the ‘mandate’ whatever that means and everything to do with the behaviour and competence of members of the government and, latterly, international capital’s response to it, combined with the bloodlust of Tory backbenchers worried about their jobs. Jim Callaghan never won an election as PM and led a minority government for three years, Truss’/ the Tories mandate is much stronger than his was.

You might argue that another flavour government might be better behaved (hopefully) and more competent (no evidence, but could hardly be worse) and would act entirely within the bounds permitted by the markets (by the cautious, risk averse, non committal look of Starmer, likely) and this would bring stability. Perhaps, but this assumes a decent majority (those shy Tories will be back voting at an election, Corbyn!), and well behaved parliamentary party. Not sure about the latter. I might be wrong but I felt the 97 Labour landslide was a bit more than ‘we’re sick of the Tories’ it included a positive vote for the slick New Labour machine, and new MPs felt they owed Blair etc their seats. No one will be voting positively for Starmer, he’s an empty space, it’s just about dumping this lot.

In addition we’ve had a summer of rudderless government while the Tories chose their useless leader. What would spark an election would be another coup d’etat by Tory MPs, another dead zone leadership campaign and then the new person deciding they needed an election to justify their position, so call one they are certain to lose, the only gamble being by how much. And stop governing for the duration of the campaign. All at a time of national and international crisis. I suppose if we believe no government at all is better than the current one that could be attractive.

Fiddling while Rome burns. But my perspective is probably not important, given that I think the system is part of the problem. So I’m probably wrong, and an election might be cathartic for many. Best result in terms of genuine ‘representation’ would probably be a hung Parliament and a coalition government including parties with more than 50% of the vote collectively. Now that would be a mandate. But doubtless it would create ‘instability’ as the traditional British way in politics has been defiantly anti cooperation, and sections of the media would dance around screaming ‘weakness’ at every compromise.

****ing hell, I’ve droned on and on and on. Probably makes no sense, using the post to think.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr, Steelmonkey and Taffvalerowdy
sb_73 said:
The instability of the last few months has nothing to do with the ‘mandate’ whatever that means and everything to do with the behaviour and competence of members of the government and, latterly, international capital’s response to it, combined with the bloodlust of Tory backbenchers worried about their jobs. Jim Callaghan never won an election as PM and led a minority government for three years, Truss’/ the Tories mandate is much stronger than his was.

You might argue that another flavour government might be better behaved (hopefully) and more competent (no evidence, but could hardly be worse) and would act entirely within the bounds permitted by the markets (by the cautious, risk averse, non committal look of Starmer, likely) and this would bring stability. Perhaps, but this assumes a decent majority (those shy Tories will be back voting at an election, Corbyn!), and well behaved parliamentary party. Not sure about the latter. I might be wrong but I felt the 97 Labour landslide was a bit more than ‘we’re sick of the Tories’ it included a positive vote for the slick New Labour machine, and new MPs felt they owed Blair etc their seats. No one will be voting positively for Starmer, he’s an empty space, it’s just about dumping this lot.

In addition we’ve had a summer of rudderless government while the Tories chose their useless leader. What would spark an election would be another coup d’etat by Tory MPs, another dead zone leadership campaign and then the new person deciding they needed an election to justify their position, so call one they are certain to lose, the only gamble being by how much. And stop governing for the duration of the campaign. All at a time of national and international crisis. I suppose if we believe no government at all is better than the current one that could be attractive.

Fiddling while Rome burns. But my perspective is probably not important, given that I think the system is part of the problem. So I’m probably wrong, and an election might be cathartic for many. Best result in terms of genuine ‘representation’ would probably be a hung Parliament and a coalition government including parties with more than 50% of the vote collectively. Now that would be a mandate. But doubtless it would create ‘instability’ as the traditional British way in politics has been defiantly anti cooperation, and sections of the media would dance around screaming ‘weakness’ at every compromise.

****ing hell, I’ve droned on and on and on. Probably makes no sense, using the post to think.
Click to expand...

Are we at the end yet?

I dozed off! :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffranger and Steelmonkey
sb_73 said:
The instability of the last few months has nothing to do with the ‘mandate’ whatever that means and everything to do with the behaviour and competence of members of the government and, latterly, international capital’s response to it, combined with the bloodlust of Tory backbenchers worried about their jobs. Jim Callaghan never won an election as PM and led a minority government for three years, Truss’/ the Tories mandate is much stronger than his was.

You might argue that another flavour government might be better behaved (hopefully) and more competent (no evidence, but could hardly be worse) and would act entirely within the bounds permitted by the markets (by the cautious, risk averse, non committal look of Starmer, likely) and this would bring stability. Perhaps, but this assumes a decent majority (those shy Tories will be back voting at an election, Corbyn!), and well behaved parliamentary party. Not sure about the latter. I might be wrong but I felt the 97 Labour landslide was a bit more than ‘we’re sick of the Tories’ it included a positive vote for the slick New Labour machine, and new MPs felt they owed Blair etc their seats. No one will be voting positively for Starmer, he’s an empty space, it’s just about dumping this lot.

In addition we’ve had a summer of rudderless government while the Tories chose their useless leader. What would spark an election would be another coup d’etat by Tory MPs, another dead zone leadership campaign and then the new person deciding they needed an election to justify their position, so call one they are certain to lose, the only gamble being by how much. And stop governing for the duration of the campaign. All at a time of national and international crisis. I suppose if we believe no government at all is better than the current one that could be attractive.

Fiddling while Rome burns. But my perspective is probably not important, given that I think the system is part of the problem. So I’m probably wrong, and an election might be cathartic for many. Best result in terms of genuine ‘representation’ would probably be a hung Parliament and a coalition government including parties with more than 50% of the vote collectively. Now that would be a mandate. But doubtless it would create ‘instability’ as the traditional British way in politics has been defiantly anti cooperation, and sections of the media would dance around screaming ‘weakness’ at every compromise.

****ing hell, I’ve droned on and on and on. Probably makes no sense, using the post to think.
Click to expand...

Well, a mandate is supposed to be derived by telling people what you would do in government and getting them to vote for it, isn't it? This lot are a million miles from the 2019 Tory manifesto. Having said that, Johnson won with 'Get Brexit Done' and an opposition leader that frightened the horses, not so much whatever else was in his manifesto. I think an election would indeed be cathartic and really is the best way forward. Latest polling suggests a Labour majority of 184 if there was an election tomorrow, which is why there won't be one of course. However, surely a third different PM in one parliament should necessitate one. The Tories would probably get a big bounce by installing Sunak, so maybe he would be tempted. He and his tax-avoiding missus can **** off to the US when he loses.

Starmer's apparent boringness has become a vote-winning characteristic after all the madness of recent months and his speech at the Labour conference got me back on board, particularly the proposals for a publicly owned Great British Energy and for renationalising the railways.
 
Last edited:
sb_73 said:
The instability of the last few months has nothing to do with the ‘mandate’ whatever that means and everything to do with the behaviour and competence of members of the government and, latterly, international capital’s response to it, combined with the bloodlust of Tory backbenchers worried about their jobs. Jim Callaghan never won an election as PM and led a minority government for three years, Truss’/ the Tories mandate is much stronger than his was.

You might argue that another flavour government might be better behaved (hopefully) and more competent (no evidence, but could hardly be worse) and would act entirely within the bounds permitted by the markets (by the cautious, risk averse, non committal look of Starmer, likely) and this would bring stability. Perhaps, but this assumes a decent majority (those shy Tories will be back voting at an election, Corbyn!), and well behaved parliamentary party. Not sure about the latter. I might be wrong but I felt the 97 Labour landslide was a bit more than ‘we’re sick of the Tories’ it included a positive vote for the slick New Labour machine, and new MPs felt they owed Blair etc their seats. No one will be voting positively for Starmer, he’s an empty space, it’s just about dumping this lot.

In addition we’ve had a summer of rudderless government while the Tories chose their useless leader. What would spark an election would be another coup d’etat by Tory MPs, another dead zone leadership campaign and then the new person deciding they needed an election to justify their position, so call one they are certain to lose, the only gamble being by how much. And stop governing for the duration of the campaign. All at a time of national and international crisis. I suppose if we believe no government at all is better than the current one that could be attractive.

Fiddling while Rome burns. But my perspective is probably not important, given that I think the system is part of the problem. So I’m probably wrong, and an election might be cathartic for many. Best result in terms of genuine ‘representation’ would probably be a hung Parliament and a coalition government including parties with more than 50% of the vote collectively. Now that would be a mandate. But doubtless it would create ‘instability’ as the traditional British way in politics has been defiantly anti cooperation, and sections of the media would dance around screaming ‘weakness’ at every compromise.

****ing hell, I’ve droned on and on and on. Probably makes no sense, using the post to think.
Click to expand...

You looking for Clives job? <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffranger, bobmid and rangercol
Stroller said:
Well, a mandate is supposed to be derived by telling people what you would do in government and getting them to vote for it, isn't it? This lot are a million miles from the 2019 Tory manifesto. Having said that, Johnson won with 'Get Brexit Done' and an opposition leader that frightened the horses, not so much whatever else was in his manifesto. I think an election would indeed be cathartic and really is the best way forward. Latest polling suggests a Labour majority of 184 if there was an election tomorrow, which is why there won't be one of course. However, surely a third different PM in one parliament should necessitate one. The Tories would probably get a big bounce by installing Sunak, so maybe he would be tempted. He and his tax-avoiding missus can **** off to the US when he loses.

Starmer's apparent boringness has become a vote-winning characteristic after all the madness of recent months and his speech at the Labour conference got me back on board, particularly the proposals for a publicly owned Great British Energy and for renationalising the railways.
Click to expand...
With an unwritten constitution they can make **** up as they go along. Nothing in the rule book about mandates, number of PMs between elections etc, because there isn’t really a rule book.

If it makes people feel better let’s have a GE. And if one side or another gets a massive majority let’s see how that helps with energy prices, inflation, COVID (not gone away), Ukraine, collapsing public services, etc etc. Frankly, while I’m not against it, renationalising the railways will not address any of the pressing issues and will doubtless cost public money, it’s window dressing, and Greater British Energy PLC is a complete red herring - its a start up company not something created out of nationalising existing investments, it will have no assets apart from public money, it will compete with existing renewable companies for the same land and sea space. A nationalisation of power generating assets would be far more radical.

One of my many problems is an inability to have confidence in politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taffvalerowdy
sb_73 said:
With an unwritten constitution they can make **** up as they go along. Nothing in the rule book about mandates, number of PMs between elections etc, because there isn’t really a rule book.........................
.................One of my many problems is an inability to have confidence in politicians.
Click to expand...

Your problem is not just local.
Our so-called political representatives must engage is regular correspondence with your lot because ours are no different.

We have a new Prime Minister who has been consistent in reneging on every policy promise he made in the run up to the election.
I tell you, they couldn't lie straight in bed. They are a bunch of jelly backs, looking for a spine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoop-Leif, Taffvalerowdy and kiwiqpr
Can't say I blame them. Our bonkers #NetZero policies have made energy so expensive in the UK we can barely afford to turn on the lights. Meanwhile in China, they're merrily burning cheap coal to manufacture our 'Green' EV cars for us. Remind me again - what have we achieved?
Quote Tweet






You must log in or register to see images


BBC News (UK)
@BBCNews
·
Oct 16
Electric Mini production to move from Oxford to China https://bbc.in/3ThohRq
 

didnt know they had qualified

Labour has signalled that it will be boycotting the World Cup in Qatar, citing the treatment of construction workers and the criminalisation of same-sex relationships
You must log in or register to see images
:
@McGrathDominic


You must log in or register to see images

standard.co.uk
Labour preparing to boycott Qatar World Cup
The party has signalled that it will be boycotting the tournament, citing the treatment of construction workers and LGBT people in Qatar.

7:1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back