Forum menu
Oh my goodness
Just for the pure incandescent rage that Johnson, Dories, that prick of a Durhma MP, all teh Daily Mail hacks etc will be feeling
Good week for Paul Dacre so far. Boris ousted, no fine for Sir Kier, Mail article on Harry deemed defamatory by a judge. Thoughts and prayers, hope his peerage is still going to be OK.
This bit of fluff and nonsense properly tickled me…
https://twitter.com/daviemoo/status/1545387367938359296?s=21
Well I'm sure it's the correct decision, I'm just slightly disappointed that it hasn't created the perfect opportunity for a change of leadership in parallel with the Tories.
So looks like they're pushing for VONC in the government next week. It's going to take a while for me to process that.
Won't the Tories just jump to?
So looks like they’re pushing for VONC in the government next week. It’s going to take a while for me to process that.
Won’t the Tories just jump to?
Now they have to either back Johnson- which looks deeply hypocritical and a lot of MPs still furious with him, or risk a GE if they cant form an alternatvie government, ie get rid of Johnson
I don't think they care about looking deeply hypocritical would be my hunch.
They will just say party above Boris.
Or perhaps they will totally unload.
Who the hell knows?
They could put anyone up as leader and the idiots will vote them back in
I don’t think they care about looking deeply hypocritical, unless they just want to totally unload.
I think its just going to play on the splits in the party
and there is a chance it could see Johnson out sooner, which would be better for the country
Could Johnson pull a fast one and call a general election first?
Given he's going down what's the precedent here? He's smug enough to go to the electorate. Avoid the VONC?
Could Johnson pull a fast one and call a general election first?
The Queen could legal block the request under the 'dissolution principles" :
A government document called "dissolution principles" sets out the requirements under which the PM can ask the Queen for an early election, including:
The PM maintains support as the leader of the government
The Queen should not be drawn into party politics
It could be quite easily argued that Johnson was in breach of those two principles.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-62064552
Refer to the Lascelles Principles which detail the circumstances under which the monarch can reject a PM's request to hold a GE.
The principles didn't apply while the fixed term parliament act was in effect but, since it's repeal, there has been a presumption the principles are now operational again.
johnson could choose to test that presumption.
I’m just slightly disappointed that it hasn’t created the perfect opportunity for a change of leadership in parallel with the Tories
I share that feeling. Never had any doubt they'd be cleared, there was no case... but some sneaky way of shaking Labour up and swapping out Mr Boring and Unconvincing for someone else would be more exciting. Still, I'll be out for Labour, even if safe and boring is the at the centre of the offering. I've seen enough of Conservative led governments now, thanks.
I’ve seen enough of Conservative led governments now, thanks.
It's so anxiety inducing that for 2/3 of my 50 years on this earth that's all we've known.
We have no concept of better. The bar has been set so low.
It's rotten.
Alternatively, maybe more people in the UK have wanted a tory government than any other for those 50 years (within the bounds of the crappy voting/election system we have in UK)
I'd quite happily vote for someone boring who has integrity and seems to be genuinely interested in helping people and the country.
If the test is: Would you happily sit down for a beer with them? I'd much rather sit down with Sir Kier Starmer and have an intelligent conversation about Britain, the EU and the Energy Future than with Boris Johnson on the same topics and be ultimately regaled with stories of Pepper Pig Land.
Alternatively, maybe more people in the UK have wanted a tory government than any other for those 50 years (within the bounds of the crappy voting/election system we have in UK)
Clearly, but it still drains me and I'm peddling a middle class lifestyle.
But also they've been misled us about what constitutes an apor8 economic model - they were told that government's can run out of money so you can't have good services. So if you're doing well and you believe your taxes pay for things, then you're going to avoid paying tax aren't you? And punch down.
Hence the spiral of inequality.
You know voting for a government is much like voting for brexit - the truth or the best policies don't necessarily get the votes.
If the test is: Would you happily sit down for a beer with them? I’d much rather sit down with Sir Kier Starmer and have an intelligent conversation about Britain, the EU and the Energy Future than with Boris Johnson on the same topics and be ultimately regaled with stories of Pepper Pig Land
I'd feel like I was wasting my time with either, and clearly Johnson would be better entertainment but I get your point.
This amused me no end...
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/lol-confirm-starmer-and-rayner-20220708223100
Alternatively, maybe more people in the UK have wanted a tory government than any other for those 50 years
Jesus man change the record. This is literally the only point you ever post on here. And it’s wrong!
If the test is: Would you happily sit down for a beer with them?
That is a very bad test as that's what won Boris the election and what has led us to this shitty situation.
But also they’ve been misled us about what constitutes an appropriate economic model.
Bad typo spotted
I’d quite happily vote for someone boring...
That's good to hear, I would too - if I agreed with their policies.
The problem for Starmer is that according to him it is his own shadow cabinet who are accusing him of being boring
Which is not a good thing especially when it is linked with claims that he has failed to clearly articulate what Labour stands for or enthuse the public. Quote:
"Starmer has been accused by senior colleagues in recent days of failing to articulate clearly what Labour stands for or to enthuse the public about his leadership."
Ian Duncan Smith famously declared in a speech to the Tory Party Conference when he was party leader, "Do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man". He might well have been very determined but he was gone as party leader a year later. I think politics is unlikely to be kind to party leaders who try to make a virtue out of being boring.
That prick of a Durham MP is my MP. Does anyone know whether I would get prosecuted for wasting police time if I reported him for wasting police time? His intervention was clearly a political stunt. I notice he could get 6 months- or, more aptly, a fixed penalty notice.
Personally, I think Boris should have gone for a GE ...
Then if Starmer wins he can be PM and that will be the test ... pandemic, fuel cost, food shortages ... let's see what drum he will bang on ... let's see if the Labour lot can be creative which I doubt so.
Can anyone tell me what Sir Keir Starmer actually stands for? I mean does he have any actual policies? I am afraid that he hasn't got a hope in hell of becoming PM IMO. Boris has been the worst PM in living memory and still Sir Keir Starmer has failed to score the open goals.
That's what we all chomp on about.
Can anyone tell me what Sir Keir Starmer actually stands for? I mean does he have any actual policies?
Sure. Here are 10 clearly stated policies, in his own words, covering a whole range of issues which concern ordinary people:
https://mobile.twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1227500443682529281
If you haven't read before they are well worth a read - they are all extremely good and they all tackle important issues in a very sensible and unambiguous manner which I am sure many voters would find very easy to support. IMHO. I don't know why he doesn't talk about them more.
Well he appeared to stand for all those good things in Feb 2020 and agree he should be talking about them at every opportunity - the question is why doesn't he?
Does he not really stand for them anymore or does he not think they will go down well?
What happened in 2020 stays in 2020.
Starmer has a damn good opportunity now to redefine ideas and start really pushing back.
It's as good a chance as he's got.
But I'm expecting very little. I think he's too terrified to present a left-wing scroll of ideas for fear of criticism from the press.
Shame as the public are drowning.
I want to see some passion and courage from Labour. You know when they're needed the most.
Like now.
Was watching something last night where the 1945 Labour Party came in and the changes they made. Could do with that sort of Labour Party now...
Exactly.
Let's leave the baggage behind, we know going forward it's a risk worth taking.
When the financial/banking sector failed - it was an immediate package of nationalisation and support (remember the uptick from 50,000 to 85,000 for savers fund guarantee?) All done whilst in the EU I may add - just to note.
All hands to the deck back then for the financial establishment.
And yet here we are with I would say much worse situation. What's it going to take?
I see France has just moved to effectively fully nationalise EDF.
When the banking sector failed – it was an immediate package of nationalisation and support (remember the uptick from 50,000 to 85,000 for savers fund guarantee?) All done whilst in the EU I may add – just to note.
All hands to the deck back then for the financial establishment.
And yet here we are with I would say much worse situation. What’s it going to take?
The financial crash was a much bigger issue, you had the immediate issue of the banks falling over, with job losses and people's savings and other assets at risk, you then had businesses around the country who count on their overdraft facility and so on to keep in business, it was a huge spiders web, with banks at the centre, but almost everyone affected by it, the pound could have tanked as well, causing even more panic.
It's the reason the EU, US, etc all did the same, the biggest gripe is that the most of the people who were to blame have ever seen a jail cell, they got out with their money and enjoyed having the governments bail them out.
Sorting out the current issues is just a myriad of things, it's amazing that prices go up fast during inflation, but rarely come back down during any reduction.
The financial crash was a much bigger issue, you had the immediate issue of the banks falling over, with job losses and people’s savings and other assets at risk, you then had businesses
I don't think it was a much bigger issue. The pandemic showed that the number one issue in a modern society is getting food/supplies out to people. If that breaks down - forget your banking sector.
The finance thing couldn't have possibly have collapsed because we like to protect the asset class.
So I take you're point but ultimately you're defending the status quo rather than the wider impact on the population of tangible goods, energy, food - cost of living. (Although it's hard to ignore how all these things are linked to an electronic payment system.)
Currently we are in a survivable but steady state decline and given adminstrations appear to only offer solutions when things are utterly broken rather than be preventative - I wouldn't count my chickens.
Sorting out the current issues is just a myriad of things, it’s amazing that prices go up fast during inflation, but rarely come back down during any reduction.
Price gouging.
See mortgage rates too.
When the financial/banking sector failed – it was an immediate package of nationalisation and support (remember the uptick from 50,000 to 85,000 for savers fund guarantee?) All done whilst in the EU I may add – just to note.
It was widely accepted at the time that government's huge intervention almost certainly broke EU rules, no one cared however because of the enormity of the crises. Economic sovereignty concerning the ability of national governments to intervene, set taxes as they feel appropriate, maintain monopolies, etc, outside times of severe crises, is absolutely essential imo. Not everyone agrees.
When the financial/banking sector failed – it was an immediate package of nationalisation and support
One of the lasting memories I will have of the crises was the moment it was revealed that the majority of mortgages in the United States were in effect owned by the US government. George Bush entered his presidency as a committed neo-con and left the presidency as a socialist.
Does he not really stand for them anymore or does he not think they will go down well?
It is hard to argue that much in Starmer's 10 pledges is controversial. Just take pledge number 8 for example:
Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords - replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
I would suggest that it is an extremely easy proposal to sell to voters, Tory politicians obviously wouldn't agree but I believe that the point of Labour is to offer an alternative to the Tories, not dream up ideas which Tories feel they can support. The other 9 pledges whilst not everyone will agree on them most reasonable people would have their work cut out arguing against them.
Sky News: Labour leader Keir Starmer criticises Conservative leadership contenders for using 'fantasy economics'.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-leader-keir-starmer-criticises-conservative-leadership-contenders-for-using-fantasy-economics-12649725
Starmer really is trying very hard to beat the Tories at their own game and offer Labour as the party of fiscal prudence, the question is will he win?
For a start he will probably have to come up with economic policies more right-wing than the Tories, and up until now he has been extremely reluctant to talk about Labour's policies.
Secondly he will have to come up with better stuff than saying:
"Over the weekend, the contenders have made more than £200bn of unfunded spending commitments. Let that sink in"
Because if you do as he says and let it sink in then simple arithmetic will make you realise that the £200bn of allegedly unfunded spending commitments just reflects the fact that there are a lot of contenders, currently 10 I believe. Presumably if there were 20 contenders the figure could be £400bn.
Then there is this problem:
As he delivers a speech in the North East, the Labour leader is also expected to hit out at Tory MPs who served in Boris Johnson's government for their "hypocrisy" over backing tax hikes, despite being "opposed to them all along".
It comes after Jeremy Hunt and Sajid Javid threw their hats into the race to be the next prime minister by saying they would scrap plans to raise corporation tax from 19% to 25% and instead cut it to 15%.
Should Starmer really be drawing people's attention to corporation tax "hypocrisy"?
This is what Starmer had to say about corporation tax when he was desperate to win an election:
"Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax"
This was Starmer after he had won the election:
https://www.cityam.com/keir-starmer-pushes-boris-johnson-to-rule-out-corporation-tax-rise/
So Starmer has gone from criticising the Tories for cutting corporation tax to criticising the Tories for increasing corporation tax.
No doubt Starmer would dismiss his own hypocrisy over corporation tax by claiming that he was simply adapting to changing circumstances, he has after all very recently publicly extolled the virtues of 'changing your mind'.
The problem is that the current Tory leadership contenders could argue the same point, plus add as they weren't party leaders their choices were very limited, unlike Starmer.
Starmer really needs to stop using the word hypocrisy when attacking the Tories.
https://twitter.com/evolvepolitics/status/1546447198438756353
Starmer asking the Tories where they are getting the money from. Magic money tree blah blah.
Implying we won't be able to spend ourselves.
Lies, and a complete misunderstanding of the UK's finances.
The man's a first class idiot. Giving Labour supporters nothing to look forward to.
You know I really can't stand him, he's destroying hope in real-time.
(Starmer where did the 400 billion Covid package come from that you supported? Has it been paid back? Did it saddle us with higher taxes? Will it cause future generations issues? NO to all.)
No doubt Starmer would dismiss his own hypocrisy over corporation tax by claiming that he was simply adapting to changing circumstances, he has after all very recently publicly extolled the virtues of ‘changing your mind’.
He hasn't got a clue.
For a start he will probably have to come up with economic policies more right-wing than the Tories, and up until now he has been extremely reluctant to talk about Labour’s policies
It's a race to starve the country of prosperity just for the sake of appearing prudent. Like a two horse race off a cliff.
he has after all very recently publicly extolled the virtues of ‘changing your mind’.
Viewers in Scotland, look away now.
If it was all that simple, ramp up spending borrow / print more money, keeps taxes low someone would have done it by now, Johnson for example who would do anything to be popular or are you suggesting there's some sort of cross party conspiracy that only the left aren't part of?
Not sure why he isn't pushing for corporation tax rises as they would be popular amongst voters, maybe he knows how badly borked the economy is, I'm fairly sure he wont be doing it to make the lot of the average voter worse.