Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[The Old Crem 3,576]

On 22/07/2024 at 15:17, TQR said:

Since becoming PM, Keir Starmer's net approval rating has gone from -1% to +19%, and feelings of optimism has surged from 31% of the public to 45%.

 

It might be about to get even better, too; one of the major points of criticism from a lot of people was the failure of him and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to commit to scrapping the two-child benefit cap, but Starmer and Ed. Sec. Bridget Phillipson are now saying the measure is being considered in their child poverty review.

 

I say again, apart from Wes Sterfing, it's been a great start to this new era.

Well it’s never happening now. 

[TQR 14,352]

59 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Well it’s never happening now. 

 

You saying that gives me more confidence that it will.

[RoverAndOut 4,726]

1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

Actions have consequences.

 

Thank you for that, Confucius. 

 

1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

Well it’s never happening now. 

 

Yes. You're quite right, of course. A no vote in Parliament on an amendment not backed by the government three weeks into office which was disobeyed by 7 government MPs is absolutely set in stone for all time. Or, in other words: fuck all the way off, would you please? 

[The Old Crem 3,576]

17 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Thank you for that, Confucius. 

 

 

Yes. You're quite right, of course. A no vote in Parliament on an amendment not backed by the government three weeks into office which was disobeyed by 7 government MPs is absolutely set in stone for all time. Or, in other words: fuck all the way off, would you please? 

I mean why would the government u turn and the next budget and be seen to give those 7 a sense of victory. I might be wrong but to me they have just assured it will never be a rabbit in the hat for future budget I suspect. You can tell on Twitter how most labour moderates are reacting - which is that it’s good news that those 7 are gone and that they mustn’t be seen to win. 

[The Old Crem 3,576]

16 minutes ago, TQR said:

 

You saying that gives me more confidence that it will.

I do get some things right some of the time. 

[TQR 14,352]

Just now, The Old Crem said:

I do get some things right some of the time. 

 

Only on days when you don't post on here, which is an unfortunately rare event.

[RoverAndOut 4,726]

12 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I mean why would the government u turn and the next budget and be seen to give those 7 a sense of victory. I might be wrong but to me they have just assured it will never be a rabbit in the hat for future budget I suspect. You can tell on Twitter how most labour moderates are reacting - which is that it’s good news that those 7 are gone and that they mustn’t be seen to win. 

 

Perhaps to prove to those 7 that instead of taking matters into their own hands, they should trust Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the Labour government this country just put into office when they say there's a plan. If it's their intention down the line to remove the cap, then they will do it, irrespective of tonight's vote and irrespective of whether the likes of John McDonnell think it should have happened sooner.

 

11 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

I do get some things right some of the time. 

 

As the saying goes, a  stopped clock is right twice a day.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

7 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Perhaps to prove to those 7 that instead of taking matters into their own hands, they should trust Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the Labour government this country just put into office when they say there's a plan. If it's their intention down the line to remove the cap, then they will do it, irrespective of tonight's vote and irrespective of whether the likes of John McDonnell think it should have happened sooner.

 

 

As the saying goes, a  stopped clock is right twice a day.

Maybe but who knows. It certainly won’t be the next budget as that’s during the six month suspension. But even afterwards it will now been spun by the opposition as Labour bowing down to the left. 
 

This is a member of Labour’s NEC.

 

[RoverAndOut 4,726]

On 20/07/2024 at 14:56, DCI Frank Burnside said:

Dennis at his very best. He'd have wasted no time in reminding the Tories about the shitshow they left yet again

 

This deserved more of a reaction when you posted it. Excellent rhetoric from Dennis, nice to see someone with white hair make a positive case for foreigners coming into this country! (And I know he's not the only one, but older people do have a certain reputation when it comes to immigration).

[RoverAndOut 4,726]

2 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Maybe but who knows.

 

Not you, that's for fucking sure.

 

3 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

But even afterwards it will now been spun by the opposition as Labour bowing down to the left. 

 

So? Who cares what the opposition say? Labour have got 170-seat majority, they can spin it how ever they like, if Labour do a good job they'll spend another 5 years in opposition regardless. They'll do what they think is right and prudent when time and money allows. In the meantime...shut up!

[The Old Crem 3,576]

9 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Not you, that's for fucking sure.

 

 

So? Who cares what the opposition say? Labour have got 170-seat majority, they can spin it how ever they like, if Labour do a good job they'll spend another 5 years in opposition regardless. They'll do what they think is right and prudent when time and money allows. In the meantime...shut up!

I suspect this is same person whose briefing’s cause the Diane Abbott mess. 
 

Surprisingly she wasn’t among the 7.

[msc 18,397]

Christ, fucking off Rover is like fucking off Michael Palin while he's on weed.

 

No offence, Rover!

[RoverAndOut 4,726]

Just now, msc said:

Christ, fucking off Rover is like fucking off Michael Palin while he's on weed.

 

No offence, Rover!

 

You haven't seen me on the King of Songs games, clearly. 

[TQR 14,352]

2 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

You haven't seen me on the King of Songs games, clearly. 

 

Difference is, in KoS your anger is normally because the shite has been binned off, in total contrast to this thread 

[The Old Crem 3,576]

7 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

You haven't seen me on the King of Songs games, clearly. 

I’m sorry I upset you.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

Jonathan Pie nails it 

 

 

 

[YoungWillz 20,918]

14 hours ago, Ulitzer95 said:

7 Labour MPs suspended by Starmer for supporting an SNP amendment.
 

Doesn’t seem very democratic…

Seems draconian, what is this - a Politburo? 

 

Lest we forget Johnson actually went and expelled Soames et al for daring to defy him.

 

Change certainly, but all the same.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

54 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Seems draconian, what is this - a Politburo? 

 

Lest we forget Johnson actually went and expelled Soames et al for daring to defy him.

 

Change certainly, but all the same.

It’s called keeping party discipline. 

[TQR 14,352]

Rishi Sunak's detoxifying rebrand is clearly in full swing. Meanwhile, Jimmy Dimly remains an angry little prick on the opposition front benches, muttering bile and swears to himself while shaking his head vigorously cos he's so bleedin' 'ard. Best of luck with the leadership contest, James.

[YoungWillz 20,918]

34 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

It’s called keeping party discipline. 

Ah, let me clear.

 

I have no issue either way, it is clear that these MPs were elected on a platform which excluded removing the two child cap. They then chose to vote against that and voted against a King's Speech in part - the 7 Labour MPs are culpable in that. I see the dear leader is now being termed Sir Kid Starver - whoever came up with that needs a knighthood.

 

But it is again putting party over country. The last thing the country needs is more politicking.

 

What happened to respectful disagreement? What happens if there is a major rebellion? Starver has set a precedent here - could he go six months having suspended say 100+ MPs?

 

Who knows what tomorrow brings? Alas, as I say, they are all the same and they have more in common than divides them. 

[The Old Crem 3,576]

6 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Ah, let me clear.

 

I have no issue either way, it is clear that these MPs were elected on a platform which excluded removing the two child cap. They then chose to vote against that and voted against a King's Speech in part - the 7 Labour MPs are culpable in that. I see the dear leader is now being termed Sir Kid Starver - whoever came up with that needs a knighthood.

 

But it is again putting party over country. The last thing the country needs is more politicking.

 

What happened to respectful disagreement? What happens if there is a major rebellion? Starver has set a precedent here - could he go six months having suspended say 100+ MPs?

 

Who knows what tomorrow brings? Alas, as I say, they are all the same and they have more in common than divides them. 

I think he would actually consider that.

[TQR 14,352]

7 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

But it is again putting party over country.

 

That is absolute bobbins of an almost Crem-like order.

 

Starmer has been crystal clear of his position on only implementing costed policies in an effort to restore the stability (economic and otherwise) the country desperately needs. Whilst Labour at large should be making clearer their long-term intentions when it comes to scrapping the cap, members creating rebellions and demanding immediate action when the costings for it haven't been worked out is not the way to go about enacting change - it merely rocks the boat and introduces unwanted heat into a situation which was being reviewed anyway. For Starmer to reduce his own majority in the quest for stability is to put country first.

[YoungWillz 20,918]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

 

That is absolute bobbins of an almost Crem-like order.

 

Starmer has been crystal clear of his position on only implementing costed policies in an effort to restore the stability (economic and otherwise) the country desperately needs. Whilst Labour at large should be making clearer their long-term intentions when it comes to scrapping the cap, members creating rebellions and demanding immediate action when the costings for it haven't been worked out is not the way to go about enacting change - it merely rocks the boat and introduces unwanted heat into a situation which was being reviewed anyway. For Starmer to reduce his own majority in the quest for stability is to put country first.

Bobbins? On this thread? (see what I did there?).

 

Starver could simply have ignored such a minor rebellion when he has such a majority and moved on, claiming the high ground that he has already instigated a review. Seems nonsense to me. There is no doubt that these 7 MPs are voting against their own manifesto on which they were elected. Instead he has added heat to the situation and that seems unnnecessary at this time.

 

Party dramas - fuck that. 

 

I'm sure there will be better things to nail Labour to the wall in due course. Meantime, if Starver wants to continue Tory child poverty for now which he promised in his manifesto and hopes that business investment and growth might cure that ill in due course, that is his prerogative. Relying on big business and foreign investment to sort things out? We'll be watching.

 

And I do consider and detail my responses - equating that with one sentence opinion from other members which gain your ire are beneath you. 

[En Passant 3,731]

 

As an MP belonging to a political party as opposed to a complete independent you are, like it or not, at least somewhat beholden to the party that supported you to get there. There may well on occasion be justifiable reasons to vote against that party, as a matter of representing a particular constituency or even as a matter of personal conscience but this doesn't appear to be one of them. It looks like grandstanding.

 

As TQR rightly points out this is one of the things the party will doubtless be getting to in due course. It's far far too early to begin this sort of divisive behaviour when it achieves nothing.

 

Or simply abstain eh?

 

I never consider my opinions, I just spout 'em out , so there's that.

it's better than TOC though, def.