Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[TQR 12,148]

 

[TQR 12,148]

Pahahahahahahahahahaha

 

 

US Repubs are at least as shambolic as UK Tories.

[TQR 12,148]

Starmer’s speech…pfffft. He’s now saying “Take Back Control” like some Brexity droid. I despair at the direction he’s taking the Opposition.

[TQR 12,148]

[Windsor 2,143]

On 04/01/2023 at 17:52, TQR said:

Pahahahahahahahahahaha

 

 

US Repubs are at least as shambolic as UK Tories.

 

Currently losing his 10th vote.

 

Issue is the guy they are suggesting could be his replacement is possibly even worse than McCarthy.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,288]

There was a comparison on the radio earlier to the 1268 Papal election.  The debate lasted three years, during which 3 of the 21 Cardinal Electors died and the rest of them were locked into a palace until they came to an agreement.  When that failed, the Cardinals were put on half rations of food and when that didn't work either, the roof of the building was removed. 

[RoverAndOut 3,457]

This Speaker's election is as shambolic as you could possibly imagine. The process that began when John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate and unleashed the nutters who have now well and truly taken over the Republican Party (Palin --> Tea Party --> Trump --> Jan 6th --> Election Deniers) has now come to full fruition.

 

I've done quite a lot of studying on American politics during my education, but I've no idea on the particulars of electing a Speaker. What I have learned is that you don't need to be a member of the House to be Speaker of the House (which is why nut job Matt Gaetz keeps nominating Donald Trump). But I've also read that McCarthy could do with some Democrats to not come to the Chamber, as it would lower the threshold needed to win. So it seems that they only need a majority of the present representatives, rather than the full 435 in the Chamber. But the Democrats are loving the turmoil, and are dutifully voting each time for Hakeem Jeffries, who has won every vote so far, so McCarthy needs his 218 and is stuck at 200 with 20 holdouts. Now the conversation is shifting to adjournment but it seems that McCarthy can't corral enough votes to secure that now either, so they're stuck in this never ending spiral of votes with nothing changing. It seems Representatives will be leaving Washington tomorrow night for the weekend, whether adjournment has happened or not, and this will reduce McCarthy's vote count. But what I have been trying to wonder without finding an answer is: does this not mean that if Democrats stick around long enough, they'll have enough votes to put Jeffries over the top and install him as Speaker of the most unruly House in history?

 

The next 2 years are going to be chaos. The question is, will voters see this as a reason to give Republicans a solid majority that negates the Trump faction or will they punish them and give the Democrats a solid majority?

 

EDIT: Done some more digging. Appears that precedent says that the Speaker requires an absolute majority of members present and voting. There is absolutely no requirement that it is an absolute majority of the total house (218 of 435).

[lilham 649]

2 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

The next 2 years are going to be chaos. The question is, will voters see this as a reason to give Republicans a solid majority that negates the Trump faction or will they punish them and give the Democrats a solid majority?

 

It depends on each district. I think Boebert and the New York Republicans can easily lose their seats in two years. That Santos guy is an absolute mess; I have no idea if he is even going to make the two years as no one is even sure if he's Constitutionally eligible. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvm4kd/can-george-santos-serve-in-congress I do not think the press did a good job in reporting what was going on in these races, and I think that suppressed turnout.

I heard over a month ago that the Dems were planning to hold out and win the vote; the people voting for McCarthy do not even like or trust the man.

I think the way the House GOP is started with Newt Gingrich. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/04/newt-gingrich-started-us-road-ruin-now-hes-back-finish-job/

[RoverAndOut 3,457]

15 hours ago, lilham said:

I think the way the House GOP is started with Newt Gingrich. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/04/newt-gingrich-started-us-road-ruin-now-hes-back-finish-job/

 

That's fair. As late as the 80s, Tip O'Neill was doing deals with Reagan. When Gingrich took power in '94 (the first time the Republicans had held the Speakership in nearly 50 years), he hated Clinton and used his pulpit to attack him constantly. It was he that pushed for Impeachment in 1998, when neither Congress nor the American people were in favour. But there were certainly examples of bi-partisanship in the period after Gingrich left and before the 2008 election, McCain, Teddy Kennedy, Russ Feingold, among others. We're now in the ultra-polarised world where a Democrat helping get a moderate Republican over the line for the Speakership will be accused of being a Democrat In Name Only, while there are probably 6 Republicans who might be prepared to nominate Hakeem Jeffries to end the deadlock but the Trumpists would come after them with everything they've got in 2024 (see Liz Cheney, etc.) for not being conservatives at all.

 

Anyway, on Round 12, it seems McCarthy will have his highest total yet, somewhere in the region of 207-210 when all votes are in, which is still 8-11 short of what he needs, but may change the narrative and convince a few more of the holdouts that the game is up. God knows what he's given up overnight in order to get them to back him though...

[Murdoc 18]

The Capitol riot happened 2 years ago today. What happened to the last year and a half of my time?

[Thatcher 2,124]

Bolsonaro supporters going for Capitol Riot 2.0 and have stormed the Planalto Palace, National Congress and an attempt on the Supreme Court.

[Windsor 2,143]

Clearly as a Scottish person I am absolutely furious that Westminster have blocked our benevolent dictator's legisitation!

 

Scottish Gender Bill

I'm joking of course, but Sturgeon is already outraged.   

[Clorox Bleachman 2,016]

4 minutes ago, Windsor said:

Clearly as a Scottish person I am absolutely furious that Westminster have blocked our benevolent dictator's legisitation!

 

Scottish Gender Bill

I'm joking of course, but Sturgeon is already outraged.   

I'm not outraged either! Mostly amused that a civil rights issue has led to the end of devolution as we know it. Not those crazy nats besieging Faslane and declaring an exit from NATO. Nope, trans rights.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,211]

33 minutes ago, Windsor said:

Clearly as a Scottish person I am absolutely furious that Westminster have blocked our benevolent dictator's legisitation!

 

Scottish Gender Bill

I'm joking of course, but Sturgeon is already outraged.   

Where do you think this saga will go?

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,211]

24 minutes ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

I'm not outraged either! Mostly amused that a civil rights issue has led to the end of devolution as we know it. Not those crazy nats besieging Faslane and declaring an exit from NATO. Nope, trans rights.

I do get the impression that more people in the SNP party membership but also their voters are starting to lose faith in Nicola Sturgeon and her ability to deliver Scottish independence. 

[Windsor 2,143]

36 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Where do you think this saga will go?

It will clearly become the new big issue to get independence as Westminster have acted against the will of the Scottish people. 
 

Expect to hear a lot of the membership of the SNP, who were against the Bill, be outraged at Westminster blocking it when only a month ago they were outraged that it was passed. 
 

Sadly most Scots these days live to be offended or hard done by. It’s a pastime. 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,211]

36 minutes ago, Windsor said:

It will clearly become the new big issue to get independence as Westminster have acted against the will of the Scottish people. 
 

Expect to hear a lot of the membership of the SNP, who were against the Bill, be outraged at Westminster blocking it when only a month ago they were outraged that it was passed. 
 

Sadly most Scots these days live to be offended or hard done by. It’s a pastime. 

Or maybe could it  cause a massive split amongst the SNP membership ?

What twitter can tell us is limited  but there do seem to be more supporters of Scottish independence saying on twitter etc that they think Nicola Sturgeon is not committed to a  Scottish independence referendum and is stringing them along,  Scathing in particular about her idea to use an election as a quasi referendum. 

[Windsor 2,143]

20 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Or maybe could it  cause a massive split amongst the SNP membership ?

What twitter can tell us is limited  but there do seem to be more supporters on Scottish independence saying on twitter etc that they think Nicola Sturgeon is not committed to a  Scottish independence referendum and is stringing them along,  Scathing in particular about her idea to use an election as a quasi referendum. 

The split has largely happened already. Although not an exact science, most of the nationalists who oppose the Bill - from what I can see - are now in the Alba Party. 
 

Sturgeon probably has until the next election and she’s finished. She is for independence but if she calculates wrongly, she’ll have to resign like Salmond. She likes to power too much to risk losing it prematurely.

 

In my view, she is safe in her current line as the SNP membership know she is an asset. Whoever comes next won’t have the same appeal as, rather frustratingly for people like me, she is an excellent politician. 

[Clorox Bleachman 2,016]

34 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Or maybe could it maybe cause a massive split amongst the SNP membership ?

What twitter can tell us is limited  but there do seem to be more supporters on Scottish independence saying on twitter etc that they think Nicola Sturgeon is not committed to a  Scottish independence referendum and is stringing them along,  Scathing in particular about her idea to use an election as a quasi referendum. 

Doesn't matter that opinion is split.

 

All MSPs were allowed to vote whichever way they wanted. The rhetoric is that when they vote together, they're puppets; when they don't, the party is falling apart. 2/3rds of MSPs from the SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Conservatives voted in favour of the bill, and it passed fair and square.

 

I don't see this veto improving Scotland-UK relations in any case. The de-facto referendum is probably not happening, but blocking votes won't make the problem go away.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,211]

8 minutes ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

Doesn't matter that opinion is split.

 

All MSPs were allowed to vote whichever way they wanted. The rhetoric is that when they vote together, they're puppets; when they don't, the party is falling apart. 2/3rds of MSPs from the SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Conservatives voted in favour of the bill, and it passed fair and square.

 

I don't see this veto improving Scotland-UK relations in any case. The de-facto referendum is probably not happening, but blocking votes won't make the problem go away.

 Thanks.

I do recall hearing some political journalists say on a podcast  that on most issues Westminster veteoing  a vote in Holyrood would have Scottish public opinion against them but they were doing some private polling that was apparently telling them on this specifiic issue Scottish public opinion would support the veto or overruling by Westminster. 

I suspect the polling informed Sunaks decision but it will be interesting to see if the polling claim of public support turns out to be accurate. 

[Windsor 2,143]

9 minutes ago, Clorox Bleachman said:

I don't see this veto improving Scotland-UK relations in any case. The de-facto referendum is probably not happening, but blocking votes won't make the problem go away.

 

The de-facto referendum is a ploy to win more seats. 

The way the votes are now split along party lines they know that if they can get 35-50% in each constituency that will serve them well in the first-part-the-post system. Its an act of genius by the SNP to save the fact that they are slowly but surely losing seats at Westminster and to deal with the potential loss of seats because of ALBA taking even as little as 5-10% or less in some constituencies. 

 

This isn't about independence. Its about power and perception of strength.

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,211]

24 minutes ago, Windsor said:

The split has largely happened already. Although not an exact science, most of the nationalists who oppose the Bill - from what I can see - are now in the Alba Party. 
 

Sturgeon probably has until the next election and she’s finished. She is for independence but if she calculates wrongly, she’ll have to resign like Salmond. She likes to power too much to risk losing it prematurely.

 

In my view, she is safe in her current line as the SNP membership know she is an asset. Whoever comes next won’t have the same appeal as, rather frustratingly for people like me, she is an excellent politician. 

Thanks. 

She will have been in power ten years late 2024 and nearly 11 and a half years by the 2026 Holyrood election.  Is there a danger she will lose her magic touch while in office after all that time in power like Thatcher did?

[Windsor 2,143]

43 minutes ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

Thanks. 

She will have been in power ten years late 2024 and nearly 11 and a half years by the 2026 Holyrood election.  Is there a danger she will lose her magic touch while in office after all that time in power like Thatcher did?

 

Who will replace her? She has been clever enough to surround herself with incompetents and amoebas.

 

Mind you, that didn't stop them getting rid of Boris... 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,211]

9 minutes ago, Windsor said:

 

Who will replace her? She has been clever enough to surround herself with incompetents and amoebas.

 

Mind you, that didn't stop them getting rid of Boris... 

I can't remember her name but a Scottish cabinet minister who has a baby recently and went on maternity leave? Kate someone?

[Windsor 2,143]

1 minute ago, Gooseberry Crumble said:

I can't remember her name but a Scottish cabinet minister who has a baby recently and went on maternity leave? Kate someone?

 

She's a nobody. Not particularly talented.