Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

5 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Michael Portillo was meant to be the shining knight for the Tory Party who was going to shake them up and make them a credible opposition to New Labour but he lost his seat on that night in 1997. Most people outside the Tory party thought that Ken Clarke was the sensible choice for leader (especially after Michael Heseltine's Heart Attack) but for the party he was too pro-European so they went with the untested William Hague (who might have made a good successor to one of the names above but he was plunged in too quickly) for these decisions they spent 13 years in opposition. However we don't know whether Clarke would have been able to put up a credible fight at the 2001 election which hardly saw any seats change hands from Labour to Conservative.

 

As to members of the cabinet who elicit respect. The discussion around who will lead the party after the election does not throw up names that inspire confidence. A lot will depend on the size and make-up of the rump of Conservative MPs left and who would want the job. By saying Penny Mordaunt sounds like the best of a bad bunch is really just demonstrating how bad things are

 

Sorry, realise I'm posting lots in a row but looks like I missed an interesting day of discussion! Catching up. Wonder if Portillo being seen as the 'heir apparent' in 1997  is the reason the 'Portillo moment' was so shocking? Not only had the Tories been hammered but the leader-in-waiting had lost a seat with a 15,000 vote majority. Clarke would have been such an improvement, but I don't think anybody was going to unseat Labour in 2001, they were still wildly popular. It all started to change in September that year, with 9/11 and Blair's obsession with backing up the US in the War on Terror.

 

Agree Penny is the best of the bunch in my eyes, but when her opposition consists of Suella, Kemi, Priti and Grant, what's that saying?

[TQR 14,387]

47 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

Agree Penny is the best of the bunch in my eyes

 

Penny is a) vile, b) ridiculous, and c) probably going to lose her seat. But that's okay, she's already sorted out her post-parliamentary career:

 

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

[Toast 16,137]

1 hour ago, RoverAndOut said:

Agree Penny is the best of the bunch in my eyes, but when her opposition consists of Suella, Kemi, Priti and Grant, what's that saying?

 

I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.

[The Old Crem 3,583]

2 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Sorry, realise I'm posting lots in a row but looks like I missed an interesting day of discussion! Catching up. Wonder if Portillo being seen as the 'heir apparent' in 1997  is the reason the 'Portillo moment' was so shocking? Not only had the Tories been hammered but the leader-in-waiting had lost a seat with a 15,000 vote majority. Clarke would have been such an improvement, but I don't think anybody was going to unseat Labour in 2001, they were still wildly popular. It all started to change in September that year, with 9/11 and Blair's obsession with backing up the US in the War on Terror.

 

Agree Penny is the best of the bunch in my eyes, but when her opposition consists of Suella, Kemi, Priti and Grant, what's that saying?

The public for quite a while supported the Iraq war. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/12483-remembering-iraq

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

28 minutes ago, Toast said:

I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.

 

Course not. She's got a blue rosette, that's a pre-requisite.

[Master Obit 830]

8 hours ago, Toast said:

 

I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.

I wouldn't either, but I'd be willing to give it a go. Preferably in to a cage of hungry lions.

[An Fear Beag 1,535]

On 13/04/2024 at 22:53, YoungWillz said:

Sunak was so quick out of the traps with his statement on the Iran attack on Israel. (Completely silent of course when Israel attacked the embassy in Syria).

 

So does he think getting involved will be his Falklands moment? He's seriously deluded if he thinks dragging the UK into this right now has much support in this country. Israel should exist, but this isn't our fight. Providing arms to Israel is really dodgy given what's going on in Gaza - an escalation which puts our bases in Cyprus and inevitably our own territory at risk isn't what I'd call a good move.

 

This isn't a vote winner. But as he clings to the last days of his Government, he could do some serious damage to us. 

 

Without ever being elected.

 

I disagree with your assessment of Sunak's motives for getting involved. You are correct- this is not a vote winner. Getting involved in yet another unwinnable war in the Middle East would be deeply unpopular in the UK, as it would also be for Biden in the US. If you and I both know that, then you can be absolutely sure that Sunak and Biden know it too. The last thing they need during an election campaign is pictures of body-bags being taken off aircraft. 

The only ones who benefit from an escalation between Israel and Iran is Netanyahu and his hard-line cronies. That's why he has been goading Iran for the past few months (not that those mad bastards need much goading). Iran has now kindly given Netanyahu exactly what he needed to cling on to power while his credibility over Gala tumbles. 

I think the reason that the UK and US have got involved in shooting down Iranian drones and missiles is that they had very little other choice. What was the alternative? Allow the drones and missiles to strike Israel and give Netanyahu even more of an excuse to ramp things up? I may be completely wrong on this, but it seems like the US and UK are trying to dampen things down and prevent an all-out escalation, rather than getting involved in an unwinnable war themselves.

 

I don't think for a minute that it will work. Netanyahu seems determined to dial things up to 11 regardless of the long term consequences, and the US and UK are in an almost impossible position of trying to both protect and dissuade their ally, who doesn't seem to be be paying them much attention. 

[YoungWillz 21,037]

5 minutes ago, An Fear Beag said:

 

I disagree with your assessment of Sunak's motives for getting involved. You are correct- this is not a vote winner. Getting involved in yet another unwinnable war in the Middle East would be deeply unpopular in the UK, as it would also be for Biden in the US. If you and I both know that, then you can be absolutely sure that Sunak and Biden know it too. The last thing they need during an election campaign is pictures of body-bags being taken off aircraft. 

The only ones who benefit from an escalation between Israel and Iran is Netanyahu and his hard-line cronies. That's why he has been goading Iran for the past few months (not that those mad bastards need much goading). Iran has now kindly given Netanyahu exactly what he needed to cling on to power while his credibility over Gala tumbles. 

I think the reason that the UK and US have got involved in shooting down Iranian drones and missiles is that they had very little other choice. What was the alternative? Allow the drones and missiles to strike Israel and give Netanyahu even more of an excuse to ramp things up? I may be completely wrong on this, but it seems like the US and UK are trying to dampen things down and prevent an all-out escalation, rather than getting involved in an unwinnable war themselves.

 

I don't think for a minute that it will work. Netanyahu seems determined to dial things up to 11 regardless of the long term consequences, and the US and UK are in an almost impossible position of trying to both protect and dissuade their ally, who doesn't seem to be be paying them much attention. 

Well, you are kind of agreeing with me if I'm reading that right.

 

Netanyahu will not care a jot what the UK says. Sunak should realise that, and concentrate on building up our own defence forces so easily and smugly dismissed for years under this Government. Remember what we were told? We didn't need conventional forces, all new threats would be cyber, yada yada.

 

Our enemies will be gloating at the draining of money and weaponry in proxy wars we need not be part of, although I agree with our involvement in Ukraine. This leaves us, an already weakened force both diplomatically and in arms, exposed, no matter how many expensive and non-usable nuclear weaponry we hold. We should concentrate on aid in Gaza alone imo. 

 

Netanyahu will not stop at Lebanon, Syria and Iran. He's lost it and there's no talking sense into him or his group of fanatics. Israel should be able to fight the missiles and drones itself. If it cannot, then the withdrawal of support at least from the UK, might have an effect.

 

If Netanyahu wants to turn his country to dust, that's his issue, not ours.

[An Fear Beag 1,535]

57 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

If Netanyahu wants to turn his country to dust, that's his issue, not ours.

 

I don't think it is that simple, to be honest. The US and UK are committed to the concept of a Jewish state in Israel, and it is not that easy to just walk away from that. Israel is considered to be an ally of both countries, and allies stick together, regardless of how crazy the current leader seems to be.

Its a bit like watching your coked-up mate trying to start a fight with some local scumbags, who you know are just itching to stick a knife in him. Do you walk away and leave him to his fate, however gruesome that might end up being, or do you stick around trying to talk him down until the coke wears off, knowing that you are probably going to catch a few bottles to the side of the head in the process. Very tempting to do the former, but its not what mates do.

 

Onw way or another, the US and UK are going to be involved. I suspect that they are aiming to stay involved at arms length as they currently are, shooting down drones and missiles and trying in vain to calm the situation down. Because if a situation arises where the existence of Israel is genuinely under threat, make no mistake that they will become far more heavily involved than they currently are, or than they would like to be. 

[YoungWillz 21,037]

1 hour ago, An Fear Beag said:

 

I don't think it is that simple, to be honest. The US and UK are committed to the concept of a Jewish state in Israel, and it is not that easy to just walk away from that. Israel is considered to be an ally of both countries, and allies stick together, regardless of how crazy the current leader seems to be.

Its a bit like watching your coked-up mate trying to start a fight with some local scumbags, who you know are just itching to stick a knife in him. Do you walk away and leave him to his fate, however gruesome that might end up being, or do you stick around trying to talk him down until the coke wears off, knowing that you are probably going to catch a few bottles to the side of the head in the process. Very tempting to do the former, but its not what mates do.

 

Onw way or another, the US and UK are going to be involved. I suspect that they are aiming to stay involved at arms length as they currently are, shooting down drones and missiles and trying in vain to calm the situation down. Because if a situation arises where the existence of Israel is genuinely under threat, make no mistake that they will become far more heavily involved than they currently are, or than they would like to be. 

Your coked up friend has a machine gun.

 

However, he insists on grabbing you and throwing you in front of him, while he shoots the innocent passers-by behind him (including your friends who were handing out burgers to the homeless), claiming they are all out to get him.

 

As I said before, the actual withdrawal of support or the threat thereof might do the trick. If not, let their wonderful Iron Dome protect them. What the hell are we doing failing to provide air cover to defend Ukraine, but sending our aircraft into battle in Israel?

[An Fear Beag 1,535]

4 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

As I said before, the actual withdrawal of support or the threat thereof might do the trick. 

 

And if it doesn't? 

 

Don't get me wrong. I see the attraction of the US and UK throwing their hands in the air and saying to Israel "well fuck you - you're on your own - do it your way." It would be my first instinct as well. However, if you do that, then you have to at least consider the possibility that Israel might actually lose. I doubt it would happen, given their military strength, but it is not an impossibility.  What happens if Russia or China intervenes (indirectly) on the other side? What happens if other Arab states use Israel's weakened position as an opportunity to get involved and seriously threaten the very existence of the state of Israel?  Do you really think that the US and UK are going to stand back and let that happen? Should they? In reality, they would still end up getting involved, but in a far worse situation than the one that currently exists. And if they didn't then intervene, what happens next? Do you think that Netanyahu is going to allow the destruction of Israel, without doing literally everything in his power to stop it, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons?

 

I understand why you would prefer that the UK were not involved, other than to protect the people of Gaza. However, I think that is naive and unrealistic. I would prefer that the US and UK were in there at least trying to hold Israel and Iran at arms length, even if it seems like a forlorn hope at present.

 

And to go back to my original point, I don't believe that Sunak's motivation is to have a "Falklands moment" and involve the UK in a war in the Middle East to boost support at home. I think that the motivation is more to try and prevent further escalation, however unlikely that might be.

[YoungWillz 21,037]

2 minutes ago, An Fear Beag said:

I understand why you would prefer that the UK were not involved, other than to protect the people of Gaza. However, I think that is naive and unrealistic. I would prefer that the US and UK were in there at least trying to hold Israel and Iran at arms length, even if it seems like a forlorn hope at present.

I think in the great scheme of things, the UK couldn't bat off an attack on our own soil today.

 

There's a reason why we don't send jets out to fight in other conflicts around the world, no matter the possibility of advantage to the other superpowers. It's naive and unrealistic to suggest we could fight those powers alone. I care naught here for the US and their participation, that's their issue.

 

Netanyahu has got Israel into this mess. He won't stop here. Our support of him and his regime could likely draw us into a wider conflict in the region. What's the problem with remaining neutral? Israel has been around for too long not to be able to fight its own battles. If it cannot fight those battles alone, then it should concentrate on defence, not attack other sovereign states' soil.

 

I've said before I have no issue with the existence of Israel. However, its current leaders have chosen a bellicose course which is their decision. 

 

We shall agree to disagree on this, I personally see no problem with us leaving it to the US, and staying out while we shore up our woeful defences.

[Toast 16,137]

Did anyone else see this BBC headline and initially think that Nicola Sturgeon had been charged by the police for being incredibly difficult?

Murrell police charge 'incredibly difficult' - Nicola Sturgeon

[Paul Bearer 6,101]

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

In "Scandal Bingo", surely this is "HOUSE!" 

 

 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

20 hours ago, The Old Crem said:

The public for quite a while supported the Iraq war. https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/12483-remembering-iraq

 

A million people marched through the streets of London in opposition. Then the bodies started coming back. And David Kelly died. And the 45-minute claim was nonsense. And the WMD never turned up. 2005 saw Labour lose 66 seats and see its majority cut by 101. In other words: saying September 11th, the War on Terror and Iraq had a material impact on the popularity of a Labour government who, up to then, had been focused mainly on (hugely successful and impactful) domestic reform is not a controversial position, and I don't know why you felt the need to "correct".

[The Old Crem 3,583]

55 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

A million people marched through the streets of London in opposition. Then the bodies started coming back. And David Kelly died. And the 45-minute claim was nonsense. And the WMD never turned up. 2005 saw Labour lose 66 seats and see its majority cut by 101. In other words: saying September 11th, the War on Terror and Iraq had a material impact on the popularity of a Labour government who, up to then, had been focused mainly on (hugely successful and impactful) domestic reform is not a controversial position, and I don't know why you felt the need to "correct".

True but only the Labour/ Lib Dem switchers were partly Iraq War based. The Tories backed the war in Iraq for example so anti Iraq war voters didn’t switch to them. 
 

Yiu have to remmeber the Iraq War protests were led by people many people in the UK dislike even if they were anti war as well. 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

Just now, The Old Crem said:

True but only the Labour/ Lib Dem switchers were partly Iraq War based. The Tories backed the war in Iraq for example so anti Iraq war voters didn’t switch to them. 
 

Yiu have to remmeber the Iraq War protests were led by people many people in the UK dislike even if they were anti war as well. 

 

Sigh...right and wrong once again. Anti-war protest votes were likely to go to the Lib Dems, true. But flipping to the Lib Dems is exactly what gave the Tories more seats. Their vote went up by 0.7% compared to 2001. Labour was down 5.5%. The Tories gained 33 seats.

 

And what has George Galloway got to do with anything? If anything, the most prominent anti-war voice was Charles Kennedy, who led the Liberal Democrats to their best ever result in a general election, so was plenty popular enough. It's not about who was making the arguments, it's simply the fact that the public believed we had gone without justification, authorisation or a plan for victory, but simply to back up Bush and the neo-cons. Blair pledging "we're with you" straight after 9/11 put us on a collision course and meant Labour's focus changed. Blair became seen as Bush's 'poodle', the Daily Mirror ran a "Days without WMD being found" that just kept climbing and the bodies kept returning to Wootton Bassett. You're being contrary just for the sake of it now, aren't you?

[Philheybrookbay1 247]

On 18/04/2024 at 21:18, RoverAndOut said:

 

Sorry, realise I'm posting lots in a row but looks like I missed an interesting day of discussion! Catching up. Wonder if Portillo being seen as the 'heir apparent' in 1997  is the reason the 'Portillo moment' was so shocking? Not only had the Tories been hammered but the leader-in-waiting had lost a seat with a 15,000 vote majority. Clarke would have been such an improvement, but I don't think anybody was going to unseat Labour in 2001, they were still wildly popular. It all started to change in September that year, with 9/11 and Blair's obsession with backing up the US in the War on Terror.

 

Agree Penny is the best of the bunch in my eyes, but when her opposition consists of Suella, Kemi, Priti and Grant, what's that saying?

Bit late to this conversation,  but yes Portillo was seen as the next leader by most political commentators- on YouTube you can watch the election result and there's a really interesting discussion at the beginning between Portillo and Paxman where it's clear Labour will get a landslide and that Major wouldn't survive. Taxman really presses Portillo on if he expected to be the next leader - the answer he dodges but clearly Portillo is thinking about it.

 

Of course - it all goes belly for Portillo and again after his result he's interviewed. Now he's relaxed, gloves are off and he says "well at least no more questions about becoming leader". 

 

We got Hague, a guy I like but was never PM material and it's important to bear in mind the next leader is very unlikely to be PM as the pendulum has swung for at least 2 elections IMHO. 

 

Mordant no chance of survival but I want to be up for the Rees- Mogg - that will be the moment hopefully!!!

[msc 18,439]

6 hours ago, Philheybrookbay1 said:

Bit late to this conversation,  but yes Portillo was seen as the next leader by most political commentators- on YouTube you can watch the election result and there's a really interesting discussion at the beginning between Portillo and Paxman where it's clear Labour will get a landslide and that Major wouldn't survive. Taxman really presses Portillo on if he expected to be the next leader - the answer he dodges but clearly Portillo is thinking about it.

 

Of course - it all goes belly for Portillo and again after his result he's interviewed. Now he's relaxed, gloves are off and he says "well at least no more questions about becoming leader". 

 

We got Hague, a guy I like but was never PM material and it's important to bear in mind the next leader is very unlikely to be PM as the pendulum has swung for at least 2 elections IMHO. 

 

Mordant no chance of survival but I want to be up for the Rees- Mogg - that will be the moment hopefully!!!

 

The weekend before the election, The Observer did a bunch of constituency polls, one of which showed Enfield Southgate as being only 3 points between Portillo and Twigg. This led to a vast influx of Labour volunteers to the seat on the final week. Anyhow, Portillo says he genuinely expected Paxman to bring this threat to his own seat up in their early discussion but Jeremy refused to. Even so, he thought it would be "worrisomely close" but not an actual defeat until he got to the count. 

 

In 2011, Ken Clarke did one of his Ken Clarke interviews (you know, drink in hand, no tact), and said he felt Hague had made the error of going to be elected leader a parliament too early, that he should have let Ken Clarke fail in the role in 97-01 and then take over when the shine fell off Blair. Now, Clarke would say that, and I think Hague had a bit of the Kinnock about him whenever he got elected as Tory leader, but in that same interview, Clarke suggested Ed Miliband had made the exact same error, and would have been better going for the Labour job in 2015-16 when the public would be more amenable to listening. Which also turned out true, though Labour's choice of Jeremy Corbyn somewhat negated any advances!

 

Also, while I don't think WIlliam Hague was PM material, he looked like bloody MacMillan or Disraeli next to Iain Duncan bloody Smith!

[Sly Ronnie 879]

IDS is another one to look out for on election night. Determined to stay and fight in his seat -  I reckon he's toast!

[TQR 14,387]

5 minutes ago, Sly Ronnie said:

IDS is another one to look out for on election night. Determined to stay and fight in his seat -  I reckon he's toast!

Fucking rude. @Toast

[Toast 16,137]

I've probably mentioned this before, but performance poet Luke Wright has written a poem about Iain Duncan Smith in which the only vowel used is i.

 

 

[The Old Crem 3,583]

The US House has approved the bill to ban Tik Tok