Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[DCI Frank Burnside 2,918]

[prussianblue 807]

1 hour ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

 

Lt. Gruber may have been a hapless member of an army of occupation, but he was still far more competent and likeable than Hancock.

[maryportfuncity 10,044]

FFS - may you live in interesting times, or what?

 

[prussianblue 807]

Nobody seems to mention the Lib Dems much these days, despite the Tories going down the drain and the growing interest in tactical voting. Reform seem to be the much more potent danger in the eyes of party and media.

[DCI Frank Burnside 2,918]

 

 

[TQR 12,606]

31 minutes ago, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

That was one day before the LEs. Now let's have a look 5 days hence:

 

 

18% is 1% lower than Liz Truss in the aftermath of the KamiKwasi budget. Kuenssberg would describe Labour's 30pt lead as 'marginal'.

[maryportfuncity 10,044]

15 minutes ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

 

 

 

 

Man, this is getting tasty - any Tory will a semblence of thinking they've got a career might feel themselves obliged to distance themselves from Sunak and tell him to take ownership of this shit, effectively they'd be acting like independents but staying in the fold (obviously a few in parliament fancying the easier gig of managing a devastated party in the wake of an electoral massacre). Rishi's fucked if he does and fucked if he doesn't and we might get a repeat of the rats off the ship scenario that left Johnson unable to persuade people into the cabinet. Seriously, watching scheduled telly (i.e. the news) might become a thing again!

[msc 17,849]

22 minutes ago, prussianblue said:

Nobody seems to mention the Lib Dems much these days, despite the Tories going down the drain and the growing interest in tactical voting. Reform seem to be the much more potent danger in the eyes of party and media.

 

Nobody was really talking about them last week, yet the Lib Dems took about 100 council seats off the Tories whereas Reform won...2.

 

The Lib Dem vote actually went down in 1997 but they more than doubled their number of MPs because they laser focused on about 70 constituencies and won 46 of them. 

 

History often repeats, I find.

[Bibliogryphon 8,779]

12 minutes ago, msc said:

 

Nobody was really talking about them last week, yet the Lib Dems took about 100 council seats off the Tories whereas Reform won...2.

 

The Lib Dem vote actually went down in 1997 but they more than doubled their number of MPs because they laser focused on about 70 constituencies and won 46 of them. 

 

History often repeats, I find.

 

They are expected to make gains in areas where Labour have never really done well

 

The Southwest in particular.

 

The Tories lost all their councillors in Cheltenham which was a seat held by the Lib Dems between 1992 and 2015 currently held by minister Alex Chalk

[DCI Frank Burnside 2,918]

Wonder how vunerable Rees Mogg is ?

 

That one would be really enjoyable

[msc 17,849]

25 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

They are expected to make gains in areas where Labour have never really done well

 

The Southwest in particular.

 

The Tories lost all their councillors in Cheltenham which was a seat held by the Lib Dems between 1992 and 2015 currently held by minister Alex Chalk

 

Yes, I know! Rural southern areas that think Labour is some form of witchcraft. Chalk is set to Defcon Fucked, as they say.

[TQR 12,606]

4 minutes ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

Wonder how vulnerable Rees Mogg is?

 

He has a 14k majority and Labour have been polling higher there for a while now. Likely fucked, though 'likely' would be 'certainly' if the Lib Dems could be persuaded to vote tactically. 

 

I've got a bottle of bubbly waiting for the Rees-Mogg moment.

[TQR 12,606]

[RoverAndOut 3,646]

5 hours ago, TQR said:

 

Ok, so I'm also very uncomfortable with Natalie Elphicke being a Labour MP, even if it is only for a few months. It's shameless opportunism from Elphicke, as her natural home would be joining 30p Lee in Reform. But there's absolutely no way that Labour could refuse her, because if they say no, they're also saying anybody who has views similar to her don't share Labour ideals, and while that may be true, what they're actually hoping is that a few people who agreed with Natalie on the boats and other nonsense might join her in switching their votes to Labour. I get that all the polls say Labour are on course for a good victory, a landslide even, and they could afford to be more confident and choosy, but there's no way that's happening after 1992 and 2015. They will shill for every vote going, and if that means smiling and shaking hands with Natalie Elphicke while she says Keir Starmer has revolutionised the Labour Party and the Tories are a mess, then so be it.

 

8 hours ago, prussianblue said:

Nobody seems to mention the Lib Dems much these days, despite the Tories going down the drain and the growing interest in tactical voting. Reform seem to be the much more potent danger in the eyes of party and media.

 

Reform are not a danger from the perspective that they have hugely widespread support, more because of the effect they're likely to have on the governing Tory party. Every extra percentage point for Reform is almost certainly one less for the Tories, and that puts a lot more seats in play for Labour, and therefore could have a significant impact on the outcome of the election. The Lib Dems have carved out their own niche, so don't especially take votes specifically from Labour or the Tories per se, although they'll undoubtedly play a part in unseating Tories in the southern constituencies. But they'll still be fairly small players in the new Parliament - Davey will have hopes that, with the SNP's woes in Scotland, they may be able to return to being the third party.

 

7 hours ago, msc said:

Nobody was really talking about them last week, yet the Lib Dems took about 100 council seats off the Tories whereas Reform won...2.

 

The Lib Dem vote actually went down in 1997 but they more than doubled their number of MPs because they laser focused on about 70 constituencies and won 46 of them. 

 

History often repeats, I find.

 

Agreed, it does feel that the Lib Dems are around their 1997 position again, although their percentage is still squeezed considerably from their 2010 heights  Lib Dem record since 1987 (when it was the Alliance):

 

1987 - 22 (22.6%)

1992 - 20 (17.8%)

1997 - 28 (16.8%)

2001 - 52 (18.3% - Charles Kennedy was such a savvy politician)

2005 - 62 (22%)

2010 - 57 (23%)

2015 - 8 (7.9%)

2017 - 12 (7.4%)

2019 - 11 (11.6%)

Current status: 15 (9% in latest poll)

 

You'd say, based on that, a 1997-style result in seat numbers would be a big improvement, doubling their total. But Electoral Calculus is mind blowing. Based on their latest seat calculator from the end of April, with just 9.6% of the vote, the Lib Dems could get a low total of 19, a predicted total of 50(!!!) and a high total of 61, which would basically match their high watermark. I mean, 50 seats with less than 10% of the popular vote? That's 1997 on steroids!

[TQR 12,606]

6 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Ok, so I'm also very uncomfortable with Natalie Elphicke being a Labour MP, even if it is only for a few months. It's shameless opportunism from Elphicke, as her natural home would be joining 30p Lee in Reform. But there's absolutely no way that Labour could refuse her, because if they say no, they're also saying anybody who has views similar to her don't share Labour ideals, and while that may be true, what they're actually hoping is that a few people who agreed with Natalie on the boats and other nonsense might join her in switching their votes to Labour. I get that all the polls say Labour are on course for a good victory, a landslide even, and they could afford to be more confident and choosy, but there's no way that's happening after 1992 and 2015. They will shill for every vote going, and if that means smiling and shaking hands with Natalie Elphicke while she says Keir Starmer has revolutionised the Labour Party and the Tories are a mess, then so be it.

 

I'm all for shredding the fuck out of the Tories in any way possible but this, I think it could cause as much harm for Labour as help. Elphicke is a step too far and I'd not be surprised if it loses them votes from the left (not enough to trouble them, but a few nonetheless). Dan Poulter last week, you could feasibly accept, with his solid pro-NHS stance, but to accept hard-right people like Elphicke? Even only short-term, that a) smacks of desperation from Labour (completely unnecessarily; yeah yeah 1992 and all that but come on, their position now is by most metrics much better than it was then), and b) adds to the whole (mostly unfair) notion that Labour don't know what they stand for anymore.

 

Jon Sopel off of the News Agents podcast said it best recently: a party that includes both Zarah Sultana and Natalie Elphicke is a church so broad it's offering bar mitzvahs.

[RoverAndOut 3,646]

39 minutes ago, TQR said:

I'm all for shredding the fuck out of the Tories in any way possible but this, I think it could cause as much harm for Labour as help. Elphicke is a step too far and I'd not be surprised if it loses them votes from the left (not enough to trouble them, but a few nonetheless). Dan Poulter last week, you could feasibly accept, with his solid pro-NHS stance, but to accept hard-right people like Elphicke? Even only short-term, that a) smacks of desperation from Labour (completely unnecessarily; yeah yeah 1992 and all that but come on, their position now is by most metrics much better than it was then), and b) adds to the whole (mostly unfair) notion that Labour don't know what they stand for anymore.

 

Jon Sopel off of the News Agents podcast said it best recently: a party that includes both Zarah Sultana and Natalie Elphicke is a church so broad it's offering bar mitzvahs.

 

The laugh was for Jon Sopel's comment, he's really found his voice since leaving the BBC. I don't disagree, I suppose from Labour's perspective what's better? Attracting some voters from the right who would otherwise be supporting Reform or the Tories, who hate everything Labour stand for, or holding on to some left wing votes, who will otherwise drift to the Lib Dems or Greens, who will be largely sympathetic to Labour's objectives in government.

 

It did cross my mind today whether or not Elphicke is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and her defection was designed to be disruptive to Labour - a suicide bomber of sorts, some kind of desperate ploy to disrupt Labour from the right when nothing else has worked. I'll say it again: SHE SHOULD BE IN REFORM!

[maryportfuncity 10,044]

9 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

The laugh was for Jon Sopel's comment, he's really found his voice since leaving the BBC. I don't disagree, I suppose from Labour's perspective what's better? Attracting some voters from the right who would otherwise be supporting Reform or the Tories, who hate everything Labour stand for, or holding on to some left wing votes, who will otherwise drift to the Lib Dems or Greens, who will be largely sympathetic to Labour's objectives in government.

 

It did cross my mind today whether or not Elphicke is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and her defection was designed to be disruptive to Labour - a suicide bomber of sorts, some kind of desperate ploy to disrupt Labour from the right when nothing else has worked. I'll say it again: SHE SHOULD BE IN REFORM!

 

 

Aye, if her thinking was more joined up I could be persuaded by the suicide bomber theory, but we're talking someone who makes Nadine Dorries look like a genius. Just a guess, she likes the perks of parliament and thinks Labour might just gift her a chance to fight another seat, hopefully miles away from the sacked locals who once worked on cross channel ferries and now want to kill her.

[Toast 15,025]

So .... is she now a Labour MP?  Shouldn't she be an Independent for the rest of her tenure?

It doesn't seem right to me that an MP elected presumably on the basis of their party manifesto is just allowed to change sides.

There should be a by-election in such cases.

[RoverAndOut 3,646]

4 minutes ago, Toast said:

So .... is she now a Labour MP?  Shouldn't she be an Independent for the rest of her tenure?

It doesn't seem right to me that an MP elected presumably on the basis of their party manifesto is just allowed to change sides.

There should be a by-election in such cases.

 

She's been accepted into the Labour Party and is now subject to the Labour whip. So, yes, she's a Labour MP. Same as happened with Poulter and the bloke in Bury and 30p Lee going to Reform. The by-election argument has been made many times, and is not without merit. In fact, 30p Lee himself made that argument previously, but shockingly disagreed when it referred to himself. Imagine that. Some MPs have fought by-elections to reaffirm the support of their constituents, namely Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell when they quit the Tories for UKIP. Both won their seats back.

[Toast 15,025]

https://themovementforward.com/letter/?utm_campaign=homepage

Sign at the link.

 

Dear Prime Minister,

We, the British public, hereby write to express our collective vote of no confidence in your government. 

After 14 years of Tory chaos, enough is enough.

Poll after poll shows there is no confidence in you or this government.

We, therefore, demand a General Election NOW. It’s crucial to let us take back control and determine the future of our nation.

Yours sincerely,

The People of The UK

P.S. We’d also like our democracy upgraded so our votes actually count, and we can vote with our values in future.

[DCI Frank Burnside 2,918]

Smith is arguably one of the biggest what if's in British Political History

 

 

 

[RoverAndOut 3,646]

1 hour ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

Smith is arguably one of the biggest what if's in British Political History

 

I miss this era of politics, when debates were meaningful and those participating were intelligent and erudite. Smith would, I'm sure, have made a fine Prime Minister. Would Brown have been his natural successor? And, if so, what would that have meant for Tony Blair? What If indeed. I was only 5 when Smith died, so I haven't seen much of him in action, thanks for posting.

[msc 17,849]

13 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

I miss this era of politics, when debates were meaningful and those participating were intelligent and erudite. Smith would, I'm sure, have made a fine Prime Minister. Would Brown have been his natural successor? And, if so, what would that have meant for Tony Blair? What If indeed. I was only 5 when Smith died, so I haven't seen much of him in action, thanks for posting.

I remember the news broke when we were on a day out and there were adults crying their eyes out over his death. Hard to imagine that for a current politician.

 

Closest in my time was a glass raised in the pub to Robin Cook.

 

A glass raised in the pub in tribute to Charles Kennedy didn't feel appropriate given the circumstances!

[TQR 12,606]

Blair was LotO by the time I was born because I'm so youthful but my Lib Dem (read: flaky centrist) parents both always said they'd have gone Labour for John Smith if he'd had the chance to fight an election.

 

Agree with Rover, Commons debates have steadily descended into the toilet for the last decade and a half, it'd be so great to be back in an era where all sides of the house could be respected for their knowledgability, integrity and professionalism.

 

 

3 minutes ago, msc said:

I remember the news broke when we were on a day out and there were adults crying their eyes out over his death. Hard to imagine that for a current politician.

 

I dunno, I think Rishi Sunak crashing to the ground in a burning helicopter would quite probably have me crying (with laughter).

[YoungWillz 19,350]

1 hour ago, msc said:

I remember the news broke when we were on a day out and there were adults crying their eyes out over his death. Hard to imagine that for a current politician.

 

Closest in my time was a glass raised in the pub to Robin Cook.

 

A glass raised in the pub in tribute to Charles Kennedy didn't feel appropriate given the circumstances!

On the day Thatcher died, I raised a glass. Actually several. The celebration that she was well and truly gone from this Earth went on all afternoon.