Do you want to discuss boring politics? (10 Viewers)

[PVA]

Seemingly no one is willing to come out and bat for Johnson this morning.

Put out the Dorries signal!

 

---

[PVA]

Well it's easy to say it every time, but this does push Johnson a bit closer to going, as he's currently a massive elctoral liability. The difference to past regimes is it's hard to see him actually resigning himself, and they can't force him out for another year!

If they want another vote they can just change the rules.

Which I think seems quite likely at this stage

 

[David O'Day]

For everyone bar johnson

He's the main reason they lost Tiverton according to polling.

He's that much of any electoral drag opposition parties must secretly want him to lead the tories at the next GE

 

[NorthernWisdom]

But we know that Johnson already has no credibility. He also has no morals. He wouldn't care how Starmer resigning would make him look, he'd just carry on as normal.

So how would it be convenient if he doesn't care?

 

[Evo1883]

Can't last much longer can he ?

 

[shmmeee]

Honestly think Starmer getting an FPN would work out well for Labour.

 

[Evo1883]

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Honestly think Starmer getting an FPN would work out well for Labour.

No FPN, Johnson stays until next election, I think a competent if dull man in a suit plays well against him. No FPN, Johnson leaves and, say, Jeremy Hunt takes over, voters tend to go for the blue man in a suit vs the red one. FPN, Starmer leaves, Labour get new leader bounce regardless of whether Johnson stays or goes, so can ameliorate him going to a certain extent. There's also something to be said for a gritty northern leader in opposition to southern-based Tory.

Of course the danger is the membership elect Richard Burgon!

 

[David O'Day]

Seemingly no one is willing to come out and bat for Johnson this morning.

Put out the Dorries signal!

That is known as the twat signal

 

[PVA]

So how would it be convenient if he doesn't care?

Because Starmer resigning would be the perfect distraction from the by election hammering.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Got to agree with shmmee unless the party turns itself upside down electing a new leader

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Because Starmer resigning would be the perfect distraction from the by election hammering.

It wouldn't, for the reasons I said above.

 

[CCFCSteve]

This is why Tories should’ve waited until now for confidence vote

 

[CCFCSteve]

Dowden has resigned, I wonder if more will follow.

Also there are rumours that a FPN could be announced for Starmer today. Which would of course be incredibly convenient timing for the Tories and definitely not bent, no siree.

To be fair, if they’d announced before people would’ve argued it would influence by elections

 

[CCFCSteve]

Got to agree with shmmee unless the party turns itself upside down electing a new leader

…..and who new leader is. I might be wrong but I always thought Starmer (still might if rumours are wrong) would deliver proper policy plans nearer to election. In which case he would 100% be electable, especially if against Johnson. NWs right though, if Tories replace Johnson with a boring but competent (not a given !!), he’d be up against it

 

[Grendel]

Honestly think Starmer getting an FPN would work out well for Labour.

how?

 

[Sick Boy]

I see your link and raise you

Being emotive around veterans is yet another imported American culture war.

 

[PVA]

It wouldn't, for the reasons I said above.

You don't think Starmer resigning would distract from by election defeats?!

It'd obviously be headline news, the by elections wouldn't even get a mention.

It doesn't matter how it would reflect on Johnson

 

[NorthernWisdom]

You don't think Starmer resigning would distract from by election defeats?!

It'd obviously be headline news, the by elections wouldn't even get a mention.

It doesn't matter how it would reflect on Johnson

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Johnson's the drag!

 

[duffer]

…..and who new leader is. I might be wrong but I always thought Starmer (still might if rumours are wrong) would deliver proper policy plans nearer to election. In which case he would 100% be electable, especially if against Johnson. NWs right though, if Tories replace Johnson with a boring but competent (not a given !!), he’d be up against it

I think you've mistaken the English electorate for people who give a fuck about policies. They don't.

Similarly, I think you've mistaken a man who looks half decent in a suit, with a tidy haircut, as someone fundamentally honest and trustworthy. He isn't.

What will do for the Tories is simply that the electorate (who primarily treat politics now as Love Island, but in formal dress), think it's time for a change.

On that basis it might be better for the Labour party to have a leader who actually stands for something and will genuinely drive change, rather than just another oily liar who will say anything to get himself elected.

I say this as a former Labour party member who voted for Starmer as the leader, and then watched him disregard every pledge that he made.

I'm glad that the Tories are getting a kicking at the moment, but anyone who thinks that the Labour party under Starmer will make any great difference to the direction of travel of this country is in for a bit of a surprise.

A new leader of the Tories without all of Johnson's baggage might be enough of a change for Tory voters to forget all of the shit things that their party does.

In that case Starmer is toast anyway; no one who's serious about politics can make a case based on non-existent policies, and he hasn't got enough charisma for the "game show" voters (who are in the majority anyway).

 

[skybluetony176]

You don't think Starmer resigning would distract from by election defeats?!

It'd obviously be headline news, the by elections wouldn't even get a mention.

It doesn't matter how it would reflect on Johnson

Not as much as Starmer not resigning should he get a FPN would.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

A little history lesson for those who weren't there

Of course there were many reasons for Blair's landslide, not least the fact he was a great communicator and speach maker. But it was also disillusionment with the Tories and a desire for change. The same party had been in power for over a decade by that point, and they were seen as riddled with sleaze and corruption. Major tried to address that with his disastrous Back to Basics campaign, which just resulted in every Tory with a skeleton in their closet being outed!

The economy was actually doing reasonably well, but there was the impression, after the ERM fiasco, that control had been lost.

So, we don't have the good communicator and speach maker in opposition. We do have a party there for over a decade, and we do have said party riddled with sleaze and corruption. Johnson staying merely highlights that, you can't brush it under the carpet. *If* Starmer were to resign after an FPN, it would serve to put the spotlight on that. Starmer going isn't a distraction, it would put the emphasis on the difference between the parties as they stand, and show how changing the government refreshes such a thing.

And of course there are the micro climates where there's corruption in Labour yadda yadda, but it's the popular narrative that counts. Despite everything, people like to think the government's got your back - it's how Johnson ended up there in the first place.

Now, the perception is that he doesn't, and everything that highlights that is a bad thing for the Conservatives' electoral chances.

As has just been shown.

 

[skybluetony176]

Lord Frost all over the details as usual

 

[Sick Boy]

I think you've mistaken the English electorate for people who give a fuck about policies. They don't.

Similarly, I think you've mistaken a man who looks half decent in a suit, with a tidy haircut, as someone fundamentally honest and trustworthy. He isn't.

What will do for the Tories is simply that the electorate (who primarily treat politics now as Love Island, but in formal dress), think it's time for a change.

On that basis it might be better for the Labour party to have a leader who actually stands for something and will genuinely drive change, rather than just another oily liar who will say anything to get himself elected.

I say this as a former Labour party member who voted for Starmer as the leader, and then watched him disregard every pledge that he made.

I'm glad that the Tories are getting a kicking at the moment, but anyone who thinks that the Labour party under Starmer will make any great difference to the direction of travel of this country is in for a bit of a surprise.

A new leader of the Tories without all of Johnson's baggage might be enough of a change for Tory voters to forget all of the shit things that their party does.

In that case Starmer is toast anyway; no one who's serious about politics can make a case based on non-existent policies, and he hasn't got enough charisma for the "game show" voters (who are in the majority anyway).

If the Tories get a new leader it’ll be game over for Starmer. They’re good at creating a narrative where they distance themselves from the previous administration, almost as though they’re a separate party…and depressingly people fall for it.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

But it is pretty selfish ultimately, because it's only your offspring you're bothered about. If it gives your kids more but other kids end up suffering because of it, so be it. You got what YOU wanted.

I'm fine with people wanting to protect their kids and family - it's one of the most basic traits ingrained in us and many other species. A roof over their heads, food in their belly and being happy.

But at the same time I acknowledge that every single other person wants that too. I know there will be people who find this hard to fathom, but when I think of other people even though I don't know them I put myself into the position of if I did - if they were my nan, brother, mum - and what would I want for them. Because the alternative is looking at them and thinking "why should I give a fuck about them?", which is the mindset you're ultimately supporting. So while you're putting your own kids first, it would mean that every single other person doesn't give a shit about them. If your kids suffer so their family can have more then that's the way it's got to be. You're advocating a system whereby everyone else will be looking to take from your kids at any opportunity and not care about them. That seems like a very odd thing to desire for your children.

So instead why shouldn't I look at ways to achieve what every single one of us wants together, rather than fighting each other and everyone ending up being unhappy and huge numbers failing in such a basic task? You say how difficult it is for your kids to buy a home, and you're right. But is the problem there caused by people like yourself and your kids wanting to buy a home or the greedy bastards who own loads of them, use them to line their own pockets and still want more. But rather than try and make that situation better you're just playing their game armed like the Black Knight from Monty Python.

Rubbish. Why does anyone buy a house or flat rather than rent ? To better themselves.
So perhaps for every £1 I give my kids I should give £1 to 10 strangers . That would be better for everyone.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

If the Tories get a new leader it’ll be game over for Starmer. They’re good at creating a narrative where they distance themselves from the previous administration, almost as though they’re a separate party…and depressingly people fall for it.

It's where Jeremy Hunt is high on the list of future leaders - has a profile, but not been in this cabinet so is a 'fresh start' even though he's caused a lot of the mess himself anyway!

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Rubbish. Why does anyone buy a house or flat rather than rent ?
So perhaps for every £1 I give my kids I should give £1 to 10 strangers . That would be better for everyone.

Thanks

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Being emotive around veterans is yet another imported American culture war.

It’s been funny watching Mick Lynch deal with these idiots and he has a tremendous way of putting them in their place.

 

[chiefdave]

Rubbish. Why does anyone buy a house or flat rather than rent ? To better themselves.

What do you mean by better themselves? I bought a house as I need somewhere to live.

My rent was £950 a month for a house that was in a shit state of repair, I moved to an identical house on the same road, well actually not identical as this one has an extension, and the mortgage is £510 a month. The laughable part is how much trouble I had getting a mortgage as I kept being told £510 a month wasn't affordable.

 

[chiefdave]

It’s been funny watching Mick Lynch deal with these idiots and he has a tremendous way of putting them in their place.

Lynch just highlights how low are expectations are these days. When you break it down he just has a handle on the basic facts of what he's dealing with and nobody seems able to cope with that.

 

[Grendel]

What do you mean by better themselves? I bought a house as I need somewhere to live.

My rent was £950 a month for a house that was in a shit state of repair, I moved to an identical house on the same road, well actually not identical as this one has an extension, and the mortgage is £510 a month. The laughable part is how much trouble I had getting a mortgage as I kept being told £510 a month wasn't affordable.

The property will ultimately increase in value and as the capital is paid down the property value in real terms becomes higher

 

[PVA]

What do you mean by better themselves? I bought a house as I need somewhere to live.

My rent was £950 a month for a house that was in a shit state of repair, I moved to an identical house on the same road, well actually not identical as this one has an extension, and the mortgage is £510 a month. The laughable part is how much trouble I had getting a mortgage as I kept being told £510 a month wasn't affordable.

Yep when I bought my first house I was paying £1300 a month in rent!! Yet only one provider would give me a £600/month mortgage.

 

[Grendel]

Yep when I bought my first house I was paying £1300 a month in rent!! Yet only one provider would give me a £600/month mortgage.

Well there’s an obvious reason for the discrepancy

 

[duffer]

Rubbish. Why does anyone buy a house or flat rather than rent ? To better themselves.
So perhaps for every £1 I give my kids I should give £1 to 10 strangers . That would be better for everyone.

Hold up a moment here. I'm not for a moment saying what you did was wrong, but what you actually did was took advantage of an opportunity to buy publicly provided housing on the cheap, and then sell it later for a substantial profit.

Individually that might be fair enough, but if that housing stock isn't replenished (it wasn't) then it makes it harder for everyone else looking for a place to live. The flaw was in the policy rather than what you did, and it's about to be repeated if Johnson gets his way.

I also, politely, don't exactly see it as bettering yourself as much as being smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity. Not everyone has that chance, it doesn't mean that they don't want to 'better themselves' too.

 

[skybluetony176]

Tom Harwood bang on the button



Although ignoring the real issue. Boris couldn’t do any better either. Just consider that. There’s no one better in the Conservative party than the ironically named James Cleverly. What a time to be alive.