Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Sharpe's Fox]

David Davis is well good don't know why people don't like him. I wouldn't vote for him but he's sound.

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Davidson's not an MP so not sure how that'll work. I'm a big fan of David Davis but he'll probably be at least 70 by the next election, maybe even 73. If he wins he could be 78 by the end of his first term. Not sure the numbers work for him.

Age doesn't seem to matter that much anymore, Trump, Sanders, Corbyn etc - even Macron married his Mum, the lead is incredible as well, more than twenty points agead of anyone else, Davis also has a lot of credit still with the left and swing voters after his battles with the front bench over civil liberties. (even Another Angry Voice once praised him as the best Tory going, although that page has mysteriously vanished now for some reason)

 

If they wanted Davidson to be leader it wouldn't be hard to force a by-election to get her in, I don't think that's going to happen though while there is any sort of agreement with the DUP, can you just imagine her being connected to that that while she walks into Downing Street with her wife?

 

It shows how toxic Hammond is as well, if they are thinking about him as a temporary leader they better be prepared for the backlash. He's part of the May regime.

 

I would like to have seen Jacob Rees Mogg on here but I suppose they didn't want to embarrass everyone else with someone sat there on +100.

Edited 4 July 2017 by MattP

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Davidson's not an MP so not sure how that'll work. I'm a big fan of David Davis but he'll probably be at least 70 by the next election, maybe even 73. If he wins he could be 78 by the end of his first term. Not sure the numbers work for him.

 

As I understand it, there is nothing in UK law that requires the Prime Minister to be an MP.

 

There is a precedent - Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (Prime Minister 1895-1902).

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

As I understand it, there is nothing in UK law that requires the Prime Minister to be an MP.

 

There is a precedent - Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (Prime Minister 1895-1902).

Be a bit of a pain doing PMQs on skype.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Age doesn't seem to matter that much anymore, Trump, Sanders, Corbyn etc - even Macron married his Mum, the lead is incredible as well, more than twenty points agead of anyone else, Davis also has a lot of credit still with the left and swing voters after his battles with the front bench over civil liberties. (even Another Angry Voice once praised him as the best Tory going, although that page has mysteriously vanished now for some reason)

 

If they wanted Davidson to be leader it wouldn't be hard to force a by-election to get her in, I don't think that's going to happen though while there is any sort of agreement with the DUP, can you just imagine her being connected to that that while she walks into Downing Street with her wife?

 

It shows how toxic Hammond is as well, if they are thinking about him as a temporary leader they better be prepared for the backlash. He's part of the May regime.

 

I would like to have seen Jacob Rees Mogg on here but I suppose they didn't want to embarrass everyone else with someone sat there on +100.

 

Yeah, but she's gorgeous.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

As I understand it, there is nothing in UK law that requires the Prime Minister to be an MP.

 

There is a precedent - Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (Prime Minister 1895-1902).

Did quite a bit of reading about him in Searle's A New England.

 

What's described under him is "aristocratic, traditional, philanthropic Conservatism" - something that shows the form of Tory politics in a far better light than most of the current lot do.

 

I do pity we seem to have lost that from all sides, the wealthiest leaving a school, a museum or a park to the public in death is much greater missed than people realise.

[lifted*fox]

55 minutes ago, MattP said:

Approval ratings of senior Tories from the membership.

 

If it goes to a vote of them for a new leader it's Davis or Davidson, surprised how low Boris has gone.

 

Are you really though? 

 

I wouldn't trust that ****ing idiot to run an egg and spoon race let alone the country. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, daz*dsb said:

 

Are you really though? 

 

I wouldn't trust that ****ing idiot to run an egg and spoon race let alone the country. 

Under a vote of Tory members yes, he's still considered the darling of the party by the right leaning press.

 

A lot of them seem to agree with you and Michael Gove has risen considerably showing he's clearly been forgiven for stopping Boris becoming the Prime Minister. 

[Webbo]

I don't see Boris as a potential PM. His buffoon act would wear thin very quickly.

 

I've always thought Greg Clark came across very well on TV.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

They do that to aluminium, not sure they do with zinc.

 

 

 

 

Also when they say zinc, I assume they're talking about galvanised steel, which would be heavier than aluminium. That might have been a consideration as well.

It's as Captain says, if it had all been agreed upon and approval received from the residents then if things like weight and ease of painting were ever factors in the decision making process then it had clearly already been decided that they weren't problems.

 

Why are you playing the apologist on this one?  It's not like anybody knows who exactly is to blame what with the myriad fingers in this catastrophic pie but it's pretty clear that Grenfell's victims have been let down by decision making which was not entirely benevolent.

 

That's not to say that choices were made knowing precisely how bad things could turn out, I would certainly hope that nobody is that malicious. but the point is that the residents' best interests were obviously not always priority number one in this saga or else they would have received the cladding they officially approved of and they would have had their fears about the building's fire safety listened to and addressed rather than routinely ignored (or in the case of the exposed gas piping very slowly dealt with bit by bit despite a fire official himself raising the alarm and outlining how important it was to get them all covered up with fire proof casing immediately).

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

 

Why are you playing the apologist on this one?  what with the myriad fingers in this catastrophic pie but it's pretty clear that Grenfell's victims have been let down by decision making which was not entirely benevolent.

 

 

Nobody knows who's to blame but we know the decisions weren't benevolent? How does that work?

 

Also, I was commenting on someone who was blaming someone, even though, as you said"It's not like anybody knows who exactly is to blame". 

[Guest MattP]

Even I'm missing Call me Dave a bit, he does speak sense.

[Carl the Llama]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Nobody knows who's to blame but we know the decisions weren't benevolent? How does that work?

Because we have evidence of agreed upon materials being discarded not with a view to improve the safety of the building but to reduce the cost of working on it.  Quite obviously not a decision made for the residents' benefit.  At best it's possible the changes were made under the impression that the residents would be no worse off but that's hardly benevolence seeing how it's still an active dismissal of their agreed terms.

 

And then we also have evidence of fears over the building's suitability in case of a fire being routinely dismissed which is a more open and shut case of absent benevolence and I suppose you're right:  We do know the ministers and council members who must shoulder their portion of the blame for that contribution to the disaster.

Edited 4 July 2017 by Carl the Llama

[lifted*fox]

I'm all for 'sound finances' irrespective of party but it's blatantly obvious that Tory austerity isn't for the good of the country, it isn't having a positive effect on the deficit and it's slowly crippling / destroying our national services. 

 

The Conservatives don't have anybody else's interests at heart - only those which directly affect and benefit themselves. 

 

Poor / struggling families and our police / fire and hospital services need money NOW - not tomorrow. They don't need to save for a rainy day because their rainy days are already here. 

 

How bad must things get today just to have a pot for tomorrow? Because that pot isn't going to go very far to repair the damage that is already being done. 

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Even I'm missing Call me Dave a bit, he does speak sense.

Yeah I was glad to see the back of him, but I realise now how much he was holding together. You don't know how much you will miss them until they are gone.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, daz*dsb said:

I'm all for 'sound finances' irrespective of party but it's blatantly obvious that Tory austerity isn't for the good of the country, it isn't having a positive effect on the deficit and it's slowly crippling / destroying our national services. 

 

The Conservatives don't have anybody else's interests at heart - only those which directly affect and benefit themselves. 

 

Poor / struggling families and our police / fire and hospital services need money NOW - not tomorrow. They don't need to save for a rainy day because their rainy days are already here. 

 

How bad must things get today just to have a pot for tomorrow? Because that pot isn't going to go very far to repair the damage that is already being done. 

It is having a positive effect on the deficit, what exactly else can spending less and taking more do?

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, daz*dsb said:

I'm all for 'sound finances' irrespective of party but it's blatantly obvious that Tory austerity isn't for the good of the country, it isn't having a positive effect on the deficit and it's slowly crippling / destroying our national services. 

 

The Conservatives don't have anybody else's interests at heart - only those which directly affect and benefit themselves.  

If that's true why have they taken so many of the lowest paid workers out of the tax bracket altogether? 

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, daz*dsb said:

I'm all for 'sound finances' irrespective of party but it's blatantly obvious that Tory austerity isn't for the good of the country, it isn't having a positive effect on the deficit and it's slowly crippling / destroying our national services. 

 

The Conservatives don't have anybody else's interests at heart - only those which directly affect and benefit themselves. 

 

Poor / struggling families and our police / fire and hospital services need money NOW - not tomorrow. They don't need to save for a rainy day because their rainy days are already here. 

 

How bad must things get today just to have a pot for tomorrow? Because that pot isn't going to go very far to repair the damage that is already being done. 

Look again at the deficit between now and 7 years ago perhaps? 

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Because we have evidence of agreed upon materials being discarded not with a view to improve the safety of the building but to reduce the cost of working on it.  Quite obviously not a decision made for the residents' benefit.  At best it's possible the changes were made under the impression that the residents would be no worse off but that's hardly benevolence seeing how it's still an active dismissal of their agreed terms.

 

And then we also have evidence of fears over the building's suitability in case of a fire being routinely dismissed which is a more open and shut case of absent benevolence and I suppose you're right:  We do know the ministers and council members who must shoulder their portion of the blame for that contribution to the disaster.

So it's possible that the decision wasn't unbenevolent?

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

So it's possible that the decision wasn't unbenevolent?

Yes, it is possible to fail to keep people's best interests at heart without it being an act of malevolence.

[Alf Bentley]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

If they wanted Davidson to be leader it wouldn't be hard to force a by-election to get her in, I don't think that's going to happen though while there is any sort of agreement with the DUP, can you just imagine her being connected to that that while she walks into Downing Street with her wife?

 

She could be given a seat in the Lords and be PM from there. She'd have to choose a title based on a Scottish location. She could be Baroness Davidson of Naughtynooky. I'm sure Arlene Foster would have no problem, er, serving under her.

 

36 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As I understand it, there is nothing in UK law that requires the Prime Minister to be an MP.

 

There is a precedent - Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (Prime Minister 1895-1902).

 

I got curious about this. Apparently for a fortnight in 1963 Alec Douglas-Home was PM without being a member of EITHER house. He was elected as a Scottish Unionist MP in the 1930s, had entered the Lords as the hereditary Earl of Home in the 1950s, resigned from there when he became PM and then won a byelection to the Commons a fortnight later..

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Approval ratings of senior Tories from the membership.

 

If it goes to a vote of them for a new leader it's Davis or Davidson, surprised how low Boris has gone.

 

I advised Brokenshire at 100/1 - wouldn't be out of it.

 

What happened to Stephen Crabb? I thought he was supposed to be the next up and coming star at one point?

 

Didn't he run for the leadership last time? I ca't see him on the list...

[lifted*fox]

ok, so what benefits do you think we'll all get once the deficit is wiped out?

 

are you all expecting a card through the door saying 'thanks for your patience, we cleared it!' and maybe a £20 note taped to it? 

 

do you think as ordinary everyday citizens you're going to see any personal prize for being such staunch supporters of wiping out an imaginary debt? 

 

will the government suddenly open up the purse strings, stopping cuts to public services and education? 

 

will they ****. even if they wipe the deficit they'll reward themselves and their sponsors and keep the general public bent over and ****ed as always. 

 

I just can't see what the ordinary man sees in making life a misery for people right now to achieve something that isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference on a personal level anyway. 

 

the date to clear it keeps getting pushed further and further back - well, it'll be 2022, then 2030, then 2050 - but you'll all be there beating the drum still and for what? 

 

please enlighten me on why you've swallowed this spoonful of shit you've been fed so happily? 

[Webbo]

Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

What happened to Stephen Crabb? I thought he was supposed to be the next up and coming star at one point?

 

Didn't he run for the leadership last time? I ca't see him on the list...

Wasn't he a born again Christian who got caught playing away from home?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, daz*dsb said:

ok, so what benefits do you think we'll all get once the deficit is wiped out?

 

are you all expecting a card through the door saying 'thanks for your patience, we cleared it!' and maybe a £20 note taped to it? 

 

do you think as ordinary everyday citizens you're going to see any personal prize for being such staunch supporters of wiping out an imaginary debt? 

 

will the government suddenly open up the purse strings, stopping cuts to public services and education? 

 

will they ****. even if they wipe the deficit they'll reward themselves and their sponsors and keep the general public bent over and ****ed as always. 

 

I just can't see what the ordinary man sees in making life a misery for people right now to achieve something that isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference on a personal level anyway. 

 

the date to clear it keeps getting pushed further and further back - well, it'll be 2022, then 2030, then 2050 - but you'll all be there beating the drum still and for what? 

 

please enlighten me on why you've swallowed this spoonful of shit you've been fed so happily? 

When the deficit is gone and we have a surplus we can start paying down the debt, which will reduce the interest we're paying, which will free up money elsewhere.