Not The Politics Thread.

[Górnik Leicester]

42 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I tend to agree. A lot of people in Labour are also unhappy. Young Labour for example.

 

I don't know how I'd feel if I was the Labour PPC for Bury South. 

There's little evidence to suggest he's doing this for any other reason than personal gain. 

The whipping system will skew that a little - especially if today's allegations of a culture of blackmail in the Tory Party turn out to be true. We know what this government has done to veteran Tory MPs who have had the nerve to vote against the whip, so can imagine the pressure put upon some of the newer intake.

 

He'll have to prove to his constituents that he's not only jumping ship as he'd be likely to lose his seat as a Tory, and I'm sure his voting record will "improve" under the Labour whip. Not saying he should be accepted with open arms and without scrutiny, but if another 40 odd Tories with similar voting records decided to do the same, I don't think Young Labour would be complaining.

[Foxdiamond]

Following reports of blackmail by Tory whip. Johnson says I've seen no evidence. What is that statement worth? Nowt I would suggest.

[LiberalFox]

14 minutes ago, Górnik Leicester said:

The whipping system will skew that a little - especially if today's allegations of a culture of blackmail in the Tory Party turn out to be true. We know what this government has done to veteran Tory MPs who have had the nerve to vote against the whip, so can imagine the pressure put upon some of the newer intake.

 

He'll have to prove to his constituents that he's not only jumping ship as he'd be likely to lose his seat as a Tory, and I'm sure his voting record will "improve" under the Labour whip. Not saying he should be accepted with open arms and without scrutiny, but if another 40 odd Tories with similar voting records decided to do the same, I don't think Young Labour would be complaining.

It depends what they want. I suspect young Labour want more than just the Labour party to win government as a Conservative Lite outfit. Depending on where you lean then it's either proof of Starmer's success, turning the Labour party into a "serious party of government" or proof of his failure "he's now literally accepting Tories". Or perhaps somewhere in the middle.

 

As a Liberal I don't really like how our politics appears to serve the needs of individuals rather than individuals serving the needs of politics. I also don't really like traitors.

 

I'm not having it that this guy suddenly woke up and realised the Conservatives were a bad bunch. 

 

If his problem was with Johnson then he should have written to the 1922 committee not defected.  

 

 

[Zear0]

17 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Following reports of blackmail by Tory whip. Johnson says I've seen no evidence. What is that statement worth? Nowt I would suggest.

He's turned into Wenger.

[urban.spaceman]

Same bloke saw no evidence of a party when he was literally at a ****ing party.

 

 

[Mickyblueeyes]

28 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Same bloke saw no evidence of a party when he was literally at a ****ing party.

 

 

How is this bafoon still in power. Shame on us as a nation. Shame on the opposition for offering no worthwhile alternative. 

[Voll Blau]

1 minute ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

How is this bafoon still in power. Shame on us as a nation. Shame on the opposition for offering no worthwhile alternative. 

 

What would they have to do to be a "worthwhile alternative" in your eyes?

[Dahnsouff]

7 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

What would they have to do to be a "worthwhile alternative" in your eyes?

Skip the Corbyn years?  

[Mickyblueeyes]

12 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

What would they have to do to be a "worthwhile alternative" in your eyes?

 

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Skip the Corbyn years?  

Answered the query for me. 
 

I got nothing against Corbyn. He stands up better then most for his beliefs. But this is politics and you’ve to play the game a bit. Labour didn’t. Lost many voters who were loyal for years. 
 

[weller54]

21 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

What would they have to do to be a "worthwhile alternative" in your eyes?

Reverse BREXIT!!!

[Dahnsouff]

12 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

Answered the query for me. 
 

I got nothing against Corbyn. He stands up better then most for his beliefs. But this is politics and you’ve to play the game a bit. Labour didn’t. Lost many voters who were loyal for years. 
 

I totally agree, and his seeming adherence to his beliefs is to be applauded, but if his beliefs do not speak/relate to the masses great unwashed it is moot.

[Voll Blau]

13 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

Answered the query for me. 
 

I got nothing against Corbyn. He stands up better then most for his beliefs. But this is politics and you’ve to play the game a bit. Labour didn’t. Lost many voters who were loyal for years. 
 

But Corbyn isn't in charge now? He's not even a sitting Labour MP.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

But Corbyn isn't in charge now? He's not even a sitting Labour MP.

But he damaged the parties relevance during his tenure

[Footballwipe]

10 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

Answered the query for me. 
 

I got nothing against Corbyn. He stands up better then most for his beliefs. But this is politics and you’ve to play the game a bit. Labour didn’t. Lost many voters who were loyal for years. 
 

But Starmer has done a lot to try and rid the party of that image. He's isolated Corbyn, tried to get rid of the awful cult that came with him within the Labour party to win voters (like me) back.

 

He's obviously still got a lot of work to do, mud sticks and memories remain etc, but there's only so much he can do? He literally removed the whip so Corbyn was a sitting Indy MP. He incurs the wrath of the cult daily and has risked the unions cutting them off and those cultists not voting Lab again.

 

It might be a long-term thing, and maybe Starmer needs to build himself more of a profile. It's all a bit dry so far, though he did appear on the Football Cliches podcast last week and came across okay. 

 

At the end of the day, it's going to be either Labour or Conservative. No party will ever blitz through and win an election in our lifetime, so you gotta ask yourself. This shower of corrupt and laughing-in-your-face shysters led by a former "journalist," or a Labour Party on the way back to respectability under a former Lawyer and Director of Public Prosecutions.

[Voll Blau]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

But he damaged the parties relevance during his tenure

No doubt. But if people are seriously saying the *current* Labour Party is not a better alternative than the smirking, lying clown in charge at the moment and his ilk then to be honest we deserve a government that constantly take the piss out of us in the way that the current lot do.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

 

As a Liberal I don't really like how our politics appears to serve the needs of individuals rather than individuals serving the needs of politics. I also don't really like traitors.

 

I'm not having it that this guy suddenly woke up and realised the Conservatives were a bad bunch. 

 

If his problem was with Johnson then he should have written to the 1922 committee not defected.  

 

 

I don't entirely disagree - though the Lib Dems have certainly recruited "traitors" from Labour and Tories in the past, including in the last parliament.

 

Except in emergencies (e.g. candidate becoming unavailable just before a general election), Labour prospective candidates are selected by the local party.

So, those locally who don't want Wakeford to be the Lab candidate next time will have an opportunity to select someone else.

 

The bigger injustice, to be honest, is to those who chose to vote Tory in Bury. MPs who defect to another party really should trigger a byelection under almost all circumstances, I think......maybe more of a grey area with those who become Independents on some matter of principle. I mean, I'd be pretty pissed off if I voted for my local Labour MP and they later switched and took the Tory whip for the rest of the parliament.

 

I know that technically, at elections we vote for a candidate, not a party - and the candidate may be a factor, or even the main factor for some voters. But most voters mainly vote for their preferred party due to policies, expected outcomes etc.

So, most MPs who switch are under a moral obligation to get a new mandate via a byelection, I think.

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

No doubt. But if people are seriously saying the *current* Labour Party is not a better alternative than the smirking, lying clown in charge at the moment and his ilk then to be honest we deserve a government that constantly take the piss out of us in the way that the current lot do.

Don`t see anyone saying that to be fair, but politics is often as tribalistic as football, people are tied to parties for famlial or other reasons. Changing that allegiance takes time is all, although this current crop of undesireables is doing its best to expedite the process 

[Voll Blau]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Don`t see anyone saying that to be fair, but politics is often as tribalistic as football, people are tied to parties for famlial or other reasons. Changing that allegiance takes time is all, although this current crop of undesireables is doing its best to expedite the process 

The OP was saying the opposition offer no worthwhile alternative?

[Finnaldo]

9 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

But he damaged the parties relevance during his tenure

I don’t dispute this, but you then ask how much damage Johnson, as an actual Prime Minister who you could practically argue has had a failed premiership and has had a massive negative effect on public opinion on the U.K. political setup, would have on the Tory leadership in a year and a half’s time was he to resign/be forced out tomorrow? Whilst being purely speculative, I can’t imagine it’d be anywhere near as much and the majority would have forgotten the entire saga, whilst a massive portion of the 2019 Tory intake are ‘Boris picks’, whereas Starmer has actively weakened the Labour left wing and is still not trusted.
 

I’m not in the business of blaming the electorate, but there’s this bizarre phenomenon where Tories can move over most incidents with a quick change of leadership. Whether this will be any different I don’t know, but I don’t hold much hope.

[Mickyblueeyes]

20 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

But Corbyn isn't in charge now? He's not even a sitting Labour MP.

 

19 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

But Starmer has done a lot to try and rid the party of that image. He's isolated Corbyn, tried to get rid of the awful cult that came with him within the Labour party to win voters (like me) back.

 

He's obviously still got a lot of work to do, mud sticks and memories remain etc, but there's only so much he can do? He literally removed the whip so Corbyn was a sitting Indy MP. He incurs the wrath of the cult daily and has risked the unions cutting them off and those cultists not voting Lab again.

 

It might be a long-term thing, and maybe Starmer needs to build himself more of a profile. It's all a bit dry so far, though he did appear on the Football Cliches podcast last week and came across okay. 

 

At the end of the day, it's going to be either Labour or Conservative. No party will ever blitz through and win an election in our lifetime, so you gotta ask yourself. This shower of corrupt and laughing-in-your-face shysters led by a former "journalist," or a Labour Party on the way back to respectability under a former Lawyer and Director of Public Prosecutions.

I actually agree with both these posts. My criticism of Labour was linked to the last general election. No way should this bafoon have ever come to power and part of the reason that he did was because the party were not in touch with their electorate. I’m sorry, how did no one out of a large set of analysis not work out that Labour were at risk of losing the fooking red wall. 
 

No one expected Labour to win that election for years and that for a major party was an unacceptable approach. 
 

I see a lot more stars coming out of Labour now and hope for our sake they win back that support. Or we are left with PM Gove, Raab, Patel or some other horrible excuse.

 

[oxford blue]

 

23 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Reverse BREXIT!!!

So - in your eyes - TINA (there is no alternative) ? Brexit has happened and it won't be reversed by any party likely to be able to form a government. Trying to reverse it would not be good socially or economically for the country, particularly given terms would need to be renegotiated - and a commitment for new members to adopt Euro. Not going to happen.

[Dahnsouff]

36 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

The OP was saying the opposition offer no worthwhile alternative?

Fair enough, generally stay out of here  

[Foxdiamond]

27 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

I actually agree with both these posts. My criticism of Labour was linked to the last general election. No way should this bafoon have ever come to power and part of the reason that he did was because the party were not in touch with their electorate. I’m sorry, how did no one out of a large set of analysis not work out that Labour were at risk of losing the fooking red wall. 
 

No one expected Labour to win that election for years and that for a major party was an unacceptable approach. 
 

I see a lot more stars coming out of Labour now and hope for our sake they win back that support. Or we are left with PM Gove, Raab, Patel or some other horrible excuse.

 

I never thought Corbyn had a hope of being elected. Despite this I do think we need a radical change but I fear the voters are Conservative with a small c. That and the influence of the Tory press means Labour has to tone down to been seen as viable. This is still preferable to the current lot or frankly any Tory government. 

[LiberalFox]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't entirely disagree - though the Lib Dems have certainly recruited "traitors" from Labour and Tories in the past, including in the last parliament.

 

Except in emergencies (e.g. candidate becoming unavailable just before a general election), Labour prospective candidates are selected by the local party.

So, those locally who don't want Wakeford to be the Lab candidate next time will have an opportunity to select someone else.

 

The bigger injustice, to be honest, is to those who chose to vote Tory in Bury. MPs who defect to another party really should trigger a byelection under almost all circumstances, I think......maybe more of a grey area with those who become Independents on some matter of principle. I mean, I'd be pretty pissed off if I voted for my local Labour MP and they later switched and took the Tory whip for the rest of the parliament.

 

I know that technically, at elections we vote for a candidate, not a party - and the candidate may be a factor, or even the main factor for some voters. But most voters mainly vote for their preferred party due to policies, expected outcomes etc.

So, most MPs who switch are under a moral obligation to get a new mandate via a byelection, I think.

Going Con > Lab is a bigger jump than Con > Lib or Lab > Lib imo. A lot depends on the way you present yourself mind you. I'd have no issue with him sitting as an independent Conservative or even as an Independent with the intention of winning the Labour party selection at the next election. So long as he stood by what he had campaigned on at the past election. 

 

There are a lot of Con and Lab MPs whose beliefs and voting record (aside from perhaps a few they followed the whip on) already line up with the Lib Dem constitution but I certainly don't always agree with who we let represent us. 

 

I suppose it's possible that he believes Starmer's vision for the UK is closer to what he campaigned on... not sure that is a good thing! 

 

[Strokes]

4 hours ago, weller54 said:

Reverse BREXIT!!!

I’d carry on and vote for Boris if they did that.