Not The Politics Thread.

[Voll Blau]

4 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Quick one for the political experts. How can Labour call for Johnson to resign, should he be served with a fixed penalty notice or fine over party gate. Whilst at the same time having a convicted criminal, Claudia Webbe still serving as an MP.  Do different rules apply to PM’s?

Claudia Webbe was sacked by Labour upon conviction. She sits as an independent.

[blabyboy]

I think Jezza does as well. Racking them up

[Alf Bentley]

59 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Quick one for the political experts. How can Labour call for Johnson to resign, should he be served with a fixed penalty notice or fine over party gate. Whilst at the same time having a convicted criminal, Claudia Webbe still serving as an MP.  Do different rules apply to PM’s?

 

As well as stripping Webbe of her status representing the party, Labour has called on her to resign as an MP. However, they cannot force her to resign as an MP (she's now an independent) as she was elected as an individual by her constituents.

 

She is appealing against her conviction - appeal to be heard next month. Unless her appeal is successful, a "recall petition" will be circulated among her constituents for her to lose her position as MP. Labour said it will support/lead this. If at least 10% of her constituents sign (pretty certain, I'd say), there'll be a by-election and she won't be the Labour candidate - and has no chance of winning if she stands as an independent.

 

As PM, Johnson is in a different position. Constituents didn't elect him to be PM (only to be MP for Uxbridge). He was elected as leader by the Tory Party and then appointed PM as they had a majority. So, unlike with Webbe, the Tory party COULD sack Johnson as party leader (meaning the Queen would appoint someone else as PM - whoever the Tory party elected to replace him). 

 

So, Labour is currently unable to get rid of Webbe as an MP, but the Tories are choosing not to get rid of Johnson.....a shockingly poor decision.

 

Of course, it was also a shockingly poor decision by Labour to choose someone as unsuitable as Webbe as MP in the first place. 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As well as stripping Webbe of her status representing the party, Labour has called on her to resign as an MP. However, they cannot force her to resign as an MP (she's now an independent) as she was elected as an individual by her constituents.

 

She is appealing against her conviction - appeal to be heard next month. Unless her appeal is successful, a "recall petition" will be circulated among her constituents for her to lose her position as MP. Labour said it will support/lead this. If at least 10% of her constituents sign (pretty certain, I'd say), there'll be a by-election and she won't be the Labour candidate - and has no chance of winning if she stands as an independent.

 

As PM, Johnson is in a different position. Constituents didn't elect him to be PM (only to be MP for Uxbridge). He was elected as leader by the Tory Party and then appointed PM as they had a majority. So, unlike with Webbe, the Tory party COULD sack Johnson as party leader (meaning the Queen would appoint someone else as PM - whoever the Tory party elected to replace him). 

 

So, Labour is currently unable to get rid of Webbe as an MP, but the Tories are choosing not to get rid of Johnson.....a shockingly poor decision.

 

Of course, it was also a shockingly poor decision by Labour to choose someone as unsuitable as Webbe as MP in the first place. 

In fairness to labour, they have a good record of dropping their jailed MP's. Think it's 7 in the past 10 years and all got evicted from the party.

[Spiritwalker]

2 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Quick one for the political experts. How can Labour call for Johnson to resign, should he be served with a fixed penalty notice or fine over party gate. Whilst at the same time having a convicted criminal, Claudia Webbe still serving as an MP.  Do different rules apply to PM’s?

Yes.

[blabyboy]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

So, Labour is currently unable to get rid of Webbe as an MP, but the Tories are choosing not to get rid of Johnson.....a shockingly poor decision.. 

It is if you're not a Tory, but.. hold your nose for a second and assume the mindset. 🙂

 

They're looking for someone with the same doorstop charisma, instant recognisability and appeal as him. Can you think of anyone else in that party? Presently i cannot, and i think most of their MPs are in the same boat. It's akin to the recent questions over Brendan's position here with those calling for his head immediately being asked who is good enough to fill the void.

 

The Tories don't want a statesman, they want someone who  they can then slap on their leaflets for May and people either quickly identify with that person or they don't. They're taking their time for the good of the party all other considerations are secondary. It's been like that since the end of Thatcher, with various bods all having a go on both sides.

Edited 23 February 2022 by blabyboy
Fat fingers

[The Horse's Mouth]

Johnson's probably had his best couple of days in power in a long time

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, blabyboy said:

It is if you're not a Tory, but.. hold your nose for a second and assume the mindset. 🙂

 

They're looking for someone with the same doorstop charisma, instant recognisability and appeal as him. Can you think of anyone else in that party? Presently i cannot, and i think most of their MPs are in the same boat. It's akin to the recent questions over Brendan's position here with those calling for his head immediately being asked who is good enough to fill the void.

 

The Tories don't want a statesman, they want someone who  they can then slap on their leaflets for May and people either quickly identify with that person or they don't. They're taking their time for the good of the party all other considerations are secondary. It's been like that since the end of Thatcher, with various bods all having a go on both sides.

 

I agree that the Tory approach is "for the good of the party, all other considerations secondary". But will Johnson still boost the Tory vote as he did before? In 2019, his clownish "charisma" helped them as he had a "good news" story to promote: "get Brexit done". If times were good, his entertainment value might still be a plus and folk might overlook his flaws and moral corruption. But what's entertaining when times are OK might not be so amusing when people are struggling to pay the bills and facing all sorts of other crap. If I was a Tory in tough times like these, I'd be concerned that someone like Bozza would bring my party into disrepute, even if I wasn't bothered about him bringing politics in general into disrepute.

 

I also doubt they're too bothered about the May election results. It's a leader capable of winning the next general election they'll want, surely.

 

How many PMs have "doorstep charisma, instant recognisability and appeal" before winning office? None of Thatcher, Major or Cameron, though they developed it to varying degrees once they were in No. 10 (Thatcher more than the other two). Arguably, Blair is the only recent PM who had those qualities before becoming PM.

 

I take your point that the Tories might not have a stand-out replacement candidate, but surely they can find someone with the potential to grow into the job, do it tolerably well and develop some moderate personal appeal? To take up your football analogy, neither Pearson nor Ranieri were noted for their charisma and appeal before they came to LCFC (NP arguably still wasn't after he left, though he had an aura! ). Even Brendan is barely a step up from Puel on the public charisma front. I'd have to say that the 2 recent managers known for media charisma, recognisability and public appeal were Holloway and Sven.....and appointing them didn't end so well! 

[Dunge]

2 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Johnson's probably had his best couple of days in power in a long time

…You’re kidding, right?

 

He’s made himself and his party look in hock the the Russians. He’s managed to make the party opposite - who, let’s not forget, was led not so long ago by someone who wanted to send a sample of the Novichok that was used on our streets to actual Russia for conclusive analysis - look like the party who would better protect the country and its allies against an unpredictable aggressor. I think this is massively damaging to Johnson because he’s letting down exactly the kind of people who would want to support him.

Edited 24 February 2022 by Dunge

[The Horse's Mouth]

9 hours ago, Dunge said:

…You’re kidding, right?

 

He’s made himself and his party look in hock the the Russians. He’s managed to make the party opposite - who, let’s not forget, was led not so long ago by someone who wanted to send a sample of the Novichok that was used on our streets to actual Russia for conclusive analysis - look like the party who would better protect the country and its allies against an unpredictable aggressor. I think this is massively damaging to Johnson because he’s letting down exactly the kind of people who would want to support him.

The sanctions are a good thing, probably should be stricter but you can't go too full on else you risk your diplomacy. The living with covid plan is what I think most sensible people can get on board with. 

 

I think the only thing I can be quite critical is effectively calling it a full on invasion, which we aren't close to yet. Put that seems the be the NATO line more than Johnson 

[Guest BlueBrett]

The way the world is now I'll probably get swatted for saying this but **** it anyone wanna start a populist uprising with me? I think it's time to bomb the system boys. Overdue in fact.

[blabyboy]

20 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

The way the world is now I'll probably get swatted for saying this but **** it anyone wanna start a populist uprising with me? I think it's time to bomb the system boys. Overdue in fact.

Get in the bin, very immature.

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

The sanctions are a good thing, probably should be stricter but you can't go too full on else you risk your diplomacy. The living with covid plan is what I think most sensible people can get on board with. 

 

I think the only thing I can be quite critical is effectively calling it a full on invasion, which we aren't close to yet. Put that seems the be the NATO line more than Johnson 

Boris Johnson says that after 04:00 GMT he spoke to President Zelensky of Ukraine to offer the support of the UK.

 

He says our worst fears have come true and all the warnings of a Russian invasion have proved tragically accurate.

 

President Putin of Russia has unleashed war in Europe, he says. He says Putin has attacked a friendly country without any provocation or credible excuse.

Bombs have been raining down on an entirely innocent population, Johnson continues.

 

"A vast invasion is under way by land by air and by sea."

 

it's a full on invasion.... 

[The Horse's Mouth]

4 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

Boris Johnson says that after 04:00 GMT he spoke to President Zelensky of Ukraine to offer the support of the UK.

 

He says our worst fears have come true and all the warnings of a Russian invasion have proved tragically accurate.

 

President Putin of Russia has unleashed war in Europe, he says. He says Putin has attacked a friendly country without any provocation or credible excuse.

Bombs have been raining down on an entirely innocent population, Johnson continues.

 

"A vast invasion is under way by land by air and by sea."

 

it's a full on invasion.... 

It is now, at the time of reporting it wasn't.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

It is now, at the time of reporting it wasn't.

Your comment was 6 hours ago according to the timestamp, that puts it some time between 10 and 11am our time.  The invasion started long before that, it was already evidently underway when I first saw news about it at around 4am.  By 6am there was footage of missile strikes in civilian areas and tanks crossing the Belarussian border.

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Your comment was 6 hours ago according to the timestamp, that puts it some time between 10 and 11am our time.  The invasion started long before that, it was already evidently underway when I first saw news about it at around 4am.  By 6am there was footage of missile strikes in civilian areas and tanks crossing the Belarussian border.

It was in context of when Boris made the claims, as far as I'm aware could be wrong, the sanctions weren't announced at 4am

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

It was in context of when Boris made the claims, as far as I'm aware could be wrong, the sanctions weren't announced at 4am

No but the invasion was happening already, so it patently wasn't premature to call it one by the time Boris said something.

[The Horse's Mouth]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

No but the invasion was happening already, so it patently wasn't premature to call it one by the time Boris said something.

The invasion wasn't happening at the time he said it,language is very important at times like this which I think is frankly dangerous to further esculate the tension at that time. Especially with a man like Putin.

 

Hindsights 20/20 we can say it had no effect to the subsequent outcome, but we can say it was incredibly careless

Edited 24 February 2022 by The Horse's Mouth

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

The invasion wasn't happening at the time he said it,language is very important at times like this which I think is frankly dangerous to further esculate the tension at that time. Especially with a man like Putin.

 

Hindsights 20/20 we can say it had no effect to the subsequent outcome, but we can say it was incredibly careless

What is the timeline of events as you believe it?

[Carl the Llama]

-double dip-

Edited 24 February 2022 by Carl the Llama

[The Horse's Mouth]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

What is the timeline of events as you believe it?

At the time the sanctions were announced, the only thing that was put forward at the time was recognising Donetsk and Donbas regions as independent, no boots were on the ground so to speak.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

At the time the sanctions were announced, the only thing that was put forward at the time was recognising Donetsk and Donbas regions as independent, no boots were on the ground so to speak.

Oh right you're talking about then.  When Russia had amassed its troops all around Ukraine's border and laid down the pretence to justify mobilisation.  I think the size of the attack is larger than expected, I was resigned to an invasion of the regions mentioned followed by further advances once control was consolidated there.  Putin going for the hail Mary just underlines how little fuchs he has left to maintain his already thin facade of diplomacy.

[Carl the Llama]

Quote

Number 7 makes me laugh.  Downing Street wouldn't want to fully sever the hand that feeds.

[Carl the Llama]

Continuing the theme of my latest comments:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60524666

Quote

 

How many entities are sanctioned?

In his statement to the House of Commons on Thursday, Boris Johnson said "we will be imposing asset freezes on more than 100 new entities and individuals, on top of the hundreds that we have already announced".

But the government's sanctions list only named six companies and five individuals with new sanctions against them.

We have asked the government to clarify the names of the rest of those sanctioned.

 

 

 

[Guest ttfn]

The sanctions are absolutely pathetic. Not suspending Swift because other countries might not suspend it is so weak.