The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[ealingfox]

Ridiculous that Sunak stood there chastising the other candidates for wanting to lower taxes, when throughout his time as Chancellor he would stand at the actual dispatch box talking about wanting to lower taxes, whilst in the act of increasing them.

 

[weller54]

1 hour ago, Nick said:

Often when these politicians are in Parliament they come across at least slightly 'statesman/people-like'.

 

I've just watched that debate and beJesus... Honestly, they look like whiny insecure students doing a shite presentation crossed with candidates for the apprentice.

 

Ugly viewing.

 

 

Double ugly viewing when Truss did her GCSE presentation on her specialist subject.

[yorkie1999]

So we have a debate on tv that gives the candidates the opportunity to promote their policies and dis their opponents. Why? it's not an election or anything, it's basically nothing to do with us.

[weller54]

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, weller54 said:

So is Liz Truss, now where is that image with that quote again...

[weller54]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

So is Liz Truss, now where is that image with that quote again...

Haven't seen that!...

Can you post?

[Strokes]

On 14/07/2022 at 18:02, weller54 said:

Truss is a true right winger... loyal to her beliefs and her childrens futures.

 

6 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Haven't seen that!...

Can you post?

I think he means the one you’ve posted a few times mate

 

[Sampson]

Tbf Thatcher was pro-EEC. She turned against it once the foundations were laid in place for the EU to form and freedom of movement and trade for EU citizens to be brought in.

 

Her “Bruges speech” in 1988 is often said to be the point where Eurosceptasism in the Tory party began to take hold.

 

I say this as a big Europhile, but I think Thatcher would’ve almost certainly voted Brexit in 2016.

 

Major has always been a massive Europhile though, as was Blair. Blair esepecially was behind a lot of deliberate policies for European integration and wanted the Euro and maybe even to join Schengen (can’t quite remember his view on Schengen), but Gordon Brown won over in the Euro debate.

Edited 16 July 2022 by Sampson

[Dunge]

32 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

So we have a debate on tv that gives the candidates the opportunity to promote their policies and dis their opponents. Why? it's not an election or anything, it's basically nothing to do with us.

The last round of voting is for the membership, isn’t it? And it’s an opportunity for the MPs to see how their candidate fares in front of the public and questioning.

 

But why they feel the need to attack each other in the same party… it’s plain daft.

[bovril]

Too much Liz Truss in this thread

[weller54]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

 

I think he means the one you’ve posted a few times mate

 

Ah ok...

I didn't realise 😎😂

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Not to disagree or have a go, but I will say I had a look at Coffey’s expenses when she voted to cut £20 a week from UC and said on a radio show people should Jesuit work another couple of hours to make up the £20 (with taxes etc it actually worked out as an extra 9 hours). Her expenses were well over £200k, with thousands on congestion charges, parking etc. There’s also plenty of MPs with family members on the books earning thousands.

 

Personally I’ve begun to really resent the idea that people on the very bottom of the ladder, the most vulnerable in need of real help, are scroungers or parasites or not deserving of a basic quality of life. Braverman said it herself the other day, that too many people don’t need to be on UC - 42% of people on UC are already in work.
 

Meanwhile you’ve got MPs with DAILY lunch allowances of £25, half of whom voted against feeding children during a pandemic, Lords can claim £300 a day just for turning up; they’ve had a pay rise every year for the last decade while everyone else’s wages have stagnated. 
 

There’s a very serious cost of living crisis that there’s a very strong feeling among the public that we really are not all in this together. The RMT guy has been particularly eloquent on this.

 

The overall cost to the taxpayer might not be that big compared to other issues but if Starmer was to promise to bring down the cost of politics by freezing pay rises, putting a cap on expenses, restrictions on second jobs, second homes and employment of family members, a ban on lobbying and a cap on the wealth of who can serve as an MP … basically any of those, I think Starmer would gain a huge amount of support from the public. 

 

The allowances are in line with typical London business expenses.  Westminster is in the congestion charge zone. Parking is expensive in London.  So are staff.

I think the point on UC is people in work shouldn’t be reliant on it.  Wages should allow people to live.  I like the increases to the tax free allowance over the past few years - this makes much more sense than more UC for working people.

if you want to make politics less accessible and less appealing to talented people then go for it.

[Foxdiamond]

20 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The allowances are in line with typical London business expenses.  Westminster is in the congestion charge zone. Parking is expensive in London.  So are staff.

I think the point on UC is people in work shouldn’t be reliant on it.  Wages should allow people to live.  I like the increases to the tax free allowance over the past few years - this makes much more sense than more UC for working people.

if you want to make politics less accessible and less appealing to talented people then go for it.

Those MPs that bent the rules in the not so distant past are the ones to blame for remaining distrust. 

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, kenny said:

Agree with all of this. But it also means you won't attract the best talent into politics.

 

If I had to pay for things I need for my job, my expenses would exceed £100k too and I don't travel to London every week.

 

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The allowances are in line with typical London business expenses.  Westminster is in the congestion charge zone. Parking is expensive in London.  So are staff.

I think the point on UC is people in work shouldn’t be reliant on it.  Wages should allow people to live.  I like the increases to the tax free allowance over the past few years - this makes much more sense than more UC for working people.

if you want to make politics less accessible and less appealing to talented people then go for it.

Respectfully we hardly have the best talent in government now do we? Rees Mogg, Dorries, Javid, Zahawi, Sunak, Johnson, Patel, Raab, Hancock, Gove, Truss, Coffey, Shapps, Braverman... The list is endless. 

 

I don't think any of them have the talent or the skills needed to govern and I certainly don't trust them to make the right decisions in favour of the most vulnerable. How can someone with the wealth of Rees Mogg, Johnson, Zahawi or Sunak possibly understand what it's like to be poor? Iain Duncan Smith commented around the time they brought in the spare bedroom tax, that he was unemployed for a year and so understood exactly what it was like. What he failed to mention was that he was living rent free in one of his father in law's spare mansions at the time. 

 

Furthermore, they've been actively making decisions to deliberately make people poorer - the billions wasted during the pandemic, the billions in fraud written off, removing the £20 uplift, allowing the price of energy and fuel to spiral out of control; all while scraping off the top.

 

I agree that people shouldn't be reliant on welfare but we currently have a situation where the cost of living exceeds the lowest salaries, and that poverty line keeps going up and up and up. "Take home pay" is being utterly decimated. As I said before, 42% of people on UC are already in work. That should speak volumes. 

 

People should be able to live on a modest income. 

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Respectfully we hardly have the best talent in government now do we? Rees Mogg, Dorries, Javid, Zahawi, Sunak, Johnson, Patel, Raab, Hancock, Gove, Truss, Coffey, Shapps, Braverman... The list is endless. 

 

I don't think any of them have the talent or the skills needed to govern and I certainly don't trust them to make the right decisions in favour of the most vulnerable. How can someone with the wealth of Rees Mogg, Johnson, Zahawi or Sunak possibly understand what it's like to be poor? Iain Duncan Smith commented around the time they brought in the spare bedroom tax, that he was unemployed for a year and so understood exactly what it was like. What he failed to mention was that he was living rent free in one of his father in law's spare mansions at the time. 

 

Furthermore, they've been actively making decisions to deliberately make people poorer - the billions wasted during the pandemic, the billions in fraud written off, removing the £20 uplift, allowing the price of energy and fuel to spiral out of control; all while scraping off the top.

 

I agree that people shouldn't be reliant on welfare but we currently have a situation where the cost of living exceeds the lowest salaries, and that poverty line keeps going up and up and up. "Take home pay" is being utterly decimated. As I said before, 42% of people on UC are already in work. That should speak volumes. 

 

People should be able to live on a modest income. 

 

 

The out goings of people on modest incomes is taking up too much of their pay. Not luxury but housing costs and the rest. At risk of repeating from the housing thread this is why we need more social housing. It is mad that so many in full time work have to claim benefits. I regret that so many people who should vote don't bother. We end up with the shambles you describe so clearly. Don't believe the country can't afford to do more. At end of ww2 the country was skint after 6 years of war. We saw huge leaps in the standards of living in 50s, 60s and 70s because both Labour and Tories had the will to do it.

[orangecity23]

In terms of attracting the "best" people, funnily enough I don't think salary has anything to do with it - we aren't attracting a diverse set of the "best" people from around the country with a great salary to ensure we cast the widest net and get the absolute best. No, rather we pick up the graduates from exactly one university course at one university:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees

 

Given the state of our politics, seems to be the equivalent of LCFC scooping up recruits from the Southampton bargain bin.

 

 

 

Edited 16 July 2022 by orangecity23

[CosbehFox]

It costs approx £200k to run a successful electioneering campaign. It’s a closed shop for any intelligent, clever person willing to serve but doesn’t have the financial backing or the means to get a donor/sponsorship. Isabel Hardmen wrote an interesting book on it. 
 

Truss playing Thatcher dress up and feeding the members link will still score high despite the signs she will be an absolute disaster 

Edited 16 July 2022 by Cardiff_Fox

[Foxdiamond]

25 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

It costs approx £200k to run a successful electioneering campaign. It’s a closed shop for any intelligent, clever person willing to serve but doesn’t have the financial backing or the means to get a donor/sponsorship. Isabel Hardmen wrote an interesting book on it. 
 

Truss playing Thatcher dress up and feeding the members link will still score high despite the signs she will be an absolute disaster 

Yes you can see the members choosing her despite evidence. Maybe unfair of me but I don't think they have much of a reality check with how lots of people are struggling

[The Horse's Mouth]

42 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

It costs approx £200k to run a successful electioneering campaign. It’s a closed shop for any intelligent, clever person willing to serve but doesn’t have the financial backing or the means to get a donor/sponsorship. Isabel Hardmen wrote an interesting book on it. 
 

Truss playing Thatcher dress up and feeding the members link will still score high despite the signs she will be an absolute disaster 

Genuinely only reason I can think of as to why they're pushing for truss is so she can be a puppet 

[CosbehFox]

19 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Genuinely only reason I can think of as to why they're pushing for truss is so she can be a puppet 

Problem for her is that she’s is utterly terrible facing confrontation. PMQs, debates etc she’d be worse then May 

[Alf Bentley]

51 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Genuinely only reason I can think of as to why they're pushing for truss is so she can be a puppet 

 

I suspect it's purely down to ideology - the Hard Right wanting a leader who says what they want to hear, just like the Hard Left did with Corbyn.

 

She has consistently called for tax cuts, a small state, cuts in public spending, privatisation, deregulation, free market competition etc. That's in tune with perceived Thatcherite ideology (though Maggie could be pragmatic at times).

 

Whereas, in the eyes of the Hard Right, Sunak blotted his ideological copybook by spending all that public money during Covid. I presume they don't trust Mordaunt to apply Hard Right ideology either as she seems to be a bit more of a free thinker (though poor in the 1st debate) and hasn't entirely followed the party line on transgender issues, despite being a Brexiteer in 2016 (unlike Truss) and a laissez-faire type, too.

 

Of the 3 who seem to have a chance of winning, I reckon Truss would be the worst choice for the country - but probably the best choice for Labour, electorally. Christ, she makes Starmer seem charismatic! 

 

I reckon Labour, Lib Dems & SNP will be crossing their fingers hoping Truss wins - but for the sake of the country I hope she doesn't.

At the moment, Sunak seems the most competent of a rotten bunch, though Mordaunt might grow into the job - and might be a harder electoral opponent for Starmer eventually. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

36 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I suspect it's purely down to ideology - the Hard Right wanting a leader who says what they want to hear, just like the Hard Left did with Corbyn.

 

She has consistently called for tax cuts, a small state, cuts in public spending, privatisation, deregulation, free market competition etc. That's in tune with perceived Thatcherite ideology (though Maggie could be pragmatic at times).

 

Whereas, in the eyes of the Hard Right, Sunak blotted his ideological copybook by spending all that public money during Covid. I presume they don't trust Mordaunt to apply Hard Right ideology either as she seems to be a bit more of a free thinker (though poor in the 1st debate) and hasn't entirely followed the party line on transgender issues, despite being a Brexiteer in 2016 (unlike Truss) and a laissez-faire type, too.

 

Of the 3 who seem to have a chance of winning, I reckon Truss would be the worst choice for the country - but probably the best choice for Labour, electorally. Christ, she makes Starmer seem charismatic! 

 

I reckon Labour, Lib Dems & SNP will be crossing their fingers hoping Truss wins - but for the sake of the country I hope she doesn't.

At the moment, Sunak seems the most competent of a rotten bunch, though Mordaunt might grow into the job - and might be a harder electoral opponent for Starmer eventually. 

Yeah I get that, it just seems odd that truss is the one they've picked, she's not particularly competent, her views beforehand were very much inline with the Tory new labour spin under Cameron and now cause she's had a picture in a tank she's Mad Maggy Liz.

 

I think you're right, but the problem I see with that is I can't see Starmer getting a majority, so we're going to end up with some dodgy coalition on either side, which would probably include the SNP who I want nowhere near our government.

 

I think for the country, Mordaunt is probably the best choice, doesn't have strong ties to Boris either and does kinda feel like a fresh start, seems a bit more of a free thinker more the centre. You can disagree with her policies and that, but you wouldn't be utterly ashamed she represents the country. But probably has the best chance of retaining a majority. Sunak scared the shit out of me cause hes competent and getting things done and I don't trust his methods one bit and he's 5'5.With Truss I guess, country might be on its arse but it could be quite entertaining.

Edited 16 July 2022 by The Horse's Mouth

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Yeah I get that, it just seems odd that truss is the one they've picked, she's not particularly competent, her views beforehand were very much inline with the Tory new labour spin under Cameron and now cause she's had a picture in a tank she's Mad Maggy Liz.

 

I think you're right, but the problem I see with that is I can't see Starmer getting a majority, so we're going to end up with some dodgy coalition on either side, which would probably include the SNP who I want nowhere near our government.

 

I think for the country, Mordaunt is probably the best choice, doesn't have strong ties to Boris either and does kinda feel like a fresh start, seems a bit more of a free thinker more the centre. You can disagree with her policies and that, but you wouldn't be utterly ashamed she represents the country. But probably has the best chance of retaining a majority. Sunak scared the shit out of me cause hes competent and getting things done and I don't trust his methods one bit. With Truss I guess, country might be on its arse but it could be quite entertaining.

 

I agree about Truss. She's never impressed me at all. It's a mystery that the Right haven't found a better candidate than that - even that nutter Steve Baker would have been better from their perspective, surely.

 

I can't see Labour winning a majority unless the SNP has a major collapse. At best, I can see them as the largest party in a hung parliament. To do that, they'd still have to win back most of the red wall and gain a significant number of Tory seats in the South.

 

The way things are going, the Lib Dems might be key players in a hung parliament again. I can see them taking quite a few Tory seats in the South unless there's a rapid economic recovery within 2 years or some other factor intervenes.

I'd settle for a Lab-LD coalition or confidence-and-supply agreement right now - and I'd be hoping the LDs demanded electoral reform as their main price for supporting Starmer.

 

Either big party could end up relying on SNP support. I'm not keen on that, either, and don't want Scottish independence (though that's up to the Scots). But I assume their price for supporting Lab or Con would be a referendum. Could be worse - and hopefully they'd lose the referendum and go into rapid decline as a party.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, orangecity23 said:

In terms of attracting the "best" people, funnily enough I don't think salary has anything to do with it - we aren't attracting a diverse set of the "best" people from around the country with a great salary to ensure we cast the widest net and get the absolute best. No, rather we pick up the graduates from exactly one university course at one university:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees

 

Given the state of our politics, seems to be the equivalent of LCFC scooping up recruits from the Southampton bargain bin.

 

We have a shockingly shite bunch at the moment.  I just don’t think making it harder for those from more modest backgrounds to succeed will help.

[weller54]

Truss knitting away so she can wear her latest outfit for tomorrow's TV debate...

and...

IT'S LIVEEEE!!