Snap General Election called

[Puja]

I... have no words...

W O W. It's not even like they're spinning it to get a cock-eyed interpretation of it, that's just straight up fiction. Just completely divorced from facts.

Although I do like the idea of Bullingdon Club Boris being the person brought in from outside of the elite and becoming corrupted by travelling the world and talking to Macron.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Woke Boris. Jesus. Who is that guy?

Frankly though that clip didn't bother me at all having just seen this.



It just makes you want to smash your fucking head against a wall. I feel like I'm going to have an aneurysm any day now. It's a shame Elon Musk has backed out of buying Twitter because I was sort of hoping he'd fuck it up so much I could finally cut it out of my life for good. Though maybe that's just the same as Stom's logic about getting an even worse replacement for Johnson?

[Son of Mathonwy]

I... have no words...

W O W. It's not even like they're spinning it to get a cock-eyed interpretation of it, that's just straight up fiction. Just completely divorced from facts.

Although I do like the idea of Bullingdon Club Boris being the person brought in from outside of the elite and becoming corrupted by travelling the world and talking to Macron.

Puja

That is just amazing. There's no way you can explain this off as a difference of opinion, just a straight up collection of lies instead of the completely different actual reasons for his resignation.

Really depressing that this has been going on for decades and will continue indefinitely. There really is no hope. On that note, I just read from an antivax Facebook 'friend' that Greta Thunberg is actually an agent of the Rothschilds and the green agenda is something the billionaires are forcing on the people. We can all have our own truth.

[morepork]

The fucking Murdochs should be poisoned. This is flat out sedition. Facts and reason stand no chance in this environment. None.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Tory leadership circus essentially a three horse race, hard to call between Truss, Sunak and Mordaunt. Hard to know who I'd prefer (like which poison would I prefer?).

Most likely, Truss would be the worst for the country but the best for Labour. Sunak's a little better for the country, a little worse for Labour (although he has big chinks in his armour). And Mordaunt, who knows? She's untested (or has, allegedly not performed well when given minor postings), so is a huge gamble for the country (of course it's obvious that such an unknown should never be accelerated to the top). For Labour, Mordaunt could be a disaster, worst case she could be given a honeymoon right up to the GE. Or she could be an obvious lightweight, out of her depth, a liability. Who knows?

So if I had to choose, I'd go for Truss, marginally over Sunak (worse short term but better long term). Mordaunt is simply too unknown and so potentially too dangerous.

[Galfon]

Despite his popularity amongst MPs, can't see the members going for Sunak due to non dom, perceived back-stabbing, Johnson government and Sir Gavin W. connections.
So lady PM next; choice of chaos v control, old government v. fresh face (in top job). Mordaunt seems to have the confidence and momentum, so already bombs are getting lobbed her way by nay-sayers. Interesting mix so it is.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Braverman got 27 votes, Tugendhat 32, Badenoch 49 votes, Truss 64, Mordaunt 83, and Sunak 101.

Braverman out, presumably to be followed by Tugendhat and Badenoch in due course. The votes of those three look more likely to benefit Truss than Mordaunt, so still all to play for between 2nd and 3rd placers. Sunak is safe for the last two.

Although it's not completely inconceivable that Braverman's vote could boost Badenoch's enough to pass Truss . . .

[Puja]

Why the hell are there televised debates? Nobody who doesn't have a long-standing Conservative party membership can affect this in the slightest, so why are broadcasters pretending this is a public participation event?

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Why the hell are there televised debates? Nobody who doesn't have a long-standing Conservative party membership can affect this in the slightest, so why are broadcasters pretending this is a public participation event?

Puja

There is truth in what you say.

Although it may be instructive to Tory voters to understand just how right wing the party they support has become.

[Mikey Brown]

Is this some sort of 4D chess move that I can't comprehend?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 23849.html

[Puja]

Is this some sort of 4D chess move that I can't comprehend?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 23849.html

I have to say that Keir Starmer is probably the most reasonable candidate left in the Tory Leadership election though.

This was the pick of the quote: "I would say this, just about those pledges [the 10 policy commitments that he specifically promised when vying for the leadership]. We went through the hustings that all the Tory candidates are going through now," he said. "Everybody at every hustings had a closing speech and my closing speech was the same every single time: if we don't win all the things that all the candidates are saying will never come to pass. So I made it clear that anyone voting for me as leader of the Labour Party would have somebody who is laser-like focused on winning an election. That was my pitch to our Labour Party members."

That literally translates to, "Winning power is the only important thing, so I said whatever I thought would win that contest, without any intention of following through, just like I'm going to say whatever I think will win this election. I made it very clear that I was only interested in winning and it's silly that you expected anything different." That's unusually blunt for a politician.

I don't understand why this one is coming up as a votewinner though. The idea of the NHS is ridiculously popular, above pretty much any concept in this entire country, to the extent that polling shows most will happily accept tax rises if the money was going directly to improving it. I can't imagine it's a populist move to say you'll hand it over to private companies. Surely the populist move is to campaign on, "We're going to fix the NHS and make it what it once was," not "We're going to keep doing the same thing the Tories have been doing the past 12 years while it went down the drain."

If I were Labour, I'd be planning to build the manifesto around it. Restrictions on doctors/medical staff using NHS training and working 4 days a week in private sector, incentives and bursaries for training new doctors and nurses, incentives to poach doctors/dentists/nurses from overseas, a costed plan to build new hospitals in specific locations (tactically in under-served marginal seats), and taxes on private hospitals and schools to fund this.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Is this some sort of 4D chess move that I can't comprehend?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 23849.html

I have to say that Keir Starmer is probably the most reasonable candidate left in the Tory Leadership election though.

This was the pick of the quote: "I would say this, just about those pledges [the 10 policy commitments that he specifically promised when vying for the leadership]. We went through the hustings that all the Tory candidates are going through now," he said. "Everybody at every hustings had a closing speech and my closing speech was the same every single time: if we don't win all the things that all the candidates are saying will never come to pass. So I made it clear that anyone voting for me as leader of the Labour Party would have somebody who is laser-like focused on winning an election. That was my pitch to our Labour Party members."

That literally translates to, "Winning power is the only important thing, so I said whatever I thought would win that contest, without any intention of following through, just like I'm going to say whatever I think will win this election. I made it very clear that I was only interested in winning and it's silly that you expected anything different." That's unusually blunt for a politician.

I don't understand why this one is coming up as a votewinner though. The idea of the NHS is ridiculously popular, above pretty much any concept in this entire country, to the extent that polling shows most will happily accept tax rises if the money was going directly to improving it. I can't imagine it's a populist move to say you'll hand it over to private companies. Surely the populist move is to campaign on, "We're going to fix the NHS and make it what it once was," not "We're going to keep doing the same thing the Tories have been doing the past 12 years while it went down the drain."

If I were Labour, I'd be planning to build the manifesto around it. Restrictions on doctors/medical staff using NHS training and working 4 days a week in private sector, incentives and bursaries for training new doctors and nurses, incentives to poach doctors/dentists/nurses from overseas, a costed plan to build new hospitals in specific locations (tactically in under-served marginal seats), and taxes on private hospitals and schools to fund this.

Puja

On Starmer's blunt statement that it's OK to break his pledges because he's sticking with some kind of meta-pledge: it's pretty despicable. And it doesn't even make sense. Is he isn't bound by the 10 pledges, then why would he be bound by the meta-pledge to do anything to win? The only thing we can definitely take from this is that Starmer's word can't be trusted.

On the NHS private sector contracts issue, it seems like a mad thing to say (whatever he thinks of it). The only way I can see this making sense is that Starmer wants to woo the centre and not frighten the centre right, and - crucially - he assumes the left have no choice but to vote for him, so it doesn't matter too much if he treats us with contempt.

I agree - this is the kind of thing that could differentiate Labour from the Tories and a policy the Tories could not steal.

So Starmer continues to disappoint (to say the least). Unfortunately there is no serious alternative.

[Puja]

The only way I can see this making sense is that Starmer wants to woo the centre and not frighten the centre right, and - crucially - he assumes the left have no choice but to vote for him, so it doesn't matter too much if he treats us with contempt.

This is the crux of everything - it's the Joe Biden manouevre of trying to poach as many disgusted right voters as possible and daring the left not to vote and bring in another right wing government. It did kinda work for Biden, but you wonder whether he would've got an actual workable Senate majority if he'd done something, anything, to excite and energise his base instead of frantically reassuring the other side's base that he wouldn't dream of doing any of the cool shit that the Republicans were accusing him of.

Will it work at all in this country? Depends how terrible a leader the Conservatives elect and whether the manifesto contains even a glimmer of a tack to the left. There wouldn't be the same widespread horror over Sunak as there was over the prospect of more Trump, and if Starmer continues to drive right and dares the left not to vote for him, I think enough will take him up on it that he'll struggle to win.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Having seen the debates (please, no more), my impressions are:

Mordaunt is smooth but vague. Would say anything to get elected. No idea what she stands for other than that. Kind of like a pretty Keir Starmer.
Truss is the poorest speaker of the lot, although good enough. Would also say anything, although we have a better idea what she stands for ie more of the same with added borrowing and tax cuts.
Sunak spoke well and, not surprisingly seems the most grounded in the figures. A vote for no change other than to get rid of the joke PM.
Tugenhat was very smooth with the live audience on C4, less so for the audience-less ITV debate. Don't know what he'd do but he's the most centrist of them I assume. Still wanted to push nuclear as the solution to climate change, though.
Badenach came across as honest. Get the impression she sees everything as a mechanism, and that she is best placed to get them running smoothly. I'm terrified of what she might do if given power over human beings.

Other than Sunak they all seem to think that tax cuts are needed urgently. And Sunak is just holding off on that till next year and the build up to the election.

The whole thing is indicative of how right wing the Tories have become since purged of their moderates in 2019. Also, I have no idea why they think they can 'unleash the potential' of the UK. Haven't they been failing to do that for the last 12 years? It isn't working so let's do it even harder?

[Puja]

Having seen the debates (please, no more), my impressions are:

Mordaunt is smooth but vague. Would say anything to get elected. No idea what she stands for other than that. Kind of like a pretty Keir Starmer.
Truss is the poorest speaker of the lot, although good enough. Would also say anything, although we have a better idea what she stands for ie more of the same with added borrowing and tax cuts.
Sunak spoke well and, not surprisingly seems the most grounded in the figures. A vote for no change other than to get rid of the joke PM.
Tugenhat was very smooth with the live audience on C4, less so for the audience-less ITV debate. Don't know what he'd do but he's the most centrist of them I assume. Still wanted to push nuclear as the solution to climate change, though.
Badenach came across as honest. Get the impression she sees everything as a mechanism, and that she is best placed to get them running smoothly. I'm terrified of what she might do if given power over human beings.

Other than Sunak they all seem to think that tax cuts are needed urgently. And Sunak is just holding off on that till next year and the build up to the election.

The whole thing is indicative of how right wing the Tories have become since purged of their moderates in 2019. Also, I have no idea why they think they can 'unleash the potential' of the UK. Haven't they been failing to do that for the last 12 years? It isn't working so let's do it even harder?

I am terrified Badenoch will win. She is consistently polling highest among Conservative members, so if she gets to the final 2, she'll wipe the floor with her opponent, and I'm worried that MPs are looking at that polling and might think they shouldn't go against it.

She is an earnest, honest, true-believer, and a lot of the things that she believes are utterly fucking horrifying.

Puja

[Banquo]

Having seen the debates (please, no more), my impressions are:

Mordaunt is smooth but vague. Would say anything to get elected. No idea what she stands for other than that. Kind of like a pretty Keir Starmer.
Truss is the poorest speaker of the lot, although good enough. Would also say anything, although we have a better idea what she stands for ie more of the same with added borrowing and tax cuts.
Sunak spoke well and, not surprisingly seems the most grounded in the figures. A vote for no change other than to get rid of the joke PM.
Tugenhat was very smooth with the live audience on C4, less so for the audience-less ITV debate. Don't know what he'd do but he's the most centrist of them I assume. Still wanted to push nuclear as the solution to climate change, though.
Badenach came across as honest. Get the impression she sees everything as a mechanism, and that she is best placed to get them running smoothly. I'm terrified of what she might do if given power over human beings.

Other than Sunak they all seem to think that tax cuts are needed urgently. And Sunak is just holding off on that till next year and the build up to the election.

The whole thing is indicative of how right wing the Tories have become since purged of their moderates in 2019. Also, I have no idea why they think they can 'unleash the potential' of the UK. Haven't they been failing to do that for the last 12 years? It isn't working so let's do it even harder?

I am terrified Badenoch will win. She is consistently polling highest among Conservative members, so if she gets to the final 2, she'll wipe the floor with her opponent, and I'm worried that MPs are looking at that polling and might think they shouldn't go against it.

She is an earnest, honest, true-believer, and a lot of the things that she believes are utterly fucking horrifying.

Puja

Agreed. Nut job. I think they all are, bar maybe Rishi and possibly Two-hats. Mordaunt is an empty vessel. I can't see anyway Rishi will win- he will get to the last two, and lose to either Truss or Mordaunt. Which would be a disaster for the country short term, but ushers in minority Labour govt I think.

[Puja]

Having seen the debates (please, no more), my impressions are:

Mordaunt is smooth but vague. Would say anything to get elected. No idea what she stands for other than that. Kind of like a pretty Keir Starmer.
Truss is the poorest speaker of the lot, although good enough. Would also say anything, although we have a better idea what she stands for ie more of the same with added borrowing and tax cuts.
Sunak spoke well and, not surprisingly seems the most grounded in the figures. A vote for no change other than to get rid of the joke PM.
Tugenhat was very smooth with the live audience on C4, less so for the audience-less ITV debate. Don't know what he'd do but he's the most centrist of them I assume. Still wanted to push nuclear as the solution to climate change, though.
Badenach came across as honest. Get the impression she sees everything as a mechanism, and that she is best placed to get them running smoothly. I'm terrified of what she might do if given power over human beings.

Other than Sunak they all seem to think that tax cuts are needed urgently. And Sunak is just holding off on that till next year and the build up to the election.

The whole thing is indicative of how right wing the Tories have become since purged of their moderates in 2019. Also, I have no idea why they think they can 'unleash the potential' of the UK. Haven't they been failing to do that for the last 12 years? It isn't working so let's do it even harder?

I am terrified Badenoch will win. She is consistently polling highest among Conservative members, so if she gets to the final 2, she'll wipe the floor with her opponent, and I'm worried that MPs are looking at that polling and might think they shouldn't go against it.

She is an earnest, honest, true-believer, and a lot of the things that she believes are utterly fucking horrifying.

Puja

Agreed. Nut job. I think they all are, bar maybe Rishi and possibly Two-hats. Mordaunt is an empty vessel. I can't see anyway Rishi will win- he will get to the last two, and lose to either Truss or Mordaunt. Which would be a disaster for the country short term, but ushers in minority Labour govt I think.

Mordaunt vs Starmer would be a hell of a thing for the country. Neither of them with a principle they wouldn't run over if it got them a vote, utterly without belief or commitment, being as bland and anodyne as possible. It'd be the most vacuous election ever.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Having seen the debates (please, no more), my impressions are:

Mordaunt is smooth but vague. Would say anything to get elected. No idea what she stands for other than that. Kind of like a pretty Keir Starmer.
Truss is the poorest speaker of the lot, although good enough. Would also say anything, although we have a better idea what she stands for ie more of the same with added borrowing and tax cuts.
Sunak spoke well and, not surprisingly seems the most grounded in the figures. A vote for no change other than to get rid of the joke PM.
Tugenhat was very smooth with the live audience on C4, less so for the audience-less ITV debate. Don't know what he'd do but he's the most centrist of them I assume. Still wanted to push nuclear as the solution to climate change, though.
Badenach came across as honest. Get the impression she sees everything as a mechanism, and that she is best placed to get them running smoothly. I'm terrified of what she might do if given power over human beings.

Other than Sunak they all seem to think that tax cuts are needed urgently. And Sunak is just holding off on that till next year and the build up to the election.

The whole thing is indicative of how right wing the Tories have become since purged of their moderates in 2019. Also, I have no idea why they think they can 'unleash the potential' of the UK. Haven't they been failing to do that for the last 12 years? It isn't working so let's do it even harder?

I am terrified Badenoch will win. She is consistently polling highest among Conservative members, so if she gets to the final 2, she'll wipe the floor with her opponent, and I'm worried that MPs are looking at that polling and might think they shouldn't go against it.

She is an earnest, honest, true-believer, and a lot of the things that she believes are utterly fucking horrifying.

Puja

Agreed. Nut job. I think they all are, bar maybe Rishi and possibly Two-hats. Mordaunt is an empty vessel. I can't see anyway Rishi will win- he will get to the last two, and lose to either Truss or Mordaunt. Which would be a disaster for the country short term, but ushers in minority Labour govt I think.

On the one hand, I think Sunak is the best qualified for the job and will steer the party back towards the centre. But he has a huge mountain to climb unless the other final candidate is persuaded to withdraw (don't bet against that if theres clear ground between them).

But I do think that the Conservatives need some time in opposition to work out what they are supposed to stand for. On that basis Id rather Truss was the sacrificial lamb; Sunak might reassure voters but Truss will practically guarantee a Labour win (even if via coalition) and allow a reset.

[Banquo]

I am terrified Badenoch will win. She is consistently polling highest among Conservative members, so if she gets to the final 2, she'll wipe the floor with her opponent, and I'm worried that MPs are looking at that polling and might think they shouldn't go against it.

She is an earnest, honest, true-believer, and a lot of the things that she believes are utterly fucking horrifying.

Puja

Agreed. Nut job. I think they all are, bar maybe Rishi and possibly Two-hats. Mordaunt is an empty vessel. I can't see anyway Rishi will win- he will get to the last two, and lose to either Truss or Mordaunt. Which would be a disaster for the country short term, but ushers in minority Labour govt I think.

Mordaunt vs Starmer would be a hell of a thing for the country. Neither of them with a principle they wouldn't run over if it got them a vote, utterly without belief or commitment, being as bland and anodyne as possible. It'd be the most vacuous election ever.

Puja

Yep, though in fairness Labour need do nothing other than snipe from the sidelines at the moment. I do wonder how long that will last though- saw someone questioning Emily Reeves on tax strategy, and she pretty much said we will decide that when we get into government. The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues). So if that's the big idea, its not big, though may help keep teachers in the state sector; she also indicates rises on taxing dividends, which has already happened in Nov 21, and whilst will raise some tax, will also hit pension funds. So I think they do need to come up with something....but not yet, in fairness.

[Puja]

The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

[Banquo]

The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

There are plenty, its not even zero sum as indicated above- after five years or less it would cost the state money. But then I'm a fan of the private school system for lots of reasons. And its not a plan, its a tactic; the plan would involve how to provide the places for the 'displaced' kids. To be clear, I wouldn't start from here in an ideal world, but there are much bigger priorities in the economy.

[Puja]

The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

There are plenty, its not even zero sum as indicated above- after five years or less it would cost the state money. But then I'm a fan of the private school system for lots of reasons. And its not a plan, its a tactic; the plan would involve how to provide the places for the 'displaced' kids. To be clear, I wouldn't start from here in an ideal world, but there are much bigger priorities in the economy.

I am manifestly not, which explains our differing views on the matter. To me, private schools create an awful lot of value to a small number of people and a detriment to the rest.

Much as I hate to paraphrase Blair, but what bigger priority is there than education? Surely it's the bedrock upon which everything else rests?

Puja

[Banquo]

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

There are plenty, its not even zero sum as indicated above- after five years or less it would cost the state money. But then I'm a fan of the private school system for lots of reasons. And its not a plan, its a tactic; the plan would involve how to provide the places for the 'displaced' kids. To be clear, I wouldn't start from here in an ideal world, but there are much bigger priorities in the economy.

I am manifestly not, which explains our differing views on the matter. To me, private schools create an awful lot of value to a small number of people and a detriment to the rest.

Much as I hate to paraphrase Blair, but what bigger priority is there than education? Surely it's the bedrock upon which everything else rests?

Puja

My answer would be to fix the state system first, and you won't do that by shutting down private schools- as I've just said, it would likely crucify them in the short term- I'd also add that you should be thanking me for paying the taxes that help educate your child whilst not burdening the state with my own children's education (a joke, for the avoidance of doubt). As I said, I wouldn't start from here. And I wouldn't be quoting Blair as the architect of our disastrous higher education system.
Without an economy, you don't have good education; that's not even chicken and egg. Unless you want to rebase all that.

Anyway, in classic fashion the debate has turned away from the real point- Labour don't have a position on taxation.

[Sandydragon]

The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

So overcrowded state schools become even more overcrowded? Children with parents in the military now very disadvantaged due to changing schools every 2 years.

Couple of things that spring to mind

[Puja]

The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

So overcrowded state schools become even more overcrowded? Children with parents in the military now very disadvantaged due to changing schools every 2 years.

Couple of things that spring to mind

Boarding can only be provided by private schools?

Puja