RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:Nothing about the--expectable--Tory by-election losses yet?

Big swings.

I'd forgotten those were coming back today. Massive swings and Dowden resigning. Hard to see how Boris can continue, but I've no doubt that he will.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMN6Loqbg/?k=1

Puja

On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Puja wrote:I'd forgotten those were coming back today. Massive swings and Dowden resigning. Hard to see how Boris can continue, but I've no doubt that he will.

He can continue because the "rebels" shot their bolt early, and didn't wait for the by-election; largely because it seems to be a load of individuals, rather than any concerted effort.
Either way, it means that there's no existing mechanism to get rid of him - though they are talking about changing the rules so that they can, which is... just... so Boris Johnson.

BJ won't be going anywhere unless forced out, and he can't be forced for another 11 months.
The only "mechanism" I'm aware of now, is if the party donors have a quiet word that they will NOT be offering him boardroom appointments and after-dinner speaking gigs is he stays on - hit him where it hurts - his retirement fund. But the donors don't seem to be unhappy with him, he's allowing them unparalleled levels of corruption from the public purse.

Puja wrote:On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

I'd be okay with him having no policies if I was convinced he had principles and I knew he stood for something other than, "What would you like me to stand for?"

Puja

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:On the flip side, such a resounding victory will convince Starmer even further that his policy of avoiding having policy and his principle of not having principles is a vote winner and that he should continue making sure not to do anything that could be construed as positive or effecting change.

Puja

Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

Exactly. It might not be what I would do, but keeping his powder dry is probably the best thing Starmer can do.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

Exactly. It might not be what I would do, but keeping his powder dry is probably the best thing Starmer can do.

And Boris is just a shit magnet. The illusion has well and truly burst and his unique personality is no longer the vote winner it once was. He will retain some support from Brexit and people who feel that he had a hard time through Covid but more and more now just see him as a clown. Starmers best tactic is to hold back any policies until a few months before the election then hit the ground running. If Boris clings on for the maximum term then its too soon anyway - no one will remember anything Starmer says now in 2 years time. Just be competent, continue to embarrass Boris but not enough that the Tories actually ditch him.
Meanwhile, this is very good.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Tbf, with the election so far away, all Starmer needs to do at this stage is make BJ as toxic as possible without having him replaced.

The time for actual policy will come. At this stage, let BJ kill the Tories.

Boris will nick any Labour policy that he thinks is vaguely popular. So there is value in this approach.

Exactly. It might not be what I would do, but keeping his powder dry is probably the best thing Starmer can do.

I'm not asking for a full manifesto. I'm not asking for anything much of anything really - I just want to know a single quality or belief of his that isn't either "I'm not Boris Johnson" or "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn."

I mean, FFS, refusing to evince an position on whether the Rwanda policy is good or not is appalling. There's playing it coy and then there's, "No, I won't comment on whether I'd continue the government's policy to punish people fleeing war and oppression by ferrying them a repressive pseudo-dictatorship at enormous cost."

Puja

He’s evinced pretty unequivocally here:

Mellsblue wrote:He’s evinced pretty unequivocally here:

Ah - I was working from the one at the top of this page, where he refused to commit if he'd stop the policy if he came to government and refused to comment on the ethics of it. I'm glad he has come out with something, although I note it did take nearly 2 minutes of waffle about logistics and the interviewer repeating the question for a yes or no answer before he managed to come out with, "Yes, it is unethical."

I appreciate that he's being super careful not to lose the xenophobe Mail reader vote by appearing to be "soft on dirty foreigners immigrants," but that appears to be his entire personality - being super careful not to say anything that might lose a vote.

Mind, he led the Labour voters down the garden path in the leadership election and has since gone on to do as he likes without care for anything he said then, so maybe he's doing the same with the xenophobes and will actually pivot to principles after he's got into government.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He’s evinced pretty unequivocally here:

Ah - I was working from the one at the top of this page, where he refused to commit if he'd stop the policy if he came to government and refused to comment on the ethics of it. I'm glad he has come out with something, although I note it did take nearly 2 minutes of waffle about logistics and the interviewer repeating the question for a yes or no answer before he managed to come out with, "Yes, it is unethical."

I appreciate that he's being super careful not to lose the xenophobe Mail reader vote by appearing to be "soft on dirty foreigners immigrants," but that appears to be his entire personality - being super careful not to say anything that might lose a vote.

Mind, he led the Labour voters down the garden path in the leadership election and has since gone on to do as he likes without care for anything he said then, so maybe he's doing the same with the xenophobes and will actually pivot to principles after he's got into government.

Puja

It’s easy to see that this policy is a sop to the Tory right, but it’s also very popular in the red wall seats. It would be a mistake to see this as only a right wing problem, a dislike of immigration is also present in many traditional working class areas who you would never describe as right wing.

Bonzer

https://www.desmog.com/2022/06/27/clima ... tory-peer/

Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

Sandydragon wrote:Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

that would be colossally stupid.

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

that would be colossally stupid.

Probably agreed, although it would depend on how Labour selected a new leader. They'd have to have a pared down process and, if Starmer is fined and resigns, you'd expect that Rayner would likely be in the same boat.

There's a reasonable chance that Labour pick someone else boring and staid and take an age over doing it, which is probably what the Tories are thinking. However, I think a lot of people would see it as cynical, Boris is the least popular man in the country, and there's the start of a huge recession and cost of living crisis, so it's a terrible time for an election even without the risk that Labour quickly select someone vaguely charismatic and willing to go with some popular socialist policies that play well in an era when it seems like the government is protecting the few, not the many (to coin a phrase).

I can't see how they will fine Starmer though. Any decision to do that is going to be horrendously partisan, given the background of Boris only getting one fine for waaaay worse, plus Starmer heaping on the pressure by emphasising the consequences. I don't see them having the minerals.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Tory MPs put on red alert for snap election if Starmer is fined for curry gate and resigns.

that would be colossally stupid.

Probably agreed, although it would depend on how Labour selected a new leader. They'd have to have a pared down process and, if Starmer is fined and resigns, you'd expect that Rayner would likely be in the same boat.

There's a reasonable chance that Labour pick someone else boring and staid and take an age over doing it, which is probably what the Tories are thinking. However, I think a lot of people would see it as cynical, Boris is the least popular man in the country, and there's the start of a huge recession and cost of living crisis, so it's a terrible time for an election even without the risk that Labour quickly select someone vaguely charismatic and willing to go with some popular socialist policies that play well in an era when it seems like the government is protecting the few, not the many (to coin a phrase).

I can't see how they will fine Starmer though. Any decision to do that is going to be horrendously partisan, given the background of Boris only getting one fine for waaaay worse, plus Starmer heaping on the pressure by emphasising the consequences. I don't see them having the minerals.

Puja

If I got fined for that I would appeal. Starmer has done nothing wrong (nor Rayner) from what I can read in the press.

But, I do see the logic of a quick poll. Labour will be in confusion and it would have to elect someone very quickly or else the public might not want to take a risk on Corbyn mark 2.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: that would be colossally stupid.

Probably agreed, although it would depend on how Labour selected a new leader. They'd have to have a pared down process and, if Starmer is fined and resigns, you'd expect that Rayner would likely be in the same boat.

There's a reasonable chance that Labour pick someone else boring and staid and take an age over doing it, which is probably what the Tories are thinking. However, I think a lot of people would see it as cynical, Boris is the least popular man in the country, and there's the start of a huge recession and cost of living crisis, so it's a terrible time for an election even without the risk that Labour quickly select someone vaguely charismatic and willing to go with some popular socialist policies that play well in an era when it seems like the government is protecting the few, not the many (to coin a phrase).

I can't see how they will fine Starmer though. Any decision to do that is going to be horrendously partisan, given the background of Boris only getting one fine for waaaay worse, plus Starmer heaping on the pressure by emphasising the consequences. I don't see them having the minerals.

Puja

If I got fined for that I would appeal. Starmer has done nothing wrong (nor Rayner) from what I can read in the press.

But, I do see the logic of a quick poll. Labour will be in confusion and it would have to elect someone very quickly or else the public might not want to take a risk on Corbyn mark 2.

There is only logic if they think Boris can detoxify himself and inflation etc be reversed; toxicity and the economy are killers (setting aside incompetence).

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: that would be colossally stupid.

Probably agreed, although it would depend on how Labour selected a new leader. They'd have to have a pared down process and, if Starmer is fined and resigns, you'd expect that Rayner would likely be in the same boat.

There's a reasonable chance that Labour pick someone else boring and staid and take an age over doing it, which is probably what the Tories are thinking. However, I think a lot of people would see it as cynical, Boris is the least popular man in the country, and there's the start of a huge recession and cost of living crisis, so it's a terrible time for an election even without the risk that Labour quickly select someone vaguely charismatic and willing to go with some popular socialist policies that play well in an era when it seems like the government is protecting the few, not the many (to coin a phrase).

I can't see how they will fine Starmer though. Any decision to do that is going to be horrendously partisan, given the background of Boris only getting one fine for waaaay worse, plus Starmer heaping on the pressure by emphasising the consequences. I don't see them having the minerals.

Puja

If I got fined for that I would appeal. Starmer has done nothing wrong (nor Rayner) from what I can read in the press.

But, I do see the logic of a quick poll. Labour will be in confusion and it would have to elect someone very quickly or else the public might not want to take a risk on Corbyn mark 2.

I agree that it doesn't appear that Starmer has done anything wrong, but I am a little bit concerned about Durham re-opening the investigation after their initial response of "Nah, nothing in it." Not that I especially think he has done anything, but I'm concerned there is the possibility that they want to look better than the Met by taking a hard line.

I'm actually torn as to what I want to happen here. I'm not a great Starmer fan, so I wouldn't mourn his leadership, and it is tempting to think of the idea of a poll at the point where this government is at its weakest. However, it would give the Conservatives at minimum of a two week head start in campaigning and allow their rabid press corps to spin it as "See, Boris isn't so bad, the other side are guilty too," and we end up with 5 more years of Johnson.

Puja

Nadine Dorries getting absolutely rinsed by all and sundry for appearing at a Rugby League World Cup promo event and talking about how she always loved rugby league and she remembers fondly the drop goal that won it in 2003.









Puja

Plus the latest Tory MP involved in sexual assault, after getting drunk and groping strangers, is called Mr Pincher. Just wanted to share that one.

Puja

OMG, that last one, Michael Tate...that is soooo a parody account, even if unintentional. Amazing.

Seriously, go have a read, fantastic.

Puja wrote:Nadine Dorries getting absolutely rinsed by all and sundry for appearing at a Rugby League World Cup promo event and talking about how she always loved rugby league and she remembers fondly the drop goal that won it in 2003.









Puja

This kind of shit happens and she isnt going to know every detail of every sport she might have to get involved with. But, unless you are going to prepare well then don't try and pretend that you know what you're talking about. Im sure the RL community would rather she rocked up interested but with no knowledge than pretend she has been secretly a supporter since the 2003 RWC!

Stom wrote:OMG, that last one, Michael Tate...that is soooo a parody account, even if unintentional. Amazing.

Seriously, go have a read, fantastic.

Another MP enobled for being an arse licker