British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
Just as part of my endless banging on about valuing our votes. In the usa they ahve probably just changed the presidential candidate because it appeared so many people wouldn't vote for Biden. It's possible he is so ill they had no choice but even then the huge poliitcal pressure of refusing to vote for something is very clear.
The US election will be decided on voting in a very small number of states and it's quite hard for voters in most states to value their votes.
and yet it's most liekly the case that some simply being unwilling to vote for biden means he wont be the candidate.
Labour are already focused on winning the next election. Parties adapt to how we are willing to vote. Votes are valuable as long as we dont give them away.
Party managers dont want us to value our votes and if we dont then they sure as hell wont
Yes, changed the presidential candidate because of some being unwilling to vote for Biden, not because "so many people wouldn't vote for Biden" as you wrote.
Meanwhile across the pond, the ignored Nigel Farage has just called Kamala Harris (parents from India and Jamaica) a "black African".
Is it ok to call him racist yet chez?
Yes, changed the presidential candidate because of some being unwilling to vote for Biden, not because "so many people wouldn't vote for Biden" as you wrote.
Ok so your quibble is that less votes were required for such a monumental change. I think that was semantics but okay its shows that votes are even more valuable than my wording suggested. As long as we value them.
I dont think you need my permission but if you do then you have my permission to call anyone anything you like as long as its PC (which your example obviously would be).
Almost. My point is that a relatively tiny number of votes highly unevenly distributed through the US were required for a large change.
And you won't be agreeing with that description of Farage?
Maybe but those who's votes didn't directly matter still bolster the movement that encourages those whose votes do.
Something ...
The contract for a barge which houses asylum seekers will not be renewed past January 2025, according to the Home Office.
Extending the use of the Bibby Stockholm, which is moored on Portland in Dorset, would have cost over £20 million next year.
The three-storey barge has capacity for up to 500 men, aged 18-65.
Meanwhile across the pond, the ignored Nigel Farage has just called Kamala Harris (parents from India and Jamaica) a "black African".
Is it ok to call him racist yet chez?
Well she is black, but not African. This is probably about context, if he was using it to be racist (or it's reasonable to see racism in whatever he said as he's making it about race to make a point), then it's racist lol
I agree intention is the main part of it.
With any random person you might be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt but from him probably not.
Yup and the funniest part is that Trump is blanking him. The not funny part is that his constituents are unable to get his help on local matters while he's on all fours in the US.
Tories have decided not to rush in a new leader.
The Labour party has failed to deny reports that the Prime Minister made a secret pre-election deal with News UK not to complete the Leveson inquiry into the conduct of the British press, in exchange for an endorsement from Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers.
The I Newspaper reported on Monday that the Sun and Sunday Times had only endorsed Labour after the party gave them “private assurances” that Starmer would not resurrect the planned second part of the Leveson Inquiry, or introduce other “restrictions on press freedom”.
Multiple Labour spokespeople declined to explicitly deny to Byline Times that they had done such a deal, with a party spokesperson telling this paper only that “any policy position arrived at by this Labour government is done so in the interests of the country”.
The second part of the Leveson inquiry was due to focus on criminal activities and police and media corruption, but was cancelled by the last Conservative government in 2017, following lobbying by News UK.
Labour had initially committed itself to resurrecting the inquiry, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, but ditched this pledge at the end of last year.
There had been conflicting reports in the run up to the general election over whether any such deal with Murdoch had been struck, with some suggesting that Starmer had refused to fully commit to the demands of News UK executives, during one pre-election meeting.
Yup and the funniest part is that Trump is blanking him. The not funny part is that his constituents are unable to get his help on local matters while he's on all fours in the US.
It doesn't look as if Farage's Clacton constituents are going to get a lot of change out of him, since apart from his predictable freeloading absenteeism on self-promotional tours he probably can't be arsed to set up a decent constituency office to take care of local concerns. Though conceivably at some point he might work out that a Westminster seat is not like the free ride offered by the PR European Parliament, that British MPs are strictly reliant on their constituencies (that's how Jeremy Corbyn defeated Labour in Islington North -- his national profile is terrible, but his local profile is good), and that Clacton voters may not vote Farage next time if he neglects them.
if? We all knew he would.
The Clacton electorate clearly either didn't know or didn't care. Which was it? We can only guess.
Only seven Labour MPs voted in favour of the SNP amendment that would have scrapped the two child benefits cap.
Keir Starmer’s government has suffered its first rebellion after Labour MPs voted with opposition parties to scrap the two-child benefit cap.
The Scottish National party brought an amendment to throw out the measure, which has been widely criticised by child poverty charities and campaigners.
Despite there being no question of Labour losing a vote on the issue given its majority of 174, parliamentarians said they were alarmed by the strength of warnings from whips about rebelling early in the parliament. The amendment failed by 363 votes to 103, a majority of 260 for Labour.
One said the tactics had been “all stick” rather than any real discussion of the issue.
Among the seven who voted for the SNP motion were key figures from the left of the party, including the former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who said ahead of the vote: “I don’t like voting for other parties’ amendments but I’m following Keir Starmer’s example as he said put country before party.”
John McDonnell, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Imran Hussain, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Zarah Sultana all voted for the amendment, and 42 Labour MPs did not vote.
:shocked:
Seven Labour MPs have been suspended from the parliamentary party for voting against the government on an amendment to scrap the two-child benefit cap, the BBC understands.
starmer is a spineless piece of shite. The bullying actions of a contemptable coward.
Only seven Labour MPs voted in favour of the SNP amendment that would have scrapped the two child benefits cap.
John McDonnell, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Imran Hussain, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Zarah Sultana all voted for the amendment, and 42 Labour MPs did not vote.
Note that the SNP have the powers to do away with the cap in Scotland but have repeatedly failed to do so.
:shocked:
starmer is a spineless piece of shite. The bullying actions of a contemptable coward.
Putting aside the actual policy for a moment, I don't see what choice he had? If Labour want to be taken seriously as a party of government, then they can't just ignore manifesto pledges after 2 weeks in office and bend to the will of half a dozen back benchers, otherwise half a dozen can easily turn into half the party.
What manifesto pledge? If you mean they wont do anything that not pledged in the manifesto then I'd say 'no chance whatsover'
The whole thing is a disgrace and to suspend MPs for voting in accordance with their clear position at the elections that was also so clearly the strongly held position of the labout party (includign the key figures) is a disgrace.
If he was a strong man then KS as a minimum could have accepted it and said hu understood. If he was a strong man he wouldn't have avoided all issues and policies before the election. His terror and bullying response at any discent is pathetic.
Here is the issue as I see it. Labour have over 400 mps. That is an extremely broad political spectrum that contains political views that probably start somewhere around the centre-right to fully paid-up Marxists. There is no doubt that had he offered a free vote on this, the vast majority of MPs would have voted with the SNP.
The usual suspects on the far left would have voted against Starmer whatever the issue had been. They were challenging his authority and seeing whether he'd crack. if he'd caved in to 7 MPs now, this would just encourage far greater numbers to rebel on the next issue, and at some point he'd have to draw the line.
Therefore, i'm not sure he had too much choice if he wanted to avoid the party bickering and squabbling within 6 months of getting into office - where would this leave the party in 5 years?
Starmer is nothing if not pragmatic. Europe is shifting towards the right and the only way to avoid the same happening in the UK is to hold the centre ground. That sometimes means making tough decisions on spending.
Put another way, and given the geopolitical situation, would you prefer 10 years of Starmer holding the centre, or 5 years of Starmer leaning left, followed by 10 years of Farage?
Here is the issue as I see it. Labour have over 400 mps. That is an extremely broad political spectrum that contains political views that probably start somewhere around the centre-right to fully paid-up Marxists.
Stopped at this part due to laughing too much. Unable to continue due to lack of seriousness in the post.
