UK Politics General Discussion

[Quantum]

Anyone remotely compitant in the Tories party has either retired or are not running. The party needs a hard reboot and a good kicking at the election. I think the SNP are in for a bad time as well and it's thoroughly deserved.

 

[BigT]

My money is still on a hung parliament, Labour aren’t in the lead in the opinion polls because they offer something new and exciting, it’s that people are sick of the Tories.
This is more of a Kinnock turning point than a Blair one.

 

[Quantum]

I think Labour will have a majority, but a small one. I think they will pick up seats in Scotland

 

[Squiggs]

Even if you made a conscious effort to campaign to get some of the most awful of Starmer's MPs out, like Wes Streeting or Thagnam Debbonaire for example, they'd be in the Lords for life the second the summer recess was over.

Out of interest, what is particularly bad about those two?

 

[rob666]

My money is still on a hung parliament, Labour aren’t in the lead in the opinion polls because they offer something new and exciting, it’s that people are sick of the Tories.
This is more of a Kinnock turning point than a Blair one.

Blue skies thinking my friend.
Nice to see you back after a while.
The Tories are going to get absolutely thrashed, without a doubt.
You don't pull more than 20 points back in a few weeks...especially after the complete mess of four (sub)prime ministers due to petty squabbles within the Tory party in eight years.
Labour walkover, the question is...by how big a majority.
Bring on the political annihilation.
I will be staying up to watch this year, I normally avoid bloodsports...but I wouldn't miss this one for the world.

 

[Dave]

Sounds like many MPs (who were probably standing down anyway) are upset that this has been announced and plan to oust Sunak with the old "vote of no confidence".

This would delay the election from happening.

Are all Tory MPs spineless self-serving arses? Gotta drag out that £80k annual wage as much as possible.

Even if they vote no confidence the election won’t stop, as all they can do is remove Sunak as leader of the party. That doesn’t actually stop him being PM, that would then need him either to resign or a vote of no confidence in the HoC which is almost certain to fail as all the opposition parties want the election.

Here you go - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...avid-davis-mark-rowley-republic-b2335670.html

A month later Starmer whipped his Lords to abstain on a motion that would have killed the bill and so it passed into legislation.

There is no lesser evil. You're going to get a Prime Minister who thinks war crimes are fine, surrounded by lackeys who defended his comments until he came up with the utter crap, nine days later after it rightly blew up in his face, that he was answering a different question. Oh and alongside him will be a Chancellor who doesn't think anyone in receipt of benefits deserves political representation and the last time she was running for a government job wanted to be 'tougher than the Tories on welfare' and between them they've already decided to also keep the two-child benefit cap, despite the fact binning it would take a quarter of a million kids out of poverty overnight.

1) It’s very difficult to repeal a bill and the Tories put some good stuff not related to protests into the bill so that if the opposition parties opposed it they could argue they where in support of these other things. Starmer has repeatedly said they will issue better guidance and if that doesn’t work amend the bill which is easier than repealing.

2) The lords can’t stop a bill, the amendment would have failed in the commons

3) The two child cap is supported by a large part of the electorate (wrongly in my mind) which is why Labour have said they will use other ways of reducing the poverty burden on children.

Personally I think if Corbyn hadn’t been such a pathetic leader when it came to anti-sematism then Labour could have been more firm at the beginning of the conflict, but his incompetence boxed them in. Starmer was bloody clumsy in the LBC interview (though he did say everything should be done within international law, the left wing YouTubers always cut that bit out), but it was still stupid.

I always assume people who can attack Labour right this minute must be privileged enough not to suffer under the Tories. And are also blind to how you actually win elections in a country defined by centrism. Some people would rather hold out for their version of perfect than consider “better”.

 

[Dobba]

Starmer was bloody clumsy in the LBC interview (though he did say everything should be done within international law, the left wing YouTubers always cut that bit out)

At what point during that interview was cutting off water, food and fuel to an entire population within international law?

'I think my political opponents should be shot, their families kidnapped and made to work for free and everyone they've ever been friends with lose the right to vote for the rest of their days. But everything should be done within the current laws on murder, kidnapping, slavery and democratic rights'

 

[shakey]

I will be definitely staying up as I will be counting through the night.

I would recommend to anyone to put their name down for election duty, it is definitely something to tick off.

It is a very long day if you are doing the polling station and the count afterwards (6:30am till well into the early hours of the following day), but the money is decent and it is an interesting experience.

You will obviously need Thursday off work if you are doing the polling station and possibly Friday (or Friday morning) if you are doing the count. You don't have to do everything though so you could just apply to do the polling station or just the count.

So if anyone fancies giving it a go just contact your local council and ask them how to apply. But do it as soon as possible.

I have done it for several years now and although the long day at the polling station can drag at times, it is well worth the effort overall and it's a nice bit of extra cash.

 

[Dave]

At what point during that interview was cutting off water, food and fuel to an entire population within international law?

'I think my political opponents should be shot, their families kidnapped and made to work for free and everyone they've ever been friends with lose the right to vote for the rest of their days. But everything should be done within the current laws on murder, kidnapping, slavery and democratic rights'

He didn’t actually say cutting of food was appropriate (he said “cutting of power and water was likely in Israel’s “right” but that it was an ongoing situation” as I say I thought it was fecking clumsy but here is a thought experiment:

At the time he was asked the siege of Gaza was only just beginning and Isreal had told international partners that it was going to be targeted and limited (I mean it clearly wasn’t going to be but that’s another story). Under international law a temporary cut of power to aid hostage recovery would be considered acceptable. Starmer is a Lawyer, he gave a lawyerly answer but it wasn’t a good answer.

Nick Farrari (who is a Tory stooge) also knew he had Starmer against a wall as it is a well established convention that opposition parties do not disagree with the government publically on foreign policy (rightly or wrongly), but I can’t for the life of me work out how Starmer and his team hadn’t prepped better for the question. Hence why it had to be addressed repeatedly days after.

It’s the same with the SNP who disgustingly used the conflict for political points. Labour had said to them that so long as the ceasefire statement they proposed acknowledged Hamas atrocities on the 7th of October AND required both Isreal and Hamas ceasefire then they would support it. SNP refused to demand a ceasefire of Hamas (apparently in their minds ceasefires only require one side yo actually cease fire).

So your analogy doesn’t quite hold water, but folk are so entrenched (understandably because of Israel’s horrific actions) in the binary conflict that actually looking at the detail doesn’t seem to be a thing either side want to do at the moment.

 

[Dobba]

At the time he was asked the siege of Gaza was only just beginning and Isreal had told international partners that it was going to be targeted and limited (I mean it clearly wasn’t going to be but that’s another story). Under international law a temporary cut of power to aid hostage recovery would be considered acceptable. Starmer is a Lawyer, he gave a lawyerly answer but it wasn’t a good answer.

“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant said on Monday 9th October, two days before Starmer's LBC interview. So don't pretend they were saying one thing but secretly planning another, they told the world from the start.

Nick Ferrari (who is a Tory stooge) also knew he had Starmer against a wall as it is a well established convention that opposition parties do not disagree with the government publically on foreign policy (rightly or wrongly), but I can’t for the life of me work out how Starmer and his team hadn’t prepped better for the question. Hence why it had to be addressed repeatedly days after.

It wasn't 'addressed repeatedly days after.' Thornberry went on Newsnight and was directly asked if this siege was within international law and refused to say that it wasn't, with Lammy also appearing in the media to do the same thing. Then nine days after saying absolutely nothing on the matter, Starmer decided actually he was answering the previous question like the Two Ronnies' Mastermind sketch all along.

Also, the 'Tory stooge' thing would hold some credence had Starmer not specifically chosen Ferrari's show to do his monthly phone-in appearances, one of which this interview took place on. He's Starmer's hand-picked host, you don't then get to fob that off. Also, a couple of years prior they'd invited a racist to spout Great Replacement Theory on one of their previous 'Call Keir' shows, so it isn't as if he hadn't got a perfectly valid reason to move elsewhere had he wanted to. He didn't.

It’s the same with the SNP who disgustingly used the conflict for political points. Labour had said to them that so long as the ceasefire statement they proposed acknowledged Hamas atrocities on the 7th of October AND required both Isreal and Hamas ceasefire then they would support it. SNP refused to demand a ceasefire of Hamas (apparently in their minds ceasefires only require one side yo actually cease fire).

No the SNP motion, had it have been voted on, could have seen the UK Parliament attribute Israel's siege of Gaza as collective punishment and as such a war crime. Now given that Starmer went on national radio and said Israel had the right to do that, he wasn't going to risk his own country's government saying he'd given the green light for a war crime. So then came the 'Islamist threat to MPs' crap. People pretend that was the Tories, but Starmer started it, with the Speaker, in order to cover his own backside and get the SNP motion ditched, despite it being the SNP opposition day.

 

[BigT]

Blue skies thinking my friend.
Nice to see you back after a while.
The Tories are going to get absolutely thrashed, without a doubt.
You don't pull more than 20 points back in a few weeks...especially after the complete mess of four (sub)prime ministers due to petty squabbles within the Tory party in eight years.
Labour walkover, the question is...by how big a majority.
Bring on the political annihilation.
I will be staying up to watch this year, I normally avoid bloodsports...but I wouldn't miss this one for the world.

Thanks for welcome back, I’ve been out of the country for a few weeks then come back to this…BOOM.

A labour majority is certainly not a forgone conclusion, the swing needed to gain a majority is greater than Blair achieved and he was also sitting on a 20 point lead in the opinion polls, Blair had a vision and was an absolutely amazing salesman backed by some of the most astute spin doctors / publicists ever to grace politics.
Starmer has no charisma at at, he’s a boring politician with few new ideas backed by publicists that thought yesterdays stunt during the PM’s announcement was a good idea.

A lot can change during the campaign but Sky news did the sums from the local elections and came to the conclusion that labour would fall short of a majority if those results were repeated at the GE even with a 20 point lead in the polls.

 

[Squiggs]

I suspect Rishi's announcement this morning might shed some light on why we suddenly have an 'early' election.

He has now said that Rwanda flights will only occur if the Tories win, so essential he's announced that no Rwanda flights will ever happen.

Given it is no clearer now if the Rwanda plan is actually lawful, it seems like a very convenient way for the current government to avoid future ramifications if it later becomes apparent that they would be culpable under either domestic or international law.

If you know you're not going to be in power by the end of the year either way, why would you risk prosecution in the future.

 

[Matt N]

I have to say, I can’t wait for this election; I shall be following the pre-election buildup with keen interest! The main source of my excitement is a personal note for me. It’ll be my first ever GE vote, which I’m very excited about; I’ve been interested in politics for quite a few years now and followed the 2017 and 2019 elections quite intently despite being too young to vote in either, so I’m very happy that I’ll be able to both follow the buildup and cast my own vote and make my own voice heard this time!

In terms of who I will be voting for; I currently think I’m going to vote for Labour this time. I don’t have overly strong or entrenched political beliefs, but I’d say I generally lean more towards the left-wing view on many issues, and Labour has exhibited some good and interesting ideas from having listened to Starmer and some of the other shadow frontbenchers. Also, I simply think we need a change in government, and in my seat, Labour are easily our best bet at unseating the Conservatives. I feel that the Conservatives have now run their course in government and we need a change in governing party.

I don’t have an awful lot of faith that my vote will go very far, however. My constituency has been Tory for as long as I can remember, the Conservatives gained 60% of the vote here in 2019, and the area voted 60% in favour of Brexit in the EU referendum, so I think the left-wing argument has been losing here for a very long time.

In terms of what I think the outcome will be; I think Labour are very likely to be the largest party, but I don’t think that a thumping Labour landslide is the foregone conclusion that some make out and I feel that comparisons to Blair in 1997 are premature. I think a lot of the sentiment is currently anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour, and Labour only really has the lead they do because they’re the most obvious alternative to the Conservatives. I’ve never known such discontent with the incumbent government as there is now, but I don’t think Starmer and Labour are especially popular in isolation. Yes, he is boasting the same massive poll leads as Blair did, but the key difference between Starmer and Blair is that Blair was actually pretty popular in himself and was presenting a real positive incentive to vote Labour. Starmer is not currently presenting nearly the same positive incentive to vote Labour and is not nearly that popular in himself.

I’ve said this before, but I think it’ll be those “don’t know” voters who really decide this election. If we get to election time and Starmer presents a real positive incentive to vote Labour and wins these voters over, Labour could do very well indeed. But if these voters get to the ballot box, think “better the devil you know” and vote Tory, Labour may not do as well as hoped, and we may even see Sunak pull off a John Major-style shock victory and get the Tories back into government.

It’s also worth noting that “shy Tory” syndrome is a very real thing; opinion polls have always underestimated Tory support because people won’t admit to supporting the Tories, but then go on to vote Tory at the ballot box. If there are plenty of “shy Tories” out there, Labour might not do as well as many expect.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The party which has been calling for a General Election for the past 2 - 3 years, who have insisted that they're battle ready and have been itching for a fight. The party which knows that, no matter what, there had to be a General Election this year still doesn't have candidates for over 100 seats. What the actual? That's the election.

Revealed: Member anger as around 100 Labour candidates still not unveiled - LabourList

Labour has approximately 100 general election candidates left to publicly announce, LabourList can reveal, despite the party twice…

labourlist.org

I'm in a seat which has previously been considered a Tory safe haven. My MP announced that they weren't standing again about a year or so ago. Labour haven't updated their local website since March 2022, their Twitter/X account since April 2023.

What the hell are they playing at?

 

[Dobba]

The party which has been calling for a General Election for the past 2 - 3 years, who have insisted that they're battle ready and have been itching for a fight. The party which knows that, no matter what, there had to be a General Election this year still doesn't have candidates for over 100 seats. What the actual? That's the election.

Revealed: Member anger as around 100 Labour candidates still not unveiled - LabourList

Labour has approximately 100 general election candidates left to publicly announce, LabourList can reveal, despite the party twice…

labourlist.org

I'm in a seat which has previously been considered a Tory safe haven. My MP announced that they weren't standing again about a year or so ago. Labour haven't updated their local website since March 2022, their Twitter/X account since April 2023.

What the hell are they playing at?

Now they get to hastily parachute their mates in against the local party's wishes, with the excuse being that the election is at too short a notice to go through the usual democratic process.

 

[rob666]

I have to say, I can’t wait for this election; I shall be following the pre-election buildup with keen interest! The main source of my excitement is a personal note for me. It’ll be my first ever GE vote, which I’m very excited about; I’ve been interested in politics for quite a few years now and followed the 2017 and 2019 elections quite intently despite being too young to vote in either...

...It’s also worth noting that “shy Tory” syndrome is a very real thing; opinion polls have always underestimated Tory support because people won’t admit to supporting the Tories, but then go on to vote Tory at the ballot box. If there are plenty of “shy Tories” out there, Labour might not do as well as many expect.

Now come on Matt, you voted via your father following your instruction in the last one if I recall!
I do believe I owe him a Crevettes pint for doing it still, don't I.
I think I owe half the planet a pint in Crevettes by now, better get a brewery.

 

[Matt N]

The party which has been calling for a General Election for the past 2 - 3 years, who have insisted that they're battle ready and have been itching for a fight. The party which knows that, no matter what, there had to be a General Election this year still doesn't have candidates for over 100 seats. What the actual? That's the election.

Revealed: Member anger as around 100 Labour candidates still not unveiled - LabourList

Labour has approximately 100 general election candidates left to publicly announce, LabourList can reveal, despite the party twice…

labourlist.org

I'm in a seat which has previously been considered a Tory safe haven. My MP announced that they weren't standing again about a year or so ago. Labour haven't updated their local website since March 2022, their Twitter/X account since April 2023.

What the hell are they playing at?

It would appear that my seat is similar; the Forest of Dean Labour Party, despite saying that they are “fighting to win the election on 4th July”, appears to have not selected a candidate yet: https://forestofdean.laboursites.org/

There was a link on Google under the Forest of Dean Labour Party website that started with “Parliamentary Candidate”… but this appeared to be referring to the candidate for the 2019 election.

Other than an indication that they had begun the selection process in January 2024, I’ve seen nothing about a Labour parliamentary candidate in the Forest of Dean. The Conservative incumbent Mark Harper is running again, and we also have Reform, Liberal Democrat and Green candidates confirmed.

How can Labour properly campaign around here if they don’t have a candidate? I hope they select one soon before the election campaign properly starts…

Now come on Matt, you voted via your father following your instruction in the last one if I recall!
I do believe I owe him a Crevettes pint for doing it still, don't I.
I think I owe half the planet a pint in Crevettes by now, better get a brewery.

That’s correct. However, this is the first one where I’ll actually be casting my own vote rather than telling my Dad who to vote for.

 

[Dave]

“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant said on Monday 9th October, two days before Starmer's LBC interview. So don't pretend they were saying one thing but secretly planning another, they told the world from the start.

It wasn't 'addressed repeatedly days after.' Thornberry went on Newsnight and was directly asked if this siege was within international law and refused to say that it wasn't, with Lammy also appearing in the media to do the same thing. Then nine days after saying absolutely nothing on the matter, Starmer decided actually he was answering the previous question like the Two Ronnies' Mastermind sketch all along.

Also, the 'Tory stooge' thing would hold some credence had Starmer not specifically chosen Ferrari's show to do his monthly phone-in appearances, one of which this interview took place on. He's Starmer's hand-picked host, you don't then get to fob that off. Also, a couple of years prior they'd invited a racist to spout Great Replacement Theory on one of their previous 'Call Keir' shows, so it isn't as if he hadn't got a perfectly valid reason to move elsewhere had he wanted to. He didn't.

No the SNP motion, had it have been voted on, could have seen the UK Parliament attribute Israel's siege of Gaza as collective punishment and as such a war crime. Now given that Starmer went on national radio and said Israel had the right to do that, he wasn't going to risk his own country's government saying he'd given the green light for a war crime. So then came the 'Islamist threat to MPs' crap. People pretend that was the Tories, but Starmer started it, with the Speaker, in order to cover his own backside and get the SNP motion ditched, despite it being the SNP opposition day.

There really is no point arguing with you, I have quoted line for line Starmers words, you return with a quote from the Isreal defence minister. As I said in my post no-one practically expected Isreal to limit their action but legally until they actually do it they are not breaking international law.

You can argue Starmer forced the speakers hand in a meeting you were not in and one in which the speaker said he didn’t, that’s up to you.

You are right on one point that I forgot which was the collective punishment line, only the ICC can make that statement legally, hence why South Africa went to the ICC to get a ruling. The HoC cannot state a fact on legality of another country, again maybe not logical but it’s a basic rule of foreign policy.

SNP don’t have to pretend they will ever be a UK government, it’s the worst kind of student politics ignoring the realities rather than dealing with them.

Now they get to hastily parachute their mates in against the local party's wishes, with the excuse being that the election is at too short a notice to go through the usual democratic process.

That’s true for the Labour safe seats, and definitely happens. Curious that some of the battleground seats are not filled as you don’t parachute people into those. You parachute people you want in a ministerial post (either due to their skills or nepotism) so you pick the safe seats.

 

[Dobba]

That’s true for the Labour safe seats, and definitely happens. Curious that some of the battleground seats are not filled as you don’t parachute people into those. You parachute people you want in a ministerial post (either due to their skills or nepotism) so you pick the safe seats.

They're 20 points ahead in every poll. If 80% of them get in, which is almost certain to happen, that's 80 yes men or women who'll do as they're told by Starmer for five years; because they'll owe him one for giving them a candidacy and a £91,346 salary that they didn't stand a chance of getting via the democratic process.

One or two seats not having candidates when every man and his dog has been aware we've got an election in the next few months is an oversight, 100+ is pre-planned.

There really is no point arguing with you, I have quoted line for line Starmers words, you return with a quote from the Isreal defence minister. As I said in my post no-one practically expected Isreal to limit their action but legally until they actually do it they are not breaking international law.

You can argue Starmer forced the speakers hand in a meeting you were not in and one in which the speaker said he didn’t, that’s up to you.

You are right on one point that I forgot which was the collective punishment line, only the ICC can make that statement legally, hence why South Africa went to the ICC to get a ruling. The HoC cannot state a fact on legality of another country, again maybe not logical but it’s a basic rule of foreign policy.

SNP don’t have to pretend they will ever be a UK government, it’s the worst kind of student politics ignoring the realities rather than dealing with them.

You said (and I quote) "Isreal had told international partners that it was going to be targeted and limited" - as an excuse for Starmer's approval of war crimes. Who am I supposed to cite other than an actual member of the Israeli government telling the world the exact opposite a few days prior to prove that was demonstrably wrong? Hell, they even cited food not getting in which you also claimed was never part of the siege Starmer was approving.

If I'm not supposed to push back when you tell easily debunkable porkies, let me know.

 

[rob666]

Traditionally, isn't this roughly the time that somebody says...Get a bloody room you two.