news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

like night follows day...

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, lost said:

If Trump doesn’t run it’ll probably be DeSantis for the republicans specifically for the way he ran Florida during covid. For no repeated lockdowns, health service running and lower death rates than many lockdown states.

I said in a previous post my instinct was that Trump wouldn't be the 2024 Presidential candidate and my instinct was him as their second choice. Though the Daily Beast had a piece the other day claiming he may defer his Presidential ambition to 2028 as he doesn't want a primary against Trump. So... pfft. Who the fuck knows. At the least, the run to February 2024 when they start with Presidential primaries is going to be a real fucking drag.

I'm less sure as to who fulfils my criteria as a Democrat alternative to Biden, though I will say it rarely goes well when the sitting President is the subject of a contested primary (Ford in 1976 and Carter in 1980 come to mind, both of which also against the backdrop of a full-on clusterfuck).

[Kurosagi]

In the dying days of the Trump presidency I seem to remember a lot of commentary about how he'd been grooming one of his kids to run in 2024 (daughter perhaps?).

I can't say I've heard anything other than a focus on Trump perhaps running in 24, so the question for those who have been following US politics closer than myself: what the hell happened to his kids' ambitions...or is he such a narcissist that he can't bear them running whilst he's still got breath in his lungs?

Edited November 7, 2022 by Kurosagi

[Ozanne]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

like night follows day...

I’m a great political commentator. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Ozanne

[Ozanne]

This guy accepts donations from fossil fuel firms. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Ozanne

[Ozanne]

Apparently Gavin Williamson strongly rejects telling civil servant to 'slit your throat'. That solves that one. 

[Ozanne]

Integrity. 

[squirrelarmy]

Spaffer has named his dishonours list. 
 

On there is a parliamentary aide whose only been in the job 3 years after leaving uni. 
 

The rumours are that she got spaffed up and now gets a title to hush her up. 

[Neil]

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

"Affordable" for sure...  because he can always borrow....  but the long term debt pile is now huge.

 

it is  but furlough didn't add too much to it.

[Ozanne]

39 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Spaffer has named his dishonours list. 
 

On there is a parliamentary aide whose only been in the job 3 years after leaving uni. 
 

The rumours are that she got spaffed up and now gets a title to hush her up. 

It also involves 4 MPs but those MPs will be allowed to defer their move to the Lords which isn’t a thing but because this benefits the Tories it will be allowed now. 

[mattiloy]

Starmer in favour of tougher sentences for climate protesters and reintroducing ID cards.

The liberal fallacy in glorious technicolor. Liberalism for capital, authoritarianism for the rest.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Starmer in favour of tougher sentences for climate protesters and reintroducing ID cards.

The liberal fallacy in glorious technicolor. Liberalism for capital, authoritarianism for the rest.

yay, fuck liberals. Socialism in action.

[steviewevie]

Republican party to take both houses?

BET NOW!

[squirrelarmy]

20 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Starmer in favour of tougher sentences for climate protesters and reintroducing ID cards.

The liberal fallacy in glorious technicolor. Liberalism for capital, authoritarianism for the rest.

I’ve worked out the issues with the extreme left. 
 

You don’t like whoever is in power. Corbyn suited you to support as he would always be the protest vote against the government. 
 

Now Labour look like they will be taking power you’re finding any reason you can not to support them. 
 

Just admit it that you hate authority and being told what to do by any government. 

[SheffJeff]

On 11/2/2022 at 2:39 PM, squirrelarmy said:

The people who bring up Corbyn the most now are the deluded Corbynites trying to keep him relevant. 

 

19 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

You don’t like whoever is in power. Corbyn suited you to support as he would always be the protest vote against the government. 

You bring Corbyn up alot for someone who claims it's only deluded Corbynites who talk about him.  

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, squirrelarmy said:

I’ve worked out the issues with the extreme left. 
 

You don’t like whoever is in power. Corbyn suited you to support as he would always be the protest vote against the government. 
 

Now Labour look like they will be taking power you’re finding any reason you can not to support them. 
 

Just admit it that you hate authority and being told what to do by any government. 

I was a lot happier with Starmer a year ago compared to now.

My issue with him is that since the mini budget and the insane poll lead, he's tacked further right, when it feels unnecessary.

I'm genuinely disappointed, as I was starting to believe in progress, even just 6 weeks ago.

[hodgey123]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I was a lot happier with Starmer a year ago compared to now.

My issue with him is that since the mini budget and the insane poll lead, he's tacked further right, when it feels unnecessary.

I'm genuinely disappointed, as I was starting to believe in progress, even just 6 weeks ago.

Agree with this - seems to be shifting further right to appease and hold on to red wall voters who may now be switching back to Labour, but in the process forgetting that his comments are very off-putting for his core base.

[steviewevie]

ok...so at Labour conference new policies to come out were nationalising railways and a publicly owned energy company, and this on top of the big investment in green stuff promised...which is kind of a shift to the left from where people thought labour previously were under starmer. As for a shift to right, you mean Starmer is saying about immigration and just stop oil protesters? With the immigration thing then yes, he is less liberal, but this is where we are post brexit, we do not have free movement of people, we have to bring people in from elsewhere through some sort of system, and he was arguing that we should train more people here so don't need to rely on that so much. I do get it was a bit dog whistly, and also not a fan as one thing I liked about being in EU was the free movement bit, but it is good that they are talking about investing in this stuff. As for protesters I am not on board with that either, but then the protests don't affect me, I'd probably think differently if they did. Not sure how much good they're doing for their cause either, yes it's getting attention, but a lot of it is negative and just sets up the whole climate thing into two tribes like remainers and leavers and it's too important for that shit.

[steviewevie]

21 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Agree with this - seems to be shifting further right to appease and hold on to red wall voters who may now be switching back to Labour, but in the process forgetting that his comments are very off-putting for his core base.

 

I think at top of Labour they're worried about complacency setting in with all these big polls lead, and he is obviously doubling down on stuff so tories and press have nothing to get him on...as it's all about the next election now. They don't want another 2015, or 1992.

Edited November 8, 2022 by steviewevie

[kaosmark2]

12 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Agree with this - seems to be shifting further right to appease and hold on to red wall voters who may now be switching back to Labour, but in the process forgetting that his comments are very off-putting for his core base.

The red wall were always going to switch back anyway. If you look at the actual votes in those constituencies, it went from 35k Labour, 12k Tory, to 20k Tory, 15k Labour. There was about 8k switching, and another 15k just not showing up. The latter can be put down to disillusion with Corbyn, combined with as winter election. The former was probably largely about Brexit.

By proving he's not Corbyn, he'd probably already got those constituencies back, but that's 70 odd, and there's still ones that need to be won off the Tories. But then the Tories mired themselves in scandals and exacerbated a cost of living crisis. Fucking up the economy so that the lower middle classes have to lose a car they bought on PPT is enough to get them to switch.

The core that he's pissing off are largely in safe seats anyway... It's probably not costing Labour many seats right now. But what it does do, is it creates infighting and internal criticism for future elections, and party internal elections. It's not going to hurt Labour right now, but it creates mid term problems.

[kaosmark2]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok...so at Labour conference new policies to come out were nationalising railways and a publicly owned energy company, and this on top of the big investment in green stuff promised...which is kind of a shift to the left from where people thought labour previously were under starmer. As for a shift to right, you mean Starmer is saying about immigration and just stop oil protesters? With the immigration thing then yes, he is less liberal, but this is where we are post brexit, we do not have free movement of people, we have to bring people in from elsewhere through some sort of system, and he was arguing that we should train more people here so don't need to rely on that so much. I do get it was a bit dog whistly, and also not a fan as one thing I liked about being in EU was the free movement bit, but it is good that they are talking about investing in this stuff. As for protesters I am not on board with that either, but then the protests don't affect me, I'd probably think differently if they did. Not sure how much good they're doing for their cause either, yes it's getting attention, but a lot of it is negative and just sets up the whole climate thing into two tribes like remainers and leavers and it's too important for that shit.

With the Met growing towards being as bad as US police, I don't think endorsing anti-protest laws even more extreme than those of Patel and Braverman is acceptable.

I know people injured by A&S police in the Bristol protests of the last 2 years. Growing authoritarianism in this country is a very serious issue.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

With the Met growing towards being as bad as US police, I don't think endorsing anti-protest laws even more extreme than those of Patel and Braverman is acceptable.

I know people injured by A&S police in the Bristol protests of the last 2 years. Growing authoritarianism in this country is a very serious issue.

what has he said apart from get up and go home?

[Ozanne]

13 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok...so at Labour conference new policies to come out were nationalising railways and a publicly owned energy company, and this on top of the big investment in green stuff promised...which is kind of a shift to the left from where people thought labour previously were under starmer. As for a shift to right, you mean Starmer is saying about immigration and just stop oil protesters? With the immigration thing then yes, he is less liberal, but this is where we are post brexit, we do not have free movement of people, we have to bring people in from elsewhere through some sort of system, and he was arguing that we should train more people here so don't need to rely on that so much. I do get it was a bit dog whistly, and also not a fan as one thing I liked about being in EU was the free movement bit, but it is good that they are talking about investing in this stuff. As for protesters I am not on board with that either, but then the protests don't affect me, I'd probably think differently if they did. Not sure how much good they're doing for their cause either, yes it's getting attention, but a lot of it is negative and just sets up the whole climate thing into two tribes like remainers and leavers and it's too important for that shit.

Starmer has to say those things about Just Stop Oil as the majority of voters in the key seats don’t agree with the methods that the campaigners are using. They care about the climate but don’t like seeing cars parked on the M25 in front of Ambulances. Starmer as PM would bring about significant environmental policies that would go a long way to solving these issues but can’t enact them if he seems in the eyes of those voters as soft on those people.

The campaigners themselves need to realise that to bring about change they need the public on side and these methods are doing the opposite of that. 

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

what has he said apart from get up and go home?

Longer jail sentences 

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Starmer has to say those things about Just Stop Oil as the majority of voters in the key seats don’t agree with the methods that the campaigners are using. They care about the climate but don’t like seeing cars parked on the M25 in front of Ambulances. Starmer as PM would bring about significant environmental policies that would go a long way to solving these issues but can’t enact them if he seems in the eyes of those voters as soft on those people.

The campaigners themselves need to realise that to bring about change they need the public on side and these methods are doing the opposite of that. 

The majority of people in those seats if polled would probably supporting bringing back capital punishment, doesn't mean the Labour leader should back it