UK Politics

Larry_the_cat.jpg
 
The situation in UK politics is desperate at present. Just how desperate is illustrated by those who want to bring pathological liar Johnson back as PM. We need a general election which will, hopefully, remove the corrupt Tories from government for a generation.
 
alan5616 said:
The situation in UK politics is desperate at present. Just how desperate is illustrated by those who want to bring pathological liar Johnson back as PM. We need a general election which will, hopefully, remove the corrupt Tories from government for a generation.
Click to expand...

I don't see how Marxism would be better.
Equality in poverty is not an ambition that the UK electorate shares.
 
counter_violent said:
Errr, nope.

She is still PM until the next One is installed.

So, 4 weeks max is a much more accurate description.

(y) 🇺🇦 :ROFLMAO: 🥉 (y)

In any case. She may change her mind yet ! She is renowned for U turns. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I hope this is the one decision she does not U-turn on.
 
alan5616 said:
The situation in UK politics is desperate at present. Just how desperate is illustrated by those who want to bring pathological liar Johnson back as PM. We need a general election which will, hopefully, remove the corrupt Tories from government for a generation.
Click to expand...
I agree but as a Conservative voter I only want a GE so that -
a) the Conservative party can re-organise, re-write its leader selection processes and get some policies agreed - they clearly can't do that in office
b) Starmer is shown as totally not up to the job and alienates the voters

For me, the day when the Conservative administration is replaced by a Labour one cannot come too soon. In fact I'd rather the Conservatives simply handed over the keys to No.10 to Starmer, with no election process.
 
Liz Truss, world leader in so many fields -
shortest Prime Minister - 45 days
shortest Prime Minister - 5 foot 3
shortest Prime Minister's resignation speech - "Goodbye"
 
Interesting.

100 MP's required just to get on the ballot.

Conservative MP's 365

So, a maximum of three candidates, which is probably unachievable in reality.

Two being more likely, but what would the mechanism be for final selection ! Ah, looks like an online vote of conservative party membership.

All smells like, putting the ball back in MP's court to simply arrive at a coronation candidate.
 
I don't understand the advantages of involving the party members in selecting the leader.

It is simply asking for the selection of a PM who is supported by only 100 MP's out of 365. Again.

So the MP's cannot appoint the PM but can force the PM to quit. Again.
 
tomorton said:
He's the leading name amongst Conservative membership polled this week.
Click to expand...

I expect the MP's will do whatever it takes then to keep him off the ballot. Should he manage to get 100, the Conservative membership might well elect him to spite the traitorous Conservative MP's who ousted him. :ROFLMAO:
 
alan5616 said:
What the f*ck are you talking about? Starmer is no more a Marxist than Michael Gove or Anna Soubry.
Click to expand...
I agree in the sense that he doesn't much act like one, but his political principles and sympathies lie in Marxism. He likes to appear that way to the party membership, which is way to the left of Labour voters. How else could he have been an acceptable ally and key figure in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow administration? There is even video of him in a private meeting professing to be a Marxist,. He struggles to deny he is a Marxist in public. His polices and public expressions of his personal political ideology are another exercise in Corbyn's famous "constructive ambiguity".

Like plastic, he assumes whatever shape and position that for example metal or wood would take, but he is neither so strong nor durable. Under the application of heat, he would melt and take another shape. But not a Conservative shape.
 
If anyone here missed the early edition of BBC 1 Question Time broadcast at 8.00pm last night (Thursday 20th) - fear not - you missed nothing. All very boring and predictable. Throughout the entire programme, there were only two comments of interest, neither of which got any response from Fiona Bruce or guest panellists.

The first was from a member of the audience who (quite rightly, IMO) said that the whole political system in this country is broken, is no longer fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul from the ground up. This was loudly applauded by the audience, but no one on the panel made any comment. Whatever anyone's views about any one party or MP are, the one thing that unites just about everyone is the belief that all that front bench politicians care about is - first and foremost - their own careers, followed in distant second place by their party's fortunes and, lagging waaaaaaay behind in third place, what's best for the country. As a bare minimum, we need a system that turns this on its head.

The only other interesting observation came from BoJo's sister, Rachel Johnson. She made the point that almost no one is talking about, namely that Liz Truss' downfall wasn't the result of a Tory party coup, in fighting or even by Kier Starmer's Labour. It was the market who engineered her downfall - no one else. Again, this key point drew no comment from any of the panellists. But it goes to the heart of the matter. All governments are essentially puppet governments who have to play to the tune of the markets. For it is they - not cabinet ministers - who really run this country. The real power lies with them and the handful of CEOs at the top of the largest institutions. The likes of Larry Fink of Blackrock took down Liz Truss and her replacement will be someone that he and his pals at WEF think will best serve their agenda and interests - not ours.

The short Katie Hopkins vid' below outlines the key questions that last night's QT panel ought really to have been discussing. Now, I get that Hopkins is a bit rich for some - me included on occasion - but here she hits the nail on the head, IMO. In other words, listen to the message, don't shoot the messenger if you can't stand her! It's only a minute and a half long and was published last Monday. Well worth watching . . .

 
The markets have a powerful place in our governance of course Tim, but they are clearly not dominant most of the time. Neither is any UK government all-powerful all of the time. And although I'm happy we have a democratic political structure, the electorate, thanks to representative parliamentary democracy, are not able to exercise their dictatorship.

A further powerful leg of the "constitution" is the judiciary, who from time to time have the ability to dictate to the government what they can, or more often cannot, do.

This is a multi-legged structure and no one leg has control all the time. I'm happy with that, although it means we sometimes trip ourselves up.
 
tomorton said:
I agree in the sense that he doesn't much act like one, but his political principles and sympathies lie in Marxism. He likes to appear that way to the party membership, which is way to the left of Labour voters. How else could he have been an acceptable ally and key figure in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow administration? There is even video of him in a private meeting professing to be a Marxist,. He struggles to deny he is a Marxist in public. His polices and public expressions of his personal political ideology are another exercise in Corbyn's famous "constructive ambiguity".

Like plastic, he assumes whatever shape and position that for example metal or wood would take, but he is neither so strong nor durable. Under the application of heat, he would melt and take another shape. But not a Conservative shape.
Click to expand...
A Marxist would not accept a knighthood nor, would he have purged the left wing of the Labour Party. Both actions are the antithesis of Marxism.
 
alan5616 said:
A Marxist would not accept a knighthood nor, would he have purged the left wing of the Labour Party. Both actions are the antithesis of Marxism.
Click to expand...

Of course he would as would any "wolf in sheeps clothing". It lends credibility to an outward appearance of something which in reality they are not. This is clearly evidenced by his own past and his own comments. Numerous politicians down the ages have done this on countless occasions and used the democratic process to further their political goals. It's only when they get in power that it is fully realised what their true agenda was as we are now seeing in Russia and in the past with Germany. The only recent politician who was upfront about what he was and still is was Corbyn. Although I never agreed with any of his views, he has never wavered from his far left mentality or agenda and if nothing else should be commended for his honesty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wasp
Uk
2 3
Replies
41
Views
13K
JTrader
JTrader
Top