Westminster Politics

Maticmaker said:
Yes, sometimes less is better.... I'm waiting for the leader of the opposition to do a 'Paxman' on the PM and keep asking the same question but in different ways, focus on one thing and go for the jugular... unless of course the Speaker intervenes. It's worth a try surely, the current system is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
You’re waiting for something the format does not allow.
 
4bars said:
Thanks. I guess i lack UK political knowledge on why labour did that and why Sunak undid it
Click to expand...

The formulars used to decide national govt expenditure to support Local govt are complicated but designed to help based on need.

Labour moved money based on need so poorer areas received support. Conservative govts move the money to areas which vote conservative. What bothers me is its done on the quiet and nobody flags it up and of course the services most needed in the poorest regions suffer or are withdrawn.
 
redcucumber said:
I can't see how he'll much appeal to a large voter base of the right-wing populace.
Click to expand...

I think it would be a mistake to write Sunak off in that way... he has only been in parliament 7 years and now has the top job. To make that sort of progress you have to be very good, or very lucky, or both!
Everyone likes a winner and if he can start to fix the country's economy, without too much pain, he's in with a chance. However, if Labour do the things Starmer is suggesting, they should get a comfortable majority, just in England/Wales, but to be sure of a sizeable UK majority they will need to pick up seats in Scotland, a lot more than they have now.

That is Labours problem, a small majority means they cannot vary too much away from the 'normal economics; that Sunak will return us to, if they get a large majority they can make some initial changes, but it will still need two or three terms of office, to bring real change.
 
Pexbo said:
You’re waiting for something the format does not allow.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for the info, I thought it was so simple, that surely someone had thought of it before now.
Obviously getting the PM to actually answer questions is not what PMQ's is about, it's just giving the opposition a platform to sound off, no wonder everyone (outside parliament) goes back to sleep.
 
VP89 said:
It's bizarre you drew that conclusion
Click to expand...

Sunak dodged every single question Starmer asked him and resorted to tired old lines about the Brexit vote and empty promises about what they will deliver. Profess to return to grown up politics, then descend into retaliations delivered with the sophistication of 'your mum' jokes, emboldened by his sycophantic backbenchers. Its impossible to draw any other conclusion than that.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The formulars used to decide national govt expenditure to support Local govt are complicated but designed to help based on need.

Labour moved money based on need so poorer areas received support. Conservative govts move the money to areas which vote conservative. What bothers me is its done on the quiet and nobody flags it up and of course the services most needed in the poorest regions suffer or are withdrawn.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the explanation. That is despicable. But the cynical that is in me can't help to think that Labours move it to that area because they voted labour, not because it was a poor area

At the end of the day, they all serve they party and nothing else. In every fecking country
 
4bars said:
Thanks for the explanation. That is despicable. But the cynical that is in me can't help to think that Labours move it to that area because they voted labour, not because it was a poor area

At the end of the day, they all serve they party and nothing else. In every fecking country
Click to expand...
At the end of the day the results are quite different. One party assists the needy, the other doesn't, and the voters get to choose whether to support that assistance, or whether to keep their money for themselves. In some countries they don't get that choice, for a variety of reasons.
 
Compton22 said:
Sunak dodged every single question Starmer asked him and resorted to tired old lines about the Brexit vote and empty promises about what they will deliver. Profess to return to grown up politics, then descend into retaliations delivered with the sophistication of 'your mum' jokes, emboldened by his sycophantic backbenchers. Its impossible to draw any other conclusion than that.
Click to expand...
You think he was anhilated because he didnt answer the questions?
As explained before, answering the questions would have been a suicidal move for him.

Sunak had an excellent day given he set out what he needed to do which is unite the benches behind him and spin some tory wins.

Its naieve to believe the PMQs are actually structured well enough to hold PM to account. Thats not been the case in a long time regardless of the party.
 
711 said:
At the end of the day the results are quite different. One party assists the needy, the other doesn't, and the voters get to choose whether to support that assistance, or whether to keep their money for themselves. In some countries they don't get that choice, for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...

You know your parties way more than me for obvious reasons, so I will not refute it, but our labour equivalent party that should do the same in name (Worker socialist party) differenciates minimally from our Tory equivalent party and I tend to think that it usually happens to a certain degree to all big (in population) western bipartidist countries in the world
 
4bars said:
You know your parties way more than me for obvious reasons, so I will not refute it, but our labour equivalent party that should do the same in name (Worker socialist party) differenciates minimally from our Tory equivalent party and I tend to think that it usually happens to a certain degree to all big (in population) western bipartidist countries in the world
Click to expand...

Isn't Spain a genuine parliamentary democracy? Labour doesn't have anyone to the left of them, so it wouldn't be exactly the same.
 
nimic said:
Isn't Spain a genuine parliamentary democracy? Labour doesn't have anyone to the left of them, so it wouldn't be exactly the same.
Click to expand...


To long to explain my opinion on the democratic system in Spain and probably is very difficult to grasp for someone that is not from spain (Historical reasons, cultural reasons, regional geographical reasons, etc) the same it is very difficult for me to grasp UK politics as much as I am interested in all politics.

Just to answer, Socialist party should be the left and popular party should be the right, but the right had been always very right (as it was founded for a fascist minister from the last dictatorship and all fascist oligarchy pitched in). Socialist party was the freedom that people hoped after the dictatorship but there was something shady that we will never know with the election of the leader (someone talks about the CIA, and tinfoil hat, or not, conspiracy) that ended after his retiring being superpals and same discourse with the right (far very far) antagonist rival. Basically, we have a far right party, a new very far right party (that voters voted for the former when it was a bipartisan system) that is gaining strength and the socialist that are at closest, centrist with some policies that are right wing and a newish leftish party that water downed their truely left discourse and they are losing terrain anyway. So it still a strong bipartisan system with 2 small parties, but the 2 main serves only themselves and the same owners with minor differences to justify the illusion of choice. And this I belive it happens in most bipartisan systems in the world, but I might be wrong
 


Proper gaslighting as expected from right wing media. The idea Truss was a rogue agent completely at odds with the Tory party when 113 MPs voted for her including members of the current cabinet, a cabinet over half of which failed to object to Truss’ mini-budget when they also served under Truss.
 
711 said:
I can see him sacking her. Unbelievable really.
Click to expand...
It’s inevitable at this point. The problem is that it could upset the right of the party.

I wonder if it’s been planned by Sunak though, gives her a position to sate her and the ERG, then brief against her to make her position untenable and replace her with someone more palatable
 
Pexbo said:
It’s inevitable at this point. The problem is that it could upset the right of the party.

I wonder if it’s been planned by Sunak though, gives her a position to sate her and the ERG, then brief against her to make her position untenable and replace her with someone more palatable
Click to expand...
Wow, such Machiavellianism would be impressive. If this were football Labour would be breaking the bank for him.
 
711 said:
Wow, such Machiavellianism would be impressive. If this were football Labour would be breaking the bank for him.
Click to expand...

Would make a change from then breaking the bank for Labour.
 
Doncha just love all the integrity, professionalism and accountability that Sunak's brought to the table? Sleazeball fecker won't last long.
 
Suella is a fecking horror show. She is demonstrably thick as shit, incompetent and calamitous. I understand that Rishi needs someone who is extra evil to patronise the vile racists that form the Tory base support, and I get that she is able to give voice to their most repugnant views by casually delivering her callous bastardry. I just don't understand why it requires this Mr Bean of the dark arts to do so.

The Tory party is chock-a-block with depraved, shameless gobshites, surely they could have found one that wasn't also the clumsiest Tory dickhead since the last clumsy Tory dickhead.

 
Classical Mechanic said:
If we're perhaps going to possibly give Rishi some credit and work out why he did this, did he do this to bounce the ERG out of the cabinet? Put her in to let them burn through any credit they think they have in short order.
Click to expand...

More than likely he was so desperate to head off the loony-right challenge, and likely under the assumption that he could lose a membership vote, that he caved giving them some positions of their choice. It could also be that he calculated that "security breaches" were so inconsequential to the stuff going on that it was an easy win to head off the ERG on other demands.

On the other hand.....he's such an incompetent and "green" politican, that it wouldn't surprise me if he's being dragged around like a rag doll by the interest groups because all he wants is to be PM, and feck the optics. "Whatever gives me power is worth it"
 
Sunak is pretty Fcuking great at all the backstabby shit.

At every sight of scandal he disappears and keeps his powder dry.

He clearly appointed her as means to get the ERG group onside, safe in the knowledge she wouldn’t survive.

I mean, he’s obviously a slimy Cnut but he’s rapidly looking like King of the Snakes.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Sunak is pretty Fcuking great at all the backstabby shit.

At every sight of scandal he disappears and keeps his powder dry.

He clearly appointed her as means to get the ERG group onside, safe in the knowledge she wouldn’t survive.

I mean, he’s obviously a slimy Cnut but he’s rapidly looking like King of the Snakes.
Click to expand...
He who lives like littlefinger, hopefully dies like littlefinger..........
 
Sure might be some grand plan from rishi to get the ERG on side knowing she'd be gone soon enough.

But in actual reality, it makes him like highly incompetent and where the country were looking for stability, we'd already be anything but a couple days into his premiership. It's a shit look, and one of the worst starts possible in the eyes of the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.