Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
And has a good sense of humour.
Yep. Could be Obama levels of wasting away a golden opportunity to improve the country. Tbh Starmer probably views this type of majority as a nightmare.
Last edited:
Healthy democracy in action!
File under the sort of problems you hope to have.
There are always going to be coalitions within parties that take some massaging to go with you, or bending to keep happy but better than being useless to everyone in opposition
You might want to look up how Starmer has run the Labour party under his leadership.
Nails it.
Last edited:
Yeah his thread.
It is not going to happen but it would be a tremendous boost for democracy in the UK if it did.
If ever a party deserved an absolute electoral kicking its this Tory one. Send the message serve us or look what happens when we find out you were self interested, incompetent, corrupt, lying cnuts.
I always knew they were but others seem to take some convincing.
There are, like you suggest here, some very obvious moves a Labour govt can make which will improve matters. Put the corrupt on trial, ban overseas ownership of the press, etc.
Anyway, back to the real world, any sort of win will do.
Great post.
Racist Thatcherite/free market lover is annoyed by the free market
I tend to agree.
The only situation where something like that being remotely possible is where Reform do a 'strategic strike number' on the Tories, from the right; the Liberals from the 'soft underbelly' one nation Tories and Labour strike down the middle with those who just want rid, such that there is only a 'rump' of Tory seats left in the shires.
I don't think that's an especially controversial stance to take.
Not for xenophobes or racists, sure. Personally I think people should be prioritised as per their needs, not the colour of their skin or where they are originally from.
The lack of housing isn't caused by inward migration, it's caused by 14 years of Tory austerity.
not unlike not wanting asylum seekers housed in 4 star hotels, living in luxury. when the reality is actually somewhat different.
Any country has an obligation to its own citizens, first and foremost.
It's caused by 30+ years of policy
I know this country has shifted right but if Badenoch or Braveman were leading the Tory party into a general election off the back of the 14 year shit show I genuinely believe that they’d be under threat of the Lib Dem’s pushing them into 3rd place.
If Sunak doesn't make it to the election, I could seriously see the tories going under 50 seats. People won't be able to take another switch. Just pure rage will come over the electorate and I think the reform protest vote jumps again, and anyone still voting for Rishi as a "centrist" goes labour.
Good. Hope they rot
I expect Green to pick up a few seats. The left have the choice of either voting for Starmer or vote elsewhere and Lib Dems are utterly useless along with people having lost faith with them.
I do think Tories will do better than they're currently polling. But Labour will stride it with complete ease.
I do think Tories will do better than they're currently polling. But Labour will stride it with complete ease.
I don't think Sunak will go before the election. The likes of Hunt and his supporters will want to wait for their coming election catastrophe before taking over at the bottom, they won't send letters in. The right will of course, in the hope that the membership votes one of their own as leader, but among Tory MPs they are a minority, the others are well aware of the danger of that, they won't back a leadership election, yet.
It would take a Liz Truss type basket case to want the leadership now. So out of the 349 Tory MP's I'd wager about 300 or so are currently scheming for it.
There would be some hilarious candidates, true.Oh boy, are Labour in for a shock these elections. They'll win, but they'll still lose.
Can a win be a loss?
....asked Pyrrhus.
Is anyone remotely surprised?
Revealed: UK granted asylum to Rwandan refugees while arguing country was safe
Home Office said refugees’ fear of persecution was ‘well-founded’, undermining Rishi Sunak’s claims about East African country
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...andan-refugees-while-arguing-country-was-safe
Revealed: UK granted asylum to Rwandan refugees while arguing country was safe
Home Office said refugees’ fear of persecution was ‘well-founded’, undermining Rishi Sunak’s claims about East African country
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...andan-refugees-while-arguing-country-was-safe
Is there any particular reason they chose Rwanda specifically for this scheme?
Because they're an English speaking ex-colony who were happy to (pretend to?) go along with it in exchange for British taxpayer money.
It was a French colony, but is in the Commonwealth for some reason.
German colony, then Belgian, but English is one of it's official languages, so maybe there was a strong British commercial presence, just guessing.
I don't think the decision is anything to do with who's colony it was, rather who would take the money.
Last edited:
It seems a weird choice on face of it. There are safer countries that would have taken the money. I wonder though, Tories being Tories, whether they picked it precisely because it is not safe, not really any body's first choice for asylum.