The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure on the Starmer thing you know. I tend to think most Machiavellian, 3D chess arguments are nonsense, so suspect this is happy accident, but I'm not sure it harms Labour to have the press banging on about Partygate all over again. Especially 3 days after a pretty big win for Sunak. I don't think the public based their opinion on her report and all it serves to do is remind people what a bunch of pricks they were.

Whilst massively disagreeing with Hobes on the politicisation of the civil service, I can see the force of an enforced gap. Maybe. Though I largely think "there's nothing to see here" just the optics aren't great. Current (Tory) AG was a civil servant right up to getting selected as a candidate for a GE. Lord Frost moved from the civil service to a political role.

The Oakeshott thing is hilarious IMO. Like they old frog and the scorpion fable. "I cannot believe this woman with form for selling out her political contacts for personal gain (including two of them going to jail) who is romantically involved with the leader of a rival political party would do this". What a moron that man is.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not sure on the Starmer thing you know. I tend to think most Machiavellian, 3D chess arguments are nonsense, so suspect this is happy accident, but I'm not sure it harms Labour to have the press banging on about Partygate all over again. Especially 3 days after a pretty big win for Sunak. I don't think the public based their opinion on her report and all it serves to do is remind people what a bunch of pricks they were.

Whilst massively disagreeing with Hobes on the politicisation of the civil service, I can see the force of an enforced gap. Maybe. Though I largely think "there's nothing to see here" just the optics aren't great. Current (Tory) AG was a civil servant right up to getting selected as a candidate for a GE. Lord Frost moved from the civil service to a political role.

The Oakeshott thing is hilarious IMO. Like they old frog and the scorpion fable. "I cannot believe this woman with form for selling out her political contacts for personal gain (including two of them going to jail) who is romantically involved with the leader of a rival political party would do this". What a moron that man is.

All Starmer has done is appoint a candidate with huge experience and a good reputation. The whole 3D chess stuff people dream up is utterly tedious drivel as you say.

I’m not sure on the validity of a gap here. Unless she has a condition no gap is going to allow her to ‘forget’ all she knows.


And yes the Tories want reminding about Frost. They didn’t seem that bothered about politicising the civil service then.

[boltonboris]

It's absolutely wonderful to see 2 absolute cvunts making absolute cvnts of themselves on the national stage... Keep it coming

[Worthy4England]

I couldn’t disagree more. The Tories spent months saying how good Sue Gray was and how much integrity she has. So if you are looking for a chief of staff you go for the absolute best. It’s annoyed people loyal to Johnson. So is absolutely ideal.

The idea that you shouldn’t appoint someone with massive experience in government to be chief of staff for fear of annoying the very people you need to win an election against is absolutely bizarre to me. It’s the thought process of desperate right wing rags.

Johnson appointed her to carry out the investigation. She didn’t have the parties. She didn’t get picked by a committee to do the investigation. Johnson asked her.

She now has a job offer that she has accepted. The only people who thinks this taints the investigation are the absolute nutters who live in an alternative reality and like to bend and twist truth beyond all recognition.

Welcome to disagree mate. Them nutters - they also get a vote - I'm sure a lot have already made their minds up over whether Sue Gray's report was "bent or not" - whether you agree or disagree. Starmer can appoint who he likes, when he likes - but for any that might have been a bit "undecided" about whether Sue Gray's report might have had any political bias (regardless of what Johnson said about her), he's now opened that possibility - when he didn't have to.

[Worthy4England]

It's absolutely wonderful to see 2 absolute cvunts making absolute cvnts of themselves on the national stage... Keep it coming

Ahh - this post has the level of brevity that successfully captures the moment, perfectly!

[BWFC_Insane]

I couldn’t disagree more. The Tories spent months saying how good Sue Gray was and how much integrity she has. So if you are looking for a chief of staff you go for the absolute best. It’s annoyed people loyal to Johnson. So is absolutely ideal.

The idea that you shouldn’t appoint someone with massive experience in government to be chief of staff for fear of annoying the very people you need to win an election against is absolutely bizarre to me. It’s the thought process of desperate right wing rags.

Johnson appointed her to carry out the investigation. She didn’t have the parties. She didn’t get picked by a committee to do the investigation. Johnson asked her.

She now has a job offer that she has accepted. The only people who thinks this taints the investigation are the absolute nutters who live in an alternative reality and like to bend and twist truth beyond all recognition.

Welcome to disagree mate. Them nutters - they also get a vote - I'm sure a lot have already made their minds up over whether Sue Gray's report was "bent or not" - whether you agree or disagree. Starmer can appoint who he likes, when he likes - but for any that might have been a bit "undecided" about whether Sue Gray's report might have had any political bias (regardless of what Johnson said about her), he's now opened that possibility - when he didn't have to.

The people who think the report was politically biased are a minority of absolute loons who would be voting Tory or reform regardless.

And regardless Boris Johnson isn’t PM. And why is it any of Starmers concern what people think about a report that was done a year ago that handed material over to the police and resulted in over 100 FPNs? I’m not sure what on earth that has to do with Starmer and why he should even consider it? He didn’t instigate the report. He didn’t hold the parties. Sue Gray is a hugely experienced civil servant so why wouldn’t you add her to your team? Cos some daily mail hacks will say ‘see Johnson was right all along’ and ignore the facts as always?

[Worthy4England]

I couldn’t disagree more. The Tories spent months saying how good Sue Gray was and how much integrity she has. So if you are looking for a chief of staff you go for the absolute best. It’s annoyed people loyal to Johnson. So is absolutely ideal.

The idea that you shouldn’t appoint someone with massive experience in government to be chief of staff for fear of annoying the very people you need to win an election against is absolutely bizarre to me. It’s the thought process of desperate right wing rags.

Johnson appointed her to carry out the investigation. She didn’t have the parties. She didn’t get picked by a committee to do the investigation. Johnson asked her.

She now has a job offer that she has accepted. The only people who thinks this taints the investigation are the absolute nutters who live in an alternative reality and like to bend and twist truth beyond all recognition.

Welcome to disagree mate. Them nutters - they also get a vote - I'm sure a lot have already made their minds up over whether Sue Gray's report was "bent or not" - whether you agree or disagree. Starmer can appoint who he likes, when he likes - but for any that might have been a bit "undecided" about whether Sue Gray's report might have had any political bias (regardless of what Johnson said about her), he's now opened that possibility - when he didn't have to.

The people who think the report was politically biased are a minority of absolute loons who would be voting Tory or reform regardless.

And regardless Boris Johnson isn’t PM. And why is it any of Starmers concern what people think about a report that was done a year ago that handed material over to the police and resulted in over 100 FPNs? I’m not sure what on earth that has to do with Starmer and why he should even consider it? He didn’t instigate the report. He didn’t hold the parties. Sue Gray is a hugely experienced civil servant so why wouldn’t you add her to your team? Cos some daily mail hacks will say ‘see Johnson was right all along’ and ignore the facts as always?

I'm guessing that the minority of absolute loons could involve a significant proportion of that minority of absolute loons who voted for Brexit - which I suspect isn't un-adjacent to the minority of 14,000,000 loons who voted for Blondie at the last election?

[BWFC_Insane]

I’m genuinely not sure what you are saying? Johnson isn’t PM. Are you saying Starmer should base his decisions on a group of voters who will never vote for him or his party and their lunacy?

I’m a bit lost in the argument.

It’s like say Man City shouldn’t sign a Man Utd player as it will upset Man Utd fans? And?

Shouldn’t he be appointing someone their opponents spent months saying was absolutely superb? Why on earth wouldn’t you do that?

[boltonboris]

I’m genuinely not sure what you are saying? Johnson isn’t PM. Are you saying Starmer should base his decisions on a group of voters who will never vote for him or his party and their lunacy?

I’m a bit lost in the argument.

I'm saying the optics aren't good and it's thrown some petrol on a bin fire - Tory supporters thought Sue Gray was a labour implant and against BJ etc

Labour thought she was in BJ's pocket and watered down the report

Then she rocks up in Labour's offices and now the Tories can go "Ha! See we told you she was bent"

[boltonboris]

A sort of analogy I can think of is: (And I know it;s slightly different, because why would a footy club employ a referee!, but bear with me)

Bolton play Morecambe this weekend - The ref gives us a penalty and sends off a Morecambe player. It's absolutely nailed on and any ref would do the same..

However, it's football and it's tribal, as is modern politics and Morecambe fans take to Social Media claiming "that ref's bent, is he on Bolton's payroll"

Then lo and behold, we employ him as a technical coach and he stops working for PGMOL

What would Morecambe fans say?

[Worthy4England]

I’m genuinely not sure what you are saying? Johnson isn’t PM. Are you saying Starmer should base his decisions on a group of voters who will never vote for him or his party and their lunacy?

I’m a bit lost in the argument.

It’s like say Man City shouldn’t sign a Man Utd player as it will upset Man Utd fans? And?

Shouldn’t he be appointing someone their opponents spent months saying was absolutely superb? Why on earth wouldn’t you do that?

I'm saying, generally, I think "the people in the middle" (not either side's loonies neither absolutely Utd nor City fans) thought the Gray report was/is most likely, a factual and unbiased, un-politicised account (notwithstanding Pru's view that the actual report may not have been read by a lot of them). The true believers on either side will have already made their minds up and I think you're correct this appointment probably isn't changing that. I don't believe everyone who votes Tory "is a loon" - I think most are probably moderate, right of centre albeit a bit further right than the moderate right of centre that Labour will need to attract to win.

Whilst I look at the polls - which suggest some sort of wipe-out for the Tories, the largest GE swing we've actually seen is around 15%. Typically it's smaller. This might be different, because there's still the "Brexit Factor" underpinning the last Election. If it's not, then Labour will still have it's work cut out when it comes to actual real life voting. The 5.1% swing in 2010, lost Labour roughly 100 seats to the Tories, in the round - that got a coalition Govt...Similar would get us another coalition. I have a suspicion that it'll be closer than the polls suggest and on that basis every vote counts for me. Time will tell whether it's one of a number of mis-steps.

[TANGODANCER]

Politics today is a bit like reading the old Beano or Dandy weeklies. You read them every week but never took them serious because they were comics. What difference?

[BWFC_Insane]

I’m genuinely not sure what you are saying? Johnson isn’t PM. Are you saying Starmer should base his decisions on a group of voters who will never vote for him or his party and their lunacy?

I’m a bit lost in the argument.

It’s like say Man City shouldn’t sign a Man Utd player as it will upset Man Utd fans? And?

Shouldn’t he be appointing someone their opponents spent months saying was absolutely superb? Why on earth wouldn’t you do that?

I'm saying, generally, I think "the people in the middle" (not either side's loonies neither absolutely Utd nor City fans) thought the Gray report was/is most likely, a factual and unbiased, un-politicised account (notwithstanding Pru's view that the actual report may not have been read by a lot of them). The true believers on either side will have already made their minds up and I think you're correct this appointment probably isn't changing that. I don't believe everyone who votes Tory "is a loon" - I think most are probably moderate, right of centre albeit a bit further right than the moderate right of centre that Labour will need to attract to win.

Whilst I look at the polls - which suggest some sort of wipe-out for the Tories, the largest GE swing we've actually seen is around 15%. Typically it's smaller. This might be different, because there's still the "Brexit Factor" underpinning the last Election. If it's not, then Labour will still have it's work cut out when it comes to actual real life voting. The 5.1% swing in 2010, lost Labour roughly 100 seats to the Tories, in the round - that got a coalition Govt...Similar would get us another coalition. I have a suspicion that it'll be closer than the polls suggest and on that basis every vote counts for me. Time will tell whether it's one of a number of mis-steps.

I think the issue is you are lumping all Tory voters as a core. The people who like Sunak and the traditional conservative voters are NOT the Johnson lot who will be blathering on about this.

The core of middle England is not looking at Starmer appointing Sue Gray in anything other than ‘party appointing people ready for government’. And those voters will break whichever way.

The lunatics who back Johnson regardless of any fact or reason are the ones this has impacted and they probably in many cases won’t vote for a Sunak led Tory party anyway.

[BWFC_Insane]

I’m genuinely not sure what you are saying? Johnson isn’t PM. Are you saying Starmer should base his decisions on a group of voters who will never vote for him or his party and their lunacy?

I’m a bit lost in the argument.

I'm saying the optics aren't good and it's thrown some petrol on a bin fire - Tory supporters thought Sue Gray was a labour implant and against BJ etc

Labour thought she was in BJ's pocket and watered down the report

Then she rocks up in Labour's offices and now the Tories can go "Ha! See we told you she was bent"

A small group of absolute nutters thinking one thing irrespective of any fact or reason is not a good reason not to do something.

The Tories put on record their view of Sue Gray and that’s there for all to see. They described her in the most glowing of terms. They picked her to investigate.

Taking a new role does not indicate anything beyond ‘oh a new opportunity has arisen’.

I mean in this parliament a Tory MP has crossed the floor. Does that mean he was a labour plant? Course not. You can work in the civil service whilst being entirely neutral and still take a role like this if the circumstances were right. That happens in life.

[Worthy4England]

I’m genuinely not sure what you are saying? Johnson isn’t PM. Are you saying Starmer should base his decisions on a group of voters who will never vote for him or his party and their lunacy?

I’m a bit lost in the argument.

It’s like say Man City shouldn’t sign a Man Utd player as it will upset Man Utd fans? And?

Shouldn’t he be appointing someone their opponents spent months saying was absolutely superb? Why on earth wouldn’t you do that?

I'm saying, generally, I think "the people in the middle" (not either side's loonies neither absolutely Utd nor City fans) thought the Gray report was/is most likely, a factual and unbiased, un-politicised account (notwithstanding Pru's view that the actual report may not have been read by a lot of them). The true believers on either side will have already made their minds up and I think you're correct this appointment probably isn't changing that. I don't believe everyone who votes Tory "is a loon" - I think most are probably moderate, right of centre albeit a bit further right than the moderate right of centre that Labour will need to attract to win.

Whilst I look at the polls - which suggest some sort of wipe-out for the Tories, the largest GE swing we've actually seen is around 15%. Typically it's smaller. This might be different, because there's still the "Brexit Factor" underpinning the last Election. If it's not, then Labour will still have it's work cut out when it comes to actual real life voting. The 5.1% swing in 2010, lost Labour roughly 100 seats to the Tories, in the round - that got a coalition Govt...Similar would get us another coalition. I have a suspicion that it'll be closer than the polls suggest and on that basis every vote counts for me. Time will tell whether it's one of a number of mis-steps.

I think the issue is you are lumping all Tory voters as a core. The people who like Sunak and the traditional conservative voters are NOT the Johnson lot who will be blathering on about this.

The core of middle England is not looking at Starmer appointing Sue Gray in anything other than ‘party appointing people ready for government’. And those voters will break whichever way.

The lunatics who back Johnson regardless of any fact or reason are the ones this has impacted and they probably in many cases won’t vote for a Sunak led Tory party anyway.

I think the issue is you are lumping all the people who might have some doubts raised are loonies and nutters who were never voting Starmer. Where is anything that tells us what the core of middle England thinks about it?

[BWFC_Insane]

^Simply because your whole argument revolves around essentially a lunatic fringe view spurred on by Johnson and his friends in the media.

There is no rational view that supports that investigation being compromised by an appointment a year later. Beyond absolute numpties writing stuff. You then said ‘people who believe those loons have a vote’ and yes they do. But that is not people who as far as Labour are concerned matter. If your argument is that middle England who polls show have abandoned the Tories in their droves (and polls are the best evidence we have) are suddenly going to be so outraged by this they demand the return of Johnson and all
vote Tory then I’m pretty confident in my assertion that this is absolute nonsense.

[Worthy4England]

^Simply because your whole argument revolves around essentially a lunatic fringe view spurred on by Johnson and his friends in the media.

There is no rational view that supports that investigation being compromised by an appointment a year later. Beyond absolute numpties writing stuff. You then said ‘people who believe those loons have a vote’ and yes they do. But that is not people who as far as Labour are concerned matter. If your argument is that middle England who polls show have abandoned the Tories in their droves (and polls are the best evidence we have) are suddenly going to be so outraged by this they demand the return of Johnson and all
vote Tory then I’m pretty confident in my assertion that this is absolute nonsense.

Polls - who was leading in June 2019 ahead of the December election which the Tories won a landslide in? How many polls were still calling Brexit for remain by up to a 10 point margin, the week before the vote (the answer is all but one)? I know the not unreasonable argument that Labour are so far ahead that this might be inconsequential.

The way I look at it is this - as someone not typically swayed by Tory press and never having voted for them in my life - If my initial reaction is "Well that's fcuking dumb" - there could (I don't say will be) be quite a few to the near and further right of me a long way from "the lunatic right" who may be thinking "That's dumb" too - Of course they might all think like you rather than me - C'est la vie.

I don't believe my argument ever mentioned the notion of Johnson returning (I think the Tory grassroots will at some point come back to this - but that's a whole other story), they would only as potentially wavering voters need to think that their party has been stitched up, irrespective of who leads them - In case your memory is a little short, they voted for Liz Truss (and I know that was only card carrying members), but from "people in the pub" near me, who I know for a fact vote Tory, they were almost universally for Truss rather than Sunak - I can attest that they're not "loonies"...

[BWFC_Insane]

^Simply because your whole argument revolves around essentially a lunatic fringe view spurred on by Johnson and his friends in the media.

There is no rational view that supports that investigation being compromised by an appointment a year later. Beyond absolute numpties writing stuff. You then said ‘people who believe those loons have a vote’ and yes they do. But that is not people who as far as Labour are concerned matter. If your argument is that middle England who polls show have abandoned the Tories in their droves (and polls are the best evidence we have) are suddenly going to be so outraged by this they demand the return of Johnson and all
vote Tory then I’m pretty confident in my assertion that this is absolute nonsense.

Polls - who was leading in June 2019 ahead of the December election which the Tories won a landslide in? How many polls were still calling Brexit for remain by up to a 10 point margin, the week before the vote (the answer is all but one)? I know the not unreasonable argument that Labour are so far ahead that this might be inconsequential.

The way I look at it is this - as someone not typically swayed by Tory press and never having voted for them in my life - If my initial reaction is "Well that's fcuking dumb" - there could (I don't say will be) be quite a few to the near and further right of me a long way from "the lunatic right" who may be thinking "That's dumb" too - Of course they might all think like you rather than me - C'est la vie.

I don't believe my argument ever mentioned the notion of Johnson returning (I think the Tory grassroots will at some point come back to this - but that's a whole other story), they would only as potentially wavering voters need to think that their party has been stitched up, irrespective of who leads them - In case your memory is a little short, they voted for Liz Truss (and I know that was only card carrying members), but from "people in the pub" near me, who I know for a fact vote Tory, they were almost universally for Truss rather than Sunak - I can attest that they're not "loonies"...

Again my point was not Labour are so far ahead in the polls it doesn't matter. At all. It was polling evidence showing that middle England or lets say small c Conservatives have abandoned the party. And have SINCE Johnson was still leader. The biggest threat to Labour is the fact that Sunak is at least competent. And probably if he can stop needing to dogwhistle the racists and far right to keep elements of his party happy can attract much of middle England back - if again he can shut the ERG up.

But I'm not really talking about wider electoral chances I'm talking about the demographic of people who are happily listening to the witterings of Daily Mail journos on twitter and Nadine Dorries etc...we all know these people are simply using Trump like tactics to pretend this appointment invalidates a report - remember the investigation outcomes was used by the very same people to claim 'it vindicates Johnson'. So which is it? He was vindicated by a 'damp squib' of a report OR he was trussed up like a turkey by a conspiracy between Sue Gray and Labour to make the report so bad he had to go - even though that report did not precipitate him leaving - indeed it allowed him to cling on. So I'm asking you - which of those is it? One or two?

Going back to polling the average of the last round of polls was 52 remain 48 leave - so not that far off - and within margin of error. Indeed go back before Jo Cox was shot and leave was ahead in most polls with leads up to 10%. People often claim polling is way way off...and cite examples like this - but when you actually look the polls were mostly within margin of error correct. And yes there are the odd outliers but anyone who bases everything on a single poll is an idiot. Polling needs month long trends and multiple polls before any conclusions are drawn. June 2019 polling pre Johnson as leader with parliament in deadlock is also a bit offbeam as a comparison. Polls can change - situations change. If there was a GE today the polls won't be far wrong. They don't predict a years time though. I agree with that.

[Worthy4England]

Have you been drinking heavily, Insano? You're saying my whole argument is reliant on a lunatic fringe spurred on by (lots of things) like the Daily Mail, Nadine Dorries and all YOUR usual suspects. There is only you who bought up any of those things. Just to be clear.

Somewhere in the middle (no lunatic fringe on either side), there MIGHT be a good few, who like me read something akin to "Starmer appoints Gray" - fairly bland narrative with no Daily Mail nor Nadine Dorries spin - and MIGHT think, fcuk me she's Labour, how could I possibly believe her report - MAYBE given I was thinking of not voting, MAYBE now I will...

Dumb move for me from Starmer. I don't care whether you agree with this or not.

[BWFC_Insane]

Have you been drinking heavily, Insano? You're saying my whole argument is reliant on a lunatic fringe spurred on by (lots of things) like the Daily Mail, Nadine Dorries and all YOUR usual suspects. There is only you who bought up any of those things. Just to be clear.

Somewhere in the middle (no lunatic fringe on either side), there MIGHT be a good few, who like me read something akin to "Starmer appoints Gray" - fairly bland narrative with no Daily Mail nor Nadine Dorries spin - and MIGHT think, fcuk me she's Labour, how could I possibly believe her report - MAYBE given I was thinking of not voting, MAYBE now I will...

Dumb move for me from Starmer. I don't care whether you agree with this or not.

So I think we've gotten to your view that Starmer appointing Sue Gray will make people like you who weren't voting Tory, vote Tory.

I think that's insane beyond belief and completely illogical. And I'd be happy to bet my house that it simply will not happen. That's very different to 'Labour will win' I'm not arguing that I simply do not think Sue Gray makes a blind bit of difference either way!