The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

After that debate


I give up!

Rishi won according to polling.

He’s the only one I’d have any faith in whatsoever. The rest are screaming Labour win at next election to me. Sunak I suspect would walk an election against Starmer. Rest probably get thumped.

I thought Sunak showed the rest of them up tonight. Well, I thought Tugendhat talked himself out of the running. Yes, yes, thanks for your service and all that (though please stop droning on about it), but what isn't required right now is a novice, and his USP is that he's basically trying to come in on a novice's ticket.

Tom can do what he wants because he knows he has absolutely no chance. He’d have been an absolute shoe in back in say 2008/9. But now with the right wing drift - no.

Sunak has shown them up both nights but sadly the fantasy of Tory members is likely to mean he won’t win either.

You know I’m no Tory but Sunak is mighty impressive and frankly would storm a general election.

The other 3 are pretty awful. I thought Mordaunt would be ok but she’s fallen apart sadly and her history of being less than honest is the final straw.

Rishi vs Liz and down to the Tory members to decide if they want to retain a good majority or spend a decade in the electoral wilderness. Which way do you think they will go?

I've got to admit, no shocked at you actually championing high tax, broken promises, years of austerity and the rich getting significantly richer. You seriously think Sunak won't go on the rampage smacking the benefits system? I'd like reform there but when his chums in the private sector start it will be dying folk travelling a hundred miles to interviews all over again. The man is a complete utter charlatan and will do nothing to fix the sh*t we are getting deeper into, oh he was slick okay but so was Arthur Daly, you have been warned. Don't get me wrong the others are no better and the limp Dems might just pick up my protest vote next time if he wins.

At least you knew Boris was lying.

[Bruce Rioja]

Yep, agree with all of that.
I have the truly terrible feeling that we'll end up with Truss, and if we do then there was little point in getting shot of Theresa May.

Here's a question though, what on earth is the point of having these public debates when we don't get a say?

[Prufrock]

Sunak is useless too, and he'll get savaged for his wife's non-dom claim... He's just less useless then the others.

Still hard to see past Labour PM at the next election.

[BWFC_Insane]

After that debate


I give up!

Rishi won according to polling.

He’s the only one I’d have any faith in whatsoever. The rest are screaming Labour win at next election to me. Sunak I suspect would walk an election against Starmer. Rest probably get thumped.

I thought Sunak showed the rest of them up tonight. Well, I thought Tugendhat talked himself out of the running. Yes, yes, thanks for your service and all that (though please stop droning on about it), but what isn't required right now is a novice, and his USP is that he's basically trying to come in on a novice's ticket.

Tom can do what he wants because he knows he has absolutely no chance. He’d have been an absolute shoe in back in say 2008/9. But now with the right wing drift - no.

Sunak has shown them up both nights but sadly the fantasy of Tory members is likely to mean he won’t win either.

You know I’m no Tory but Sunak is mighty impressive and frankly would storm a general election.

The other 3 are pretty awful. I thought Mordaunt would be ok but she’s fallen apart sadly and her history of being less than honest is the final straw.

Rishi vs Liz and down to the Tory members to decide if they want to retain a good majority or spend a decade in the electoral wilderness. Which way do you think they will go?

I've got to admit, no shocked at you actually championing high tax, broken promises, years of austerity and the rich getting significantly richer. You seriously think Sunak won't go on the rampage smacking the benefits system? I'd like reform there but when his chums in the private sector start it will be dying folk travelling a hundred miles to interviews all over again. The man is a complete utter charlatan and will do nothing to fix the sh*t we are getting deeper into, oh he was slick okay but so was Arthur Daly, you have been warned. Don't get me wrong the others are no better and the limp Dems might just pick up my protest vote next time if he wins.

At least you knew Boris was lying.

The Tories inherited a debt of just under a trillion and told us it was a national emergency and no way could the UK survive if we didn’t do something immediately to fix it. Twelve years later the debt is now over 2 trillion.

I don’t agree with much of what any of the candidates say. But you can’t offer low tax, and more investment as all the others are without making inflation and the general economic situation intolerable.

Sunak is right. I mean even labour are saying the same thing broadly. No to austerity. A bit no. That failed miserably. But we have to carefully manage our way out of the pit and anyone who pretends you can do it with magical ‘growth’ without explaining what the trade offs are or how said growth is achieved can do one.

[nicholaldo]

Yep, agree with all of that.
I have the truly terrible feeling that we'll end up with Truss, and if we do then there was little point in getting shot of Theresa May.

Here's a question though, what on earth is the point of having these public debates when we don't get a say?

Yes, they are pointless.

The Channel 4 debate was held in front of an audience of non-Tory voters, for example.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sunak is useless too, and he'll get savaged for his wife's non-dom claim... He's just less useless then the others.

Still hard to see past Labour PM at the next election.

He’s the Tories Tony Blair only a bit less inspirational and ‘new’. I think he’d win the next election for them comfortably. Can’t see any of the others doing so.

[TANGODANCER]

Here's a question though, what on earth is the point of having these public debates when we don't get a say?

They also serve who only stand and vote...A bit like buying a lottery ticket; a very, very remote chance of winning, but hope lives on. Seems becoming Prime Minister is all about the perks that can be acquired in four years and the problems will take care of themselves. Give the position a working man's hours and wages , economy class travel, a Group Four bodyguard, a Union Jack tie and a Ford Focus, and watch them disappear.

P.S Members of Parliament would get the same, but with a council house, no car, free rail travel and luncheon vouchers, or sort your own transport out. We'd soon see who are politicians.

[Prufrock]

Sunak is useless too, and he'll get savaged for his wife's non-dom claim... He's just less useless then the others.

Still hard to see past Labour PM at the next election.

He’s the Tories Tony Blair only a bit less inspirational and ‘new’. I think he’d win the next election for them comfortably. Can’t see any of the others doing so.

Ha! Tony Blair had more political insight in his little finger etc.

Whoever takes over is their Gordon Brown (in the sense that global events mean they're pretty f*cked anyway), without even being anywhere near as good a political as GB, who was nowhere near the leader TB was.

You're right that Sunak at least gets the financial side is important, but good luck with your "big no to austerity", he's a believer. His popularity generally is because he's associated with furlough and help in the financial crisis, which he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do.

Ambulances don't come ffs. It's going to be however long until the next election of Labour hammering them on public services after they've been in for 12 years. How many doctors, how many teachers etc.

[Prufrock]

Here's a question though, what on earth is the point of having these public debates when we don't get a say?

They also serve who only stand and vote...A bit like buying a lottery ticket; a very, very remote chance of winning, but hope lives on. Seems becoming Prime Minister is all about the perks that can be acquired in four years and the problems will take care of themselves. Give the position a working man's hours and wages , economy class travel, a Group Four bodyguard, a Union Jack tie and a Ford Focus, and watch them disappear.

P.S Members of Parliament would get the same, but with a council house, no car, free rail travel and luncheon vouchers, or sort your own transport out. We'd soon see who are politicians.

Politicians are all wankers etc I know I know, but I always find this view odd. It's 650 of the most important jobs in the country. Why on earth wouldn't you want to make it attractive? Politics has historically been the preserve of the independently wealthy. Why would you only want it open to the those who don't need the money?

[BWFC_Insane]

Sunak is useless too, and he'll get savaged for his wife's non-dom claim... He's just less useless then the others.

Still hard to see past Labour PM at the next election.

He’s the Tories Tony Blair only a bit less inspirational and ‘new’. I think he’d win the next election for them comfortably. Can’t see any of the others doing so.

Ha! Tony Blair had more political insight in his little finger etc.

Whoever takes over is their Gordon Brown (in the sense that global events mean they're pretty f*cked anyway), without even being anywhere near as good a political as GB, who was nowhere near the leader TB was.

You're right that Sunak at least gets the financial side is important, but good luck with your "big no to austerity", he's a believer. His popularity generally is because he's associated with furlough and help in the financial crisis, which he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do.

Ambulances don't come ffs. It's going to be however long until the next election of Labour hammering them on public services after they've been in for 12 years. How many doctors, how many teachers etc.

I don’t disagree, the fact is that politically I’m obviously never in line with Sunak.

It’s just at least he seems vaguely competent. I guess the bar has been set so low it’s what we are dealing with now.

A plodder like Starmer seems brilliant, nay, genius after Corbyn.

And the array of culture war Tories post Johnson means that one who doesn’t lie quite as much as the others seems absolutely like the second coming.

I get all that.

I do think he would win them elections though. He’s presentationally slick enough and the Tories win by default bar Labour having Blair like brilliance or the Tories being absolutely dog awful, so Sunak I think would do well electorally.

[Worthy4England]

Here's a question though, what on earth is the point of having these public debates when we don't get a say?

They also serve who only stand and vote...A bit like buying a lottery ticket; a very, very remote chance of winning, but hope lives on. Seems becoming Prime Minister is all about the perks that can be acquired in four years and the problems will take care of themselves. Give the position a working man's hours and wages , economy class travel, a Group Four bodyguard, a Union Jack tie and a Ford Focus, and watch them disappear.

P.S Members of Parliament would get the same, but with a council house, no car, free rail travel and luncheon vouchers, or sort your own transport out. We'd soon see who are politicians.

Politicians are all wankers etc I know I know, but I always find this view odd. It's 650 of the most important jobs in the country. Why on earth wouldn't you want to make it attractive? Politics has historically been the preserve of the independently wealthy. Why would you only want it open to the those who don't need the money?

Yeah, as much as I might agree with the sentiment, that them living on say "an average wage" might crystallize some thinking. Quite a lot of them are independently wealthy anyhow. You could give some of them just a bag of kudos, nothing, but the reality is it wouldn't impact them.

I do think to get the best talent, there has to be incentive over what the private sector offers. I think the fact that we've got the lot of the dross we currently have, is because that's not in place...

[TANGODANCER]

Here's a question though, what on earth is the point of having these public debates when we don't get a say?

They also serve who only stand and vote...A bit like buying a lottery ticket; a very, very remote chance of winning, but hope lives on. Seems becoming Prime Minister is all about the perks that can be acquired in four years and the problems will take care of themselves. Give the position a working man's hours and wages , economy class travel, a Group Four bodyguard, a Union Jack tie and a Ford Focus, and watch them disappear.

P.S Members of Parliament would get the same, but with a council house, no car, free rail travel and luncheon vouchers, or sort your own transport out. We'd soon see who are politicians.

Politicians are all wankers etc I know I know, but I always find this view odd. It's 650 of the most important jobs in the country. Why on earth wouldn't you want to make it attractive? Politics has historically been the preserve of the independently wealthy. Why would you only want it open to the those who don't need the money?

Ah, not quite sure where I said that, but then again the answer to that wouldn't be hard to spot. Why make it attractive when it's plain to see; every white paper since the Magna Carta hasn't moved us on and every government has been a fight for party superiority rather than coalition? Mean while, some fourteen hundred, and two trillion pounds or so years later,....My political knowledge is somewhat lacking, but there's not much wrong with my history. Leaving the religious angle aside, Vatican City is the smallest country in the world yet The Popes have ruled it since the eighth century and it's fabulously wealthy despite it only investing in companies that operate according to Catholic morals. Maybe we could learn some lessons about that and apply the principals to our politics. And pigs might fly....

[Worthy4England]

I don't agree with the notion that nothing has moved us on since the Magna Carta. I do agree that our current electoral system is flawed as a party can win 100 seat majorities, with 65% of the electorate not voting for them, which to me is batshit crazy.

When you were reading history, did you skip the chapter on the Vatican Bank? They count, mismanagement, fraudulent real estate deals and money laundering on their rap sheet. So yeah, I think we could learn some lessons from them.

[BWFC_Insane]

This is always a fascinating debate. I fully get the argument of get what you pay for.

But I don’t think it’s as simple as that. The best talent are doing what exactly? Investment bankers after a few years earn say £150,000 and that’s a role that doesn’t require management.

A bank ceo might be on a million plus whatever and that’s probably closer to the skills of a government minister.

I don’t think we are paying MPs 150,000 plus or ministers several million each. So I still think there is an argument we can’t even ever think about being competitive.

The other point is that the skills of being an MP are really hard to define. And one might say the job is less challenging that for example, running a supermarket or a bank (and in this case I mean a singular branch). Whereas being a government minister is probably more challenging than more or less any job out there and the skills that make someone a highly successful business baron or investment banker or property developer aren’t necessarily all the same nor is there neat correlation. And that’s the problem for me. Many many successful billionaires don’t understand macroeconomic trends. Nor do they understand necessarily how to manage a large department. And this is why it’s less about money, though I do agree we need to balance it a bit. But much more about understanding the skills needed and finding ways to translate this into a sensible set of requirements or competencies. You still have the other problem that people have to be elected so…..

[Worthy4England]

I didn't make it clear, I'm not in favour of paying Billy/Brenda Backbencher £300k. I do think the Government positions probably need an uplift...I think a decent investment banker will be disappointed on £150k...

But it is an unbalanced argument, as people are often appointed to positions based on their political affiliations to the party...CFI Nadine....I'd be quite happy for parties to be obliged to deliver their manifesto pledges by law and that each department should have to have specific manifesto targets, and they get paid out based on whether they've delivered them or not...

[TANGODANCER]

I don't agree with the notion that nothing has moved us on since the Magna Carta. I do agree that our current electoral system is flawed as a party can win 100 seat majorities, with 65% of the electorate not voting for them, which to me is batshit crazy.

When you were reading history, did you skip the chapter on the Vatican Bank? They count, mismanagement, fraudulent real estate deals and money laundering on their rap sheet. So yeah, I think we could learn some lessons from them.

No, indeed I didn't, nor all about Papal villainy historically, and more recently The Jesuits, Opus Dei and the deeds supposedly done in the Name of God when in fact, the name of man was the reality. The Vatican does great work world-wide for the poor, but if I were seeking agreement, the Politics thread isn't where I'd expect to find it.

Do I have any answers, no none whatsoever. Maybe I should be a politician.

[BWFC_Insane]

I didn't make it clear, I'm not in favour of paying Billy/Brenda Backbencher £300k. I do think the Government positions probably need an uplift...I think a decent investment banker will be disappointed on £150k...

But it is an unbalanced argument, as people are often appointed to positions based on their political affiliations to the party...CFI Nadine....I'd be quite happy for parties to be obliged to deliver their manifesto pledges by law and that each department should have to have specific manifesto targets, and they get paid out based on whether they've delivered them or not...

The problem you have though is a government minister requires them to be an MP first. So your pool is restricted….

And if you don’t pay your pool enough…you are still having the issue of ‘talent’ not necessarily being available.

Agree on manifesto targets. Like any decent performance review. You set your own targets and if you need or want to change them you have to make that case and have it approved.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

One of the big problems for me is that ministerial jobs are handed out like sweeties for loyalty rather than for ability or suitability. This means ministers rarely spend enough time in a post to do more than enthusiastically rearrange some deckchairs. It also means you end up with someone with no experience or even enthusiasm for the department, but they take it as it is seen as a step-up from the previous post. Unless someone is clearly not up to the task, they need to spend time in post to do whatever it is the government was elected to do.

[Prufrock]

Sunak is useless too, and he'll get savaged for his wife's non-dom claim... He's just less useless then the others.

Still hard to see past Labour PM at the next election.

He’s the Tories Tony Blair only a bit less inspirational and ‘new’. I think he’d win the next election for them comfortably. Can’t see any of the others doing so.

Ha! Tony Blair had more political insight in his little finger etc.

Whoever takes over is their Gordon Brown (in the sense that global events mean they're pretty f*cked anyway), without even being anywhere near as good a political as GB, who was nowhere near the leader TB was.

You're right that Sunak at least gets the financial side is important, but good luck with your "big no to austerity", he's a believer. His popularity generally is because he's associated with furlough and help in the financial crisis, which he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do.

Ambulances don't come ffs. It's going to be however long until the next election of Labour hammering them on public services after they've been in for 12 years. How many doctors, how many teachers etc.

I don’t disagree, the fact is that politically I’m obviously never in line with Sunak.

It’s just at least he seems vaguely competent. I guess the bar has been set so low it’s what we are dealing with now.

A plodder like Starmer seems brilliant, nay, genius after Corbyn.

And the array of culture war Tories post Johnson means that one who doesn’t lie quite as much as the others seems absolutely like the second coming.

I get all that.

I do think he would win them elections though. He’s presentationally slick enough and the Tories win by default bar Labour having Blair like brilliance or the Tories being absolutely dog awful, so Sunak I think would do well electorally.

I don't think we're a million miles away other than analysis towards the next election. I'm not sure Labour need to be as good as Blair to win an election, but there have been too many elections that they have essentially thrown by being unelectable. Sunak would have wiped the floor with Corbyn.

Starmer on the other hand is certainly no Blair, but he is competent and I think there's plenty talent in the Labour party. The messaging has been v solid on fiscal discipline which means I think plenty will be willing to consider what they have to say.

And the Tories are *so* bad. They've binned off so many of the decent ones, out of politics, gone for a generation. Instead they're stuck with Raab, Williamson, Patel, Braverman.

You're absolutely right elsewhere in this thread that it is very hard being a government minister, and when so many of them are just not up to it, scandal and bad headlines will follow you around.

It isn't getting any better for them. It would be tough for a good government now, this lot are fecked.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think that the thing for Blair is as well as his obvious talents he also had some significant advantages over Starmer.

One that the left of the party was already under control so he didn’t have the struggle of winning hearts and minds of the grassroots who say a decade before would have been more resistant.

Secondly he didn’t have the social media culture war. I’ve seen plenty of people lambast the Tories but go on to say they can’t vote for Labour because their ‘anti woke identity’ is threatened by a Labour government.

It means that Blair essentially being seen as an economic safe pair of hands applies to Starmer but it doesn’t cut through as much of middle England as it did, or perhaps it does but non middle England compensates against that cut through.

The point is that whilst I think Starmer has been a necessary. Someone to steer the party into a better place. A Kinnock if you like. I don’t necessarily think he beats a competent and well presented Sunak. At all. I do think he would beat Truss. Or anyone else bar Tugenhat.

Such is the nature of politics as worthy says we want rid of the Tories but the country hasn’t got a convincing enough alternative yet to be totally swayed.