Once 140 odd of your own MPs have voted against you, you're no longer a serious figure. If he staggers on he'll turn it into a 1997 style landslide as opposed to a close election.
Printable View
Once 140 odd of your own MPs have voted against you, you're no longer a serious figure. If he staggers on he'll turn it into a 1997 style landslide as opposed to a close election.
Theresa May's 'Dementia Tax' was the best policy proposal of the last twenty years until the wealthy establishment boomers at the Guardian killed it. Should have just given the country its last rites there and then.
It's okay, the Labour right will piss away a landslide (although can't see that happening anyway with the SNP around these days) on stuff that's easily reversible and then probably start a stupid war somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
And it seems the problem for your type of voter remains getting over the result. Such a shitfest, with either side finding it impossible to see anything that doesn't fit their narrative. I mean, your response doesn't even address my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
In seats with hummus sales above a certain threshold they need to pull the Labour candidate and endorse the Lib Dems, and vice versa in seats where the chickea gloop does less well. If they do that they could knock out a lot of Tories.
They need to run the Greens everywhere though as a surprising amount of Tories will defect to the Greens under certain circumstances which I think are currently being met.
The Labour right and left are as bad as each other. "Come together to get in power and we can sort the rest out in the wash" was the correct approach, but no, let's have a load of infighting and refusal to vote instead. Fucking idiots.
The Lib Dems could well become the opposition if Labour don't sort their shit out.
The 'Labour right' is the current government.
148 against :drool:
No coming back from that.
Surely all the people who voted against him with that many votes is just not allow him to pass anything in parliament?
All we need now is for some of the backbencher plebs to start a new “Independent Group for Change” and really get the ball rolling on a general election.
Good outcome, that. He needs to keep clinging on.
Two years to go for broke and bring back hanging. Come on.
Tony Blair first?
Obviously. The young Cambridges kicking the stool away.
He's going to have to do something dramatic. By-elections in three weeks and they won't go well.
He's a zombie PM now if he lasts the week. Won't have the political strength to do anything.
I really don’t care because the world is fucked whatever but have any of these strategists thought about how awful it looks like when everyone copy/pastes their reaction. It’s not talking points. It’s saying the exact same thing over and over again.
Boris could have got away with it if he wasn’t surrounded by absolute drones treating the average person like a fucking mong.
He's definitely been on the packet this evening. :D
Actually they all have. Jesus, some of them aren't as experienced at hiding it as Boris is. Simon Hart might as well have had a bit left on the end of his nose.
Aye, but voting for a new leader is a bit different to bringing down the government. In the latter scenario you have to fight for your job in the near future [in many cases it will be a losing fight] so the rebels have more 'skin in the game' to use the dreadful parlance of our times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Emia
That's the best possible result. Still in power, but utterly powerless. Take the whole ship down with you Bozza.
His sniffy interview reminded me of that bloke in House of Cards. The proper one, not the paedo remake.
But Boris won decisively.Quote:
...the last confidence vote which Theresa May faced on December 12, 2018. Jacob Rees-Mogg declared that her 200 to 117 victory was a “very bad result … a third of the parliamentary party, the overwhelming majority of backbenchers have voted against her” and that she should quit … while Nadine Dorries was reported to have sent an “aggressively partisan” (anti -May) message on the Tory MPs’ WhatsApp group
I hope that means he's getting offed by the chief whip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
:sherlock:
Interesting thread about Yougov in the 2017 election.
Well YouGov was founded by a couple of Tories (including current minister Zahawi) so I can't say I'm shocked.
That story's the same as every polling failure story ever - i.e. an unexpected movement happens and everyone believes bar room conventional wisdom instead of the data.
See also Brexit, 2010, 1992 etc.
So these polling organisations are as bobbins as I thought. Jimmy, I'm claiming the e-victory.
7 people on that Rwanda flight. What a spectacular waste of fuel and money. At least stack them up so you get a full flight out of it.
Absolute fucking madness. That’s the only thing that can be said for it, even if it’s what you want to happen with the brown people.
I'm not convinced it's that much of a shit idea. Why would you pay thousands to get yourself into England if you know you're going to end up on a plane to Rwanda?
Whether we should be doing it or not is a different question entirely.
It’s mission accomplished in terms of getting it all over the front pages. Choosing now to break the NI Protocol is also a well timed move.
Else it’ll be cost of living discontent and a ton of bricks on Boris after the no confidence vote.
See the bigger picture.
The scheme will only work if these planes are full, which might become the case once you get through rejecting all of the spurious appeals that will have got the first passengers off, and you end up with a steady stream of definites. If they're still bussing a dozen at a time out after a few months then it will have failed. That said, the scheme represents failure insofar as they won't just shitcan the laws that allow these people to avoid swift deportation, which an actual conservative government committed to 'taking back control' would have done by now.
Indeed, if this plane should have been full but only seven could be put on it legally then the whole thing is a complete waste of time, before you even get to the morally suspect side of it.
If only they opened up safe routes instead of dehumanising asylum seekers. Still, this is better to look like you're doing something meaningful.
Putting aside the fact that they travel through numerous safe countries to get here, what does a 'safe route' look like, and how many would you let in through them?
There's no such thing as 'safe countries' for seeking asylum. You provide the ability to get to the destination you wish to seek asylum in without blocking any ability to get in, you know like airplanes.
Would we be expected to lay these flights on for them (and would they be from Calais or directly from persecution hotspots), or just not have any entry controls whatsoever at all times in case somebody wants to come here and claim asylum?
No, they're called flights and they run commercially. The entry controls are called "passport control".
Alright Phonics.
I really don't understand Kiko's position. Isn't he saying it should be how it currently already is?
It's incredibly difficult to fly/train/ferry into the UK as an asylum seeker which is why criminal gangs can make loads of money through boat crossings in the channel.
I'm reading it as him saying we should let anyone in who wants to come (which is an option), if it isn't that then I'm lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomlegend
Yeah, no border controls. The minute you introduce the possibility of claims being rejected then the route isn't a safe one from the point of those claiming asylum. Do you think if the border force wasn't there to meet them the dinghy people would hand themselves in and still do it all properly?
(This is a genuine question). What stops someone just buying a plane ticket and claiming asylum once they get here (other than cost, but presumably it's a lot lower than what they pay to get on the dodgy boats)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
Why, because you get stopped and refused entry at passport control?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
What a government
The people smugglers often make you pay for your travel once you're in the country. Usually via prostitution / looking after a drug farm / "donating" a kidney / some other kind of organised crime. They essentially arrive as slaves to the gang.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomlegend
I imagine the difficulty with getting a normal flight, is that someone fleeing a country is unlikely to have a passport
Great news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waffdon