• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

When the contest is between an ideological zealot in the form of Hunt and a fudging clown in the form of Johnson, you just have to accept the preposition that: "Houston we have a problem."
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
When the contest is between an ideological zealot in the form of Hunt and a fudging clown in the form of Johnson, you just have to accept the preposition that: "Houston we have a problem."
Click to expand...

What is Hunt's ideology? I thought the main criticism of him is that he's a 'May in trousers'. A middle manager without any particular vision/fixed positions
 
Gutter Boy said:
What is Hunt's ideology? I thought the main criticism of him is that he's a 'May in trousers'. A middle manager without any particular vision/fixed positions
Click to expand...
He doesn't know his arse from his elbow over Brexit, but is mostly sound in policy. He got a bit spendy on the olympics though - slightly concerned about his lack of control there.
 
Of course, the New Statesman is being just as hypocritical about criticising Johnson about it now if it didn't criticise Brown for not not calling an election then. If Brown could legitimately avoid an election following our constitutional norms then why shouldn't Johnson? You'd think columnists for a political magazine would understand our political system. Besides May got criticised for not calling one immediately and then criticised for opportunism when she called one. The criticism of Brown, May and Johnson is just cynical political noise.

It's interesting to note Johnson calls out the Lisbon EU treaty as an issue demanding an electoral mandate. With that and his earlier history with The Telegraph inventing lies about EU regulations, it shouldn't have come as such a surprise that Boris backed Brexit.
 
jts1882 said:
Of course, the New Statesman is being just as hypocritical about criticising Johnson about it now if it didn't criticise Brown for not not calling an election then. If Brown could legitimately avoid an election following our constitutional norms then why shouldn't Johnson? You'd think columnists for a political magazine would understand our political system. Besides May got criticised for not calling one immediately and then criticised for opportunism when she called one. The criticism of Brown, May and Johnson is just cynical political noise.

It's interesting to note Johnson calls out the Lisbon EU treaty as an issue demanding an electoral mandate. With that and his earlier history with The Telegraph inventing lies about EU regulations, it shouldn't have come as such a surprise that Boris backed Brexit.
Click to expand...

Why should they be criticized for not calling for Brown to have an election, when we clearly are a parliamentary democracy and not a presidential one. There is no hypocrisy in that. The hypocrite is clearly Clown Shoe Johnson, as he tried to make it an issue, therefore Labour should have a go at him and ram that statement down his village idiot mouth.
 
If they are only calling out Johnson and didn't call out Brown, then they are doing exactly what Johnson is doing, making an issue of it selectively. If Johnson is a hypocrite for doing so, then so is the New Statesman.
 
the dza said:
[Sir Humphrey] But The New Statesman isn't making an issue out of Johnson being PM -- nor did they make an issue out of Brown being PM -- they are making an issue of Johnson making an issue of Brown being PM whilst he has no issue with himself being a PM sans a General Election. [/Sir Humphrey]
Click to expand...
[HARKER] Yeees,I see. This could be an issue.
 
Would be interested to see what everyone on this forum from different viewpoints thinks about Chuka Umunna and, it is believed, all of the rather short lived ‘Change UK - The Independent Group’ - joining the Lib Dem’s.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-48631116

Journalists have already noted Chuka has made remarks in the past such as:

“The Liberal Democrats are trying to bury their recent past as the enablers of Tory austerity, but working people will not forget or forgive the damage they did in government and what it is still doing to our communities."

“What the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have done to our public services since 2010 and the cuts to support on those on low incomes, the disabled and others in need is unforgiveable."


Personally I’m just glad the centrist landscape has been cleared up. Having two identical groups compete with one another is just weird and unnecessary. It is rather amusing how fickle they have been and you can be certain he would never have joined if the Lib Dem’s had finished 4th or 5th in the local and EU elections.
 
jts1882 said:
If they are only calling out Johnson and didn't call out Brown, then they are doing exactly what Johnson is doing, making an issue of it selectively. If Johnson is a hypocrite for doing so, then so is the New Statesman.
Click to expand...

let me make it simple for you...I'll go slowly. The new Statesman only went after Johnson because HE played politics with the issue, (knowing full well that we are not a presidential democracy.) Labour and the New Statesman therefore have NOTHING to apologies for. Now he is exposed by his hypocrisy in saying that. Do you get it now?
 
the dza said:
Change/TIG should have just joined the Lib Dems in the first place. The fact that Chuka didn't have the political acumen to make that simple decision before forming the CUK party tells you all you need to know about him, the man is a clown. How long before he has a go for the Lib Dem leadership? One of those 'talented' MPs people speak about, though nobody knows what his talent is.

Once Johnson takes charge of the Tories and heads them towards no-deal, I think you'll see Labour (via conference) go to 2nd referendum position, between their 'deal' and remain (there won't be an option to vote for 'no-deal' in a 2nd referendum done by a Labour government imo). Though it will be determined by a General Election, br0ught about by those Tories who would sooner bring down the government than leave the EU with no deal at the end of October. Tories will have no choice but to campaign as the party of no-deal to get back the Brexit Party voters (and pray that they decide not to stand in a General Election).

Labour will get back a bunch of greens/lib dems who will lend their vote to prevent a Johnson led no-deal Brexit, they will also lose some to the Brexit Party. Tories will get back another bunch of voters from the Brexit Party but will lose voters to the Lib Dems (those Tory voters who don't want to leave without a deal). I think the overall vote share will be fairly close between Tory and Labour, but I think Labour will end up as the largest party as the Tory vote will end up split worse than the Labour one.
Click to expand...

For GHod's sake let's hope for this, so that we can put these buffoons into the dustbin of history.
 
They have two choices;
Stewart is centre ground and compassionate Conservative - destroys Labours "Tories are evil" stance and dilutes any Lib Dem/other centrist increases.

Johnson is the Brexit and "the right" option to take on Farage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back