Westminster Politics

[BarcaSpurs]

That's certainly a valid opinion. One I disagree on, but am unlikely to change your mind on.

My opinion is the structural position was that, once Bush went to war, Blair had little choice but to follow. (That's not to absolve him from blame, but certainly to somewhat explain the decision)

Tony Blair wrote to George W Bush eight months before the Iraq invasion to offer his unqualified backing for war well before UN weapons inspectors had completed their work, saying: “I will be with you, whatever.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ever-tony-blair-letters-george-w-bush-chilcot

The painting of Blair as being dragged in to something he didn't want to is completely wrong imo, Bush was clueless about foreign politics and asked Blair to help guide him on that front, Blair was keen for the US/UK to start 'influencing' global politics again and was very keen from the start to go and kill Sadam.

 

[groovyalbert]

Oh give me a break, you had a genuine socialist running on a socialist platform and you didn't vote for him because you've been blinded by decades of capitalists telling you that socialist policies are fantasy-land. Just don't try and pretend that you actually want these things, if you're not actually going to vote for people who offer them to you.

One thing offering these policies, another having the capacity to deliver/understand how markets/corporations work from anything other than a hyper critical stance.

I think this is what put people off Corbyn and made his economic stances appear all but fanciful and high-minded. They just didn't fit in a modern, globalized economy.

 

[Maticmaker]

Oh give me a break, you had a genuine socialist running on a socialist platform and you didn't vote for him because you've been blinded by decades of capitalists telling you that socialist policies are fantasy-land. Just don't try and pretend that you actually want these things, if you're not actually going to vote for people who offer them to you.

You came into to this halfway!
In my lifetime I have observed from close quarters (a member of the Labour party and TU shop Steward) many so called 'genuine socialists' who did nothing but spout rhetoric and snipe from behind cover, they have done nothing for the working man and never can until they understand, above all the aspiration element in the politics of the working population.
I have been blinded for decades by a Labour party that has now reached a point where it cannot tell its a**e from its elbow.

 

[Kentonio]

You came into to this halfway!
In my lifetime I have observed from close quarters (a member of the Labour party and TU shop Steward) many so called 'genuine socialists' who did nothing but spout rhetoric and snipe from behind cover, they have done nothing for the working man and never can until they understand, above all the aspiration element in the politics of the working population.
I have been blinded for decades by a Labour party that has now reached a point where it cannot tell its a**e from its elbow.

And you didn't have decades of seeing what Tories do when in power?

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I'm not really sure how £6k will make any difference to these businesses? Also doesn't seem anything for self-employed people.

 

[esmufc07]

Statutory Sick Pay is a joke in this country. It’s one of the things that really should have been dealt with at the beginning of the pandemic.

 

[711]

This is the same Gordon who sold off our gold reserves?

If you're saying that was a bad decision you're right, although it was understandable at the time after a 20 year bear run, and the G7 all said they would do the same, 'to diversify' I believe.

If you're jumping from that to saying Brown was a poor chancellor you're wrong, he didn't set a record ten years for nothing.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Oh give me a break, you had a genuine socialist running on a socialist platform and you didn't vote for him because you've been blinded by decades of capitalists telling you that socialist policies are fantasy-land. Just don't try and pretend that you actually want these things, if you're not actually going to vote for people who offer them to you.

Ditto. It seems a strange stance that Matic has.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Unfortunately over decades of being the 'naysayer in chief', opposing everything (even what his own side came up with), openly supporting the countries enemies, Corbyn's political career had made him totally unsuitable and hence unable as leader of the Labour party, to help the working populace... because he could not/would not, ever get elected as PM... and I suspect even he knew it!

He wasn't elected on that manifesto because the media convinced people, with opinions similar to your won, to vote against their own interests in favour of the ruling classes.

To then claim you just want someone to look out for the "working man" is strange.

 

[Maticmaker]

If you're saying that was a bad decision you're right, although it was understandable at the time after a 20 year bear run, and the G7 all said they would do the same, 'to diversify' I believe.

If you're jumping from that to saying Brown was a poor chancellor you're wrong, he didn't set a record ten years for nothing.

I thought he stayed in the job that long as part of his deal with Blair that he would take over as PM?
Bad decision it certainly was and in any other Government he would have had to go, but the Anglo-Scots pact was in play, so he stayed

He wasn't elected on that manifesto because the media convinced people, with opinions similar to your won, to vote against their own interests in favour of the ruling classes.

To then claim you just want someone to look out for the "working man" is strange.

You are still trying to make out Corbyn was electable as PM... its incredible, I see nothing has change if that represents the Labour outlook!

 

[711]

I thought he stayed in the job that long as part of his deal with Blair that he would take over as PM?
Bad decision it certainly was and in any other Government he would have had to go, but the Anglo-Scots pact was in play, so he stayed

He went on to become PM after being chancellor, quite a sign of success I'd have thought, and more than any of the manyTory chancellors have over decades of power, they've all ended as failures, not stood up.

Your original point was 'I will never vote Labour because I genuinely believe they couldn't organise a 'p***-up in the proverbial Brewery!', all I'm saying is that you have a short memory.

 

[Maticmaker]

He went on to become PM after being chancellor, quite a sign of success I'd have thought, and more than any of the many Tory chancellors have over decades of power, they've all ended as failures, not stood up.

Your original point was 'I will never vote Labour because I genuinely believe they couldn't organise a 'p***-up in the proverbial Brewery!', all I'm saying is that you have a short memory.

Yes he did become PM and he didn't exactly make a success of that did he?

I'm pointing out that Gordon Brown didn't 'walk on water', he stayed in his job so long because of the 'old pals' act/agreement that was necessary to keep Blair in power and to ensure Brown followed him.... but in any case he's no longer part of the Labour frontbench.
Speaking of which, I might give Lisa Nandy a job, but after her I wouldn't employ any of them... I don't think the red wall voters will either.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Bloody hell what’s happening in here?
We’ve got a mental health, NHS and housing crisis. A government of sleezes who think they’re above the law. A society which is more divided in opinion and wealth than we’ve had for a century and the country in a record amount of debt.

And there are still boys in here defending the Tory’s based on stuff 20 years ago.

Do they still use the lines about labour apparently not being trustworthy with money and how they will run the country into debt? Or is that line now redundant given the current situation of the economy?

 

[Vidyoyo]

Bloody hell what’s happening in here?
We’ve got a mental health, NHS and housing crisis. A government of sleezes who think they’re above the law. A society which is more divided in opinion and wealth than we’ve had for a century and the country in a record amount of debt.

And there are still boys in here defending the Tory’s based on stuff 20 years ago.

Do they still use the lines about labour apparently not being trustworthy with money and how they will run the country into debt? Or is that line now redundant given the current situation of the economy?

Unfortunately people would rather be proven right about the Tories being irresponsible twats than be proven wrong about Labour being any less than perfect.

 

[marktan]

There were some great scandals, David Mellor, the married minister for Culture was subject to a kiss and tell, where it was claimed he used to dress up in his Chelsea kit while having an affair with a Spanish actress, revelations including toe sucking and spanking were drip fed through the tabloids for weeks. Then it cam out that his family's holiday had been paid for by the daughter of a vry senior member of the PLO, which at the time was seen as a terrorist organisation.

Then there was the "cash for questions" scandal. The Guardian claimed that a political lobbyist had bribed 2 Tory MPs to ask questions in parliament for the owner of Harrods (and Fulham FC) Mohamed el Fayed at a cost of 2 grand a question. One, Tim Smith resigned but the other one, Neil Hamilton tried to fight it in court, but a private letter from el-Fayed was leaked where he said he had paid them, then some of his employees said they had processed the payments and the legal action was dropped and the press went nuts!

Minister of defence procurement, Jonathan Aitkin was accused by the Guardian of allowing the Saudi Royal family to pay a one thousand pound hotel bill for him (he was selling British arms to the Saudi's at the time) He sued the newspaper saying it was a lie and used the now infamous phrase that he would wield the "sword of truth and shield of fair play" but it turned out it was him that was lying and he ended up in jail for perjury and perverting the course of justice (he wrote a statement for his 18 year old daughter to submit that was also packed full of lies!)

Another junior minister Michael Mates had to resign after his business partner fled the country while under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

Steven Norris (transport minister) was caught having 5 affairs at the same time, which led to the headline "Yes yes yes yes yes Minister!" There were loads of affairs and "three in a bed romps" that were exposed.

There was the Westminster council homes for votes scandal where it turned out they were basically gerrymandering in marginal wards by removing homeless people, evicting tenants from council flats and then selling them to people more likely to vote Tory

All of this and much much more as @Jippy says with the bck to basics policy from Major as the backdrop.

Happy days!!

Very interesting, thanks. Doesn't seem quite as bad as all the sleaze and outright cronyism going around today though, if only the elections were next year!

 

[Eyepopper]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Bloody Corbyn.

 

[FireballXL5]

Phew, I was really worried for him.

Jacob Rees-Mogg cleared of breaking MP rules over loans

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59753729

 

[Mart1974]

Phew, I was really worried for him.

Jacob Rees-Mogg cleared of breaking MP rules over loans

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59753729

I know the woman who reported him. She will be gutted.

 

[sun_tzu]

I know the woman who reported him. She will be gutted.

Why?

I mean the ruling is pretty conclusive he did nothing wrong

Surely she should be apologising not being gutted?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Why?

I mean the ruling is pretty conclusive he did nothing wrong

Surely she should be apologising not being gutted?

The question you always have to ask with this corrupt government is, who made the ruling? Who appointed them? What affiliations do they have? What pressure could've been applied to them?

If the answer to all of these questions come back negative then maybe JRM wasn't guilty. Or maybe he just hid his tracks well enough.

 

[sun_tzu]

The question you always have to ask with this corrupt government is, who made the ruling? Who appointed them? What affiliations do they have?

The same woman who found Pattinson had breached standards and has found against boris in the past

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Stone

 

[Mart1974]

Why?

I mean the ruling is pretty conclusive he did nothing wrong

Surely she should be apologising not being gutted?

Why would she apologise? What has she done wrong? Politicians should be open to scrutiny.

 

[Longshanks]

He wasn't elected on that manifesto because the media convinced people, with opinions similar to your won, to vote against their own interests in favour of the ruling classes.

To then claim you just want someone to look out for the "working man" is strange.

He wasn't elected because they completely lost touch with there usual supporters in the old industrial towns over brexit and at the same time completely alienated themselves from the vast majority of the broad middle class with there socialist policies that were very much aimed towards 'the youth'.

Some of this is corbyns fault some isn't. But thats what happened, to alot of people Corbyns Labour simply wasn't a option and to alot of people it had nothing to do with what the media said.

The may be able to win back some of the broad middle class now they have put themselves back towards the centre and they might be able to convince the old industrials towns to forget about brexit but even with a truly despicable tory governments currently in charge if there was an election tomorrow I don't think Labour would be winning it.

They have lost there way the Labour Party, I think the centrist and left sides need to split in all honesty.

 

[sun_tzu]

Why would she apologise? What has she done wrong? Politicians should be open to scrutiny.

Yes and when said politician is shown to have done nothing wrong I wonder why somebody who knows the accuser says she will be "gutted"

 

[SalfordRed18]

Yes and when said politician is shown to have done nothing wrong I wonder why somebody who knows the accuser says she will be "gutted"

Bootlicker.

 

[Mart1974]

Yes and when said politician is shown to have done nothing wrong I wonder why somebody who knows the accuser says she will be "gutted"

Because it was an opportunity to bring down another Tory. She has outed a few already and had them brought to justice.

 

[sun_tzu]

Because it was an opportunity to bring down another Tory. She has outed a few already and had them brought to justice.

But he did nothing wrong... so why should she be gutted?

Is she gutted that her allegation was baseless?... is that what you mean?

Or is she gutted that somebody innocent wasn't hounded out of public office because of her baseless allegation?

 

[TwoSheds]

But he did nothing wrong... so why should she be gutted?

Is she gutted that her allegation was baseless?... is that what you mean?

Or is she gutted that somebody innocent wasn't hounded out of public office because of her baseless allegation?

he might be innocent of that but he's not fecking innocent!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rs-firm-poured-fortune-Russian-companies.html
Should have been drowned at birth the scaly tart.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

But he did nothing wrong... so why should she be gutted?

Is she gutted that her allegation was baseless?... is that what you mean?

Or is she gutted that somebody innocent wasn't hounded out of public office because of her baseless allegation?

Because it would be an utter delight were this contemptuous and contemptible leech upon society to be indicted upon whatever element of his doings that he can be, in a similar vein to Al Capone's conviction for tax evasion.

You have very strong moral convictions in very particular circumstances Sun old chap.

 

[Mart1974]

But he did nothing wrong... so why should she be gutted?

Is she gutted that her allegation was baseless?... is that what you mean?

Or is she gutted that somebody innocent wasn't hounded out of public office because of her baseless allegation?

The guy looked dirty, probably is dirty but with the narrow definition of the Parliamentary rules is OK.

So yeah gutted, nearly had a scalp. Just because he hasn't been found to have broken a rule this time does not mean he isn't bent.

 

[sun_tzu]

The guy looked dirty, probably is dirty but with the narrow definition of the Parliamentary rules is OK.

So yeah gutted, nearly had a scalp. Just because he hasn't been found to have broken a rule this time does not mean he isn't bent.

I mean that's just gutter stuff isn't it... pre-determining guilt based on your assessment of how they look

 

[Mart1974]

I mean that's just gutter stuff isn't it... pre-determining guilt based on your assessment of how they look

Not his appearance, the reports of his business dealings and general ethics. If it walks like a duck...

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I mean that's just gutter stuff isn't it... pre-determining guilt based on your assessment of how they look

You've seen him sitting in a chair, right? Terrible posture.

 

[Jippy]

he might be innocent of that but he's not fecking innocent!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rs-firm-poured-fortune-Russian-companies.html
Should have been drowned at birth the scaly tart.

JRM is a contemptible cretin and one of the most odious examples of the nepotism, classism and baffling deference that hamstrings the country.

That article made me shake my head when it came out though. He chairs an emerging markets investment firm, so the only way it could ever invest in Britain is if him and his ilk run the country so far into the ground it loses its developed status.

 

[TwoSheds]

JRM is a contemptible cretin and one of the most odious examples of the nepotism, classism and baffling deference that hamstrings the country.

That article made me shake my head when it came out though. He chairs an emerging markets investment firm, so the only way it could ever invest in Britain is if him and his ilk run the country so far into the ground it loses its developed status.

It's more the links to the Kremlin that would be damning, but the fact that one of hard Brexit's biggest backers has made tens or hundreds of millions off it is surely pause for thought.

 

[Jippy]

It's more the links to the Kremlin that would be damning, but the fact that one of hard Brexit's biggest backers has made tens or hundreds of millions off it is surely pause for thought.

Tbh the examples given are just big Russian index stocks that loads of emerging markets funds own.

JRM has cnuty views and is a leech, but I struggle to see much wrong with him having a stake in SCM.

 

[dumbo]

Why would she apologise? What has she done wrong? Politicians should be open to scrutiny.

She should bow down to her betters and beg forgiveness for her insolence. Thus spoke the fecking Guido twat.

 

[TwoSheds]

Tbh the examples given are just big Russian index stocks that loads of emerging markets funds own.

JRM has cnuty views and is a leech, but I struggle to see much wrong with him having a stake in SCM.

I'm not saying he's necessarily overtly in league with them but he at least turns a blind eye to their help, and I don't think it's just coincidence the Tories suppressed that Russia report.

https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/how-russian-bots-amplify-britains-jacob-rees-mogg/

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Yes and when said politician is shown to have done nothing wrong I wonder why somebody who knows the accuser says she will be "gutted"

They have not even published the report yet have they? Why don't you wait to see why JRM was cleared before rushing to his defence? Is it because you've been reading Guido articles again?