|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 29, 2024 13:21:13 GMT
Possibly a Corbynite Labour Independent would poll well here in a by election. Certainly if Ashworth chooses a candidate - he is an annoying little man. For some reason, probably the voice, he always makes me think of Frank Sidebottom. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,460
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 29, 2024 13:22:58 GMT
Certainly if Ashworth chooses a candidate - he is an annoying little man. For some reason, probably the voice, he always makes me think of Frank Sidebottom. Or Terry Christian! |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 29, 2024 14:06:05 GMT
The problem with those using insults like 'conspiracy theorist' to shut down debate is that it now has the same affect as the left calling somebody a racist, fascist, misogynist etc, namely the purveyor is ridiculed as a deluded idiot, , and the intention of the insult is completely ignored by psychologically balanced people Using terms like conspiracy theorist as an insult, often shows with the passage of time that the conspiracy is valid, highlighting the naivety and gormlessness of the accuser. Their gullibility in believing everything they are told because of some sort of bizarre party loyalty, and because it is told to them by somebody on their side of the political narrative is the real problem. The one thing political debate in the UK highlights in graphic detail these days, is how so many political idealogues and activists really shouldn't be allowed out on their own. The spread of irrationality needs to be called out wherever and whenever it occurs, because it is so destructive of a good society, with high levels of trust, and the ability to make judgements on issues of concern. Yes, otherwise sensible people on a bad day (like in this case right), can engage in lazy conspiracist tropes, but it is quite right to challenge them. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Oct 29, 2024 14:16:26 GMT
Your regular reminder that most MPs caught up in scandals don’t resign unless it looks likely that there will be a recall. I cant even see why he wont have the whip back within six months |
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Oct 29, 2024 15:39:11 GMT
A lesson in how to ask a supplementary question.
Lords first question this afternoon 14.35 was about females in boxing. Probably worth watching B Hayter's question then waiting for Lord Forsyth's supplementary.
We all felt sorry for the Minister in her efforts at trying to reply with a straight face.
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Oct 29, 2024 15:45:50 GMT
A lesson in how to ask a supplementary question. Lords first question this afternoon 14.35 was about females in boxing. Probably worth watching B Hayter's question then waiting for Lord Forsyth's supplementary. We all felt sorry for the Minister in her efforts at trying to reply with a straight face. I dont think it has been broadcast yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 29, 2024 16:04:44 GMT
A lesson in how to ask a supplementary question. Lords first question this afternoon 14.35 was about females in boxing. Probably worth watching B Hayter's question then waiting for Lord Forsyth's supplementary. We all felt sorry for the Minister in her efforts at trying to reply with a straight face. Lord Forsyth thought it was worth making a joke of it. If it's a joke, then it's not serious enough to prompt a byelection, is it? Didn't think this one through. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 29, 2024 16:12:15 GMT
A lesson in how to ask a supplementary question. Lords first question this afternoon 14.35 was about females in boxing. Probably worth watching B Hayter's question then waiting for Lord Forsyth's supplementary. We all felt sorry for the Minister in her efforts at trying to reply with a straight face. Lord Forsyth thought it was worth making a joke of it. If it's a joke, then it's not serious enough to prompt a byelection, is it? Didn't think this one through. Are either of you going to tell is what you’re talking about? And tell us who said what? |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,806
|
Post by right on Oct 29, 2024 17:09:10 GMT
The problem with those using insults like 'conspiracy theorist' to shut down debate is that it now has the same affect as the left calling somebody a racist, fascist, misogynist etc, namely the purveyor is ridiculed as a deluded idiot, , and the intention of the insult is completely ignored by psychologically balanced people Using terms like conspiracy theorist as an insult, often shows with the passage of time that the conspiracy is valid, highlighting the naivety and gormlessness of the accuser. Their gullibility in believing everything they are told because of some sort of bizarre party loyalty, and because it is told to them by somebody on their side of the political narrative is the real problem. The one thing political debate in the UK highlights in graphic detail these days, is how so many political idealogues and activists really shouldn't be allowed out on their own. The spread of irrationality needs to be called out wherever and whenever it occurs, because it is so destructive of a good society, with high levels of trust, and the ability to make judgements on issues of concern. Yes, otherwise sensible people on a bad day (like in this case right), can engage in lazy conspiracist tropes, but it is quite right to challenge them. I don't think that saying Starmer and many of the people around him (including too many at the top of the permanent civil service) are functionally amoral. Is a conspiracist view. Controversial and open to challenge for sure. But it's a model of how he behaves not a view that there's some overarching conspiracy around it. If I'm right then more of these examples will show up and we can debate whether this is a functional amorality and if so what drives it. If it's incorrect these examples will dry up. We have time. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Oct 29, 2024 17:24:05 GMT
The spread of irrationality needs to be called out wherever and whenever it occurs, because it is so destructive of a good society, with high levels of trust, and the ability to make judgements on issues of concern. Yes, otherwise sensible people on a bad day (like in this case right ), can engage in lazy conspiracist tropes, but it is quite right to challenge them. I don't think that saying Starmer and many of the people around him (including too many at the top of the permanent civil service) are functionally amoral. Is a conspiracist view. Controversial and open to challenge for sure. But it's a model of how he behaves not a view that there's some overarching conspiracy around it. If I'm right then more of these examples will show up and we can debate whether this is a functional amorality and if so what drives it. If it's incorrect these examples will dry up. We have time. Is there evidence for your view? But, setting that aside, you are also suggesting that Starmer is extremely stupid (or that he has a personality flaw that means he enjoys taking very large risks for minimal gain). Interfering with a case for a political end would be deadly to his position if discovered. What is the huge benefit of such a risky step? To avoid a by-election (with no obvious political angle from what one can see) when the government has a vast majority? Why would someone do such a thing when the benefit is trivial? And I'm afraid it does amount to a conspiracy (as did your suggestion that Rayner escaped HMRC action through some underhand intervention) . He couldn't act alone to achieve this. He'd require active assistance and connivance. And the more parties who are involved the more likely exposure would take place. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2024 7:38:06 GMT
I don't think that saying Starmer and many of the people around him (including too many at the top of the permanent civil service) are functionally amoral. Is a conspiracist view. Controversial and open to challenge for sure. But it's a model of how he behaves not a view that there's some overarching conspiracy around it. If I'm right then more of these examples will show up and we can debate whether this is a functional amorality and if so what drives it. If it's incorrect these examples will dry up. We have time. Is there evidence for your view? But, setting that aside, you are also suggesting that Starmer is extremely stupid (or that he has a personality flaw that means he enjoys taking very large risks for minimal gain). Interfering with a case for a political end would be deadly to his position if discovered. What is the huge benefit of such a risky step? To avoid a by-election (with no obvious political angle from what one can see) when the government has a vast majority? Why would someone do such a thing when the benefit is trivial? And I'm afraid it does amount to a conspiracy (as did your suggestion that Rayner escaped HMRC action through some underhand intervention) . He couldn't act alone to achieve this. He'd require active assistance and connivance. And the more parties who are involved the more likely exposure would take place. Not sure Mike Amesbury's worth saving. When you have 400+ seats, you can afford a few by-elections. There's no benefit to keeping Amesbury around as an MP. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Oct 30, 2024 7:45:33 GMT
Is there evidence for your view? But, setting that aside, you are also suggesting that Starmer is extremely stupid (or that he has a personality flaw that means he enjoys taking very large risks for minimal gain). Interfering with a case for a political end would be deadly to his position if discovered. What is the huge benefit of such a risky step? To avoid a by-election (with no obvious political angle from what one can see) when the government has a vast majority? Why would someone do such a thing when the benefit is trivial? And I'm afraid it does amount to a conspiracy (as did your suggestion that Rayner escaped HMRC action through some underhand intervention) . He couldn't act alone to achieve this. He'd require active assistance and connivance. And the more parties who are involved the more likely exposure would take place. Not sure Mike Amesbury's worth saving. When you have 400+ seats, you can afford a few by-elections. There's no benefit to keeping Amesbury around as an MP. Indeed. That’s the rational view but it is being argued that Starmer and others might go to (literally) extraordinary and risky lengths to prevent a by-election. A conspiracy theory. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Oct 30, 2024 8:06:30 GMT
It might be remembered that there actually has been an attempt by a Government to avoid a recall petition in a "safe" seat, which backfired horribly on them and probably contributed to them losing the by-election when it eventually happened. And the skulduggery involved on that occasion was rather less extreme than the things right is suggesting Starmer might try. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Oct 30, 2024 8:16:08 GMT
It might be remembered that there actually has been an attempt by a Government to avoid a recall petition in a "safe" seat, which backfired horribly on them and probably contributed to them losing the by-election when it eventually happened. And the skulduggery involved on that occasion was rather less extreme than the things right is suggesting Starmer might try. Really? It's being suggested that he uses his previous experience at the CPS to lean on them to ensure that he's charged (if he is) with a lesser offence. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Oct 30, 2024 8:32:07 GMT
It might be remembered that there actually has been an attempt by a Government to avoid a recall petition in a "safe" seat, which backfired horribly on them and probably contributed to them losing the by-election when it eventually happened. And the skulduggery involved on that occasion was rather less extreme than the things right is suggesting Starmer might try. Really? It's being suggested that he uses his previous experience at the CPS to lean on them to ensure that he's charged (if he is) with a lesser offence. Yes, I'm suggesting that the attempt to get Owen Paterson off was less extreme than leaning on the CPS to manipulate charges. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 30, 2024 9:04:35 GMT
If anything, a by-election with this sort of majority might be ideal for Starmer. Unlikely to lose the seat, craft the narrative about discipline or whatever, and suffer almost no impact to the size of the PLP. There's nothing to be gained from trying to skirt it.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Oct 30, 2024 9:09:38 GMT
Yes, I'm suggesting that the attempt to get Owen Paterson off was less extreme than leaning on the CPS to manipulate charges. Wow. You have a different compass to me! The Paterson business was about managing parliamentary colleagues to reduce his suspension. Unseemly, but in the rather hazy world of parliamentary rules, legitimate. Leaning on the CPS, a very clearly independent body designed to ensure consistent charging of offences based on evidence and the public interest, would be a personal act by the prime minister that is plainly wrong and, depending on how its done, potentially illegal. That's what I'm saying. The former is less extreme than the latter, which would be a disgraceful abuse of power and probably career-ending for a PM who did it and was caught. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,389
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Oct 30, 2024 9:21:45 GMT
If anything, a by-election with this sort of majority might be ideal for Starmer. Unlikely to lose the seat, craft the narrative about discipline or whatever, and suffer almost no impact to the size of the PLP. There's nothing to be gained from trying to skirt it. Would you not spare a thought for the party staffers that have to go to Runcorn? |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 30, 2024 9:34:12 GMT
Just to point out that the CPS hasn't been leaned upon by anybody, as far as we know.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Oct 30, 2024 9:49:59 GMT
Wow. You have a different compass to me! The Paterson business was about managing parliamentary colleagues to reduce his suspension. Unseemly, but in the rather hazy world of parliamentary rules, legitimate. Leaning on the CPS, a very clearly independent body designed to ensure consistent charging of offences based on evidence and the public interest, would be a personal act by the prime minister that is plainly wrong and, depending on how its done, potentially illegal. That's what I'm saying. The former is less extreme than the latter, which would be a disgraceful abuse of power and probably career-ending for a PM who did it and was caught. Sorry. I quickly deleted that when I reread what you had said, but not quickly enough! |
|
