General Erection 2019

[RedRooster]

I feel utterly resigned to a Tory majority and, potentially, a cliff edge Brexit next year when Johnson fails to agree an EU trade deal.

Johnson seems to be bulletproof and I think that’s in part down to that being the narrative in the media. They say ‘he’s bullet-proof, negative stories don’t affect his popularity’ and a significant enough portion of the public buys into that enough for the idea to become true. 

I also worry that if Johnson does win, Corbyn won’t resign. While I’m not anti-Corbyn as such I do feel like a change of pace is necessary if Labour are to lose this one.

[hallicks]

I can't imagine him wanting to stay on as LOTO. If you think half the country is fed up of him, imagine how sick he is of the endless barrage of shite he's been put through. 

I still don't think his race is run yet, mind. The weighting of some of the polling is assuming some questionable turnout rates that skew heavily in favour of the tories. 

[Keith Houchen]

Not to mention that the polls don't really include those who have registered to vote, and most of them will be voting Labour.

[AVM]

One key thing that hasn't had much scrutiny is that in the Tory manifesto there is a pledge not to negotiate any trade deal with the EU beyond December 2020. That effectively means a deferred 'no deal', which we're sleep walking towards. It'll also be convenient for Boris to have a fresh mandate, meaning he won't be held to account for the consequences.

Merry Christmas.

My only hope is that Labour elect someone with a broader reach such as Keir Starmer (retaining the good policy that Corbyn has brought in such as the National Education Service and National Care Service - both of which would have real impact if they were the key focal points of the campaign) rather than a continuity candidate like Rebecca Long-Bailey and Laura Pidcock. I fear that will be the difference between five more years of Tory rule and ten more years of Tory rule.

Edited November 27, 2019 by AVM

[RedRooster]

Starmer would be decent. I’m not sure what the consensus is, but I like Dave Lammy. I don’t agree with absolutely everything he says, but on the whole I think he’s effective.

From the top of my head I’m struggling to think of an obvious choice though, someone who would consistently make Johnson look like the fool he is. They very much need their own version of Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson. 

That person may be sitting in parliament right now. It’s just that...they’re not obvious.

Edited November 27, 2019 by RedRooster

[Hannibal Scorch]

Anyone else enjoying Andrew Neil’s shouting all over the interviewees when I’ve asked them a question? Sorry, his interviews?

Last night he accused Labour of letting of Lesley Perrin with a written warning after some anti-Semitic posts on social media. Except, they launched an investigation and she resigned. Wonder if they’ll air an apology

[BomberPat]

1 hour ago, RedRooster said:

Starmer would be decent. I’m not sure what the consensus is, but I like Dave Lammy. I don’t agree with absolutely everything he says, but on the whole I think he’s effective.

I really like David Lammy, but he is divisive. Even putting aside the racist trolls, looking at his Twitter and the replies he gets suggests he'd probably be no better than Corbyn in terms of public perception, and the press would eat him alive by painting him as anti-British, along with all the usual dog whistles.

What the Tories did right with David Cameron is that he was basically a blank slate - no one knew anything about him. If Labour can find someone like that, who the voting public can basically project their own wishes on to, we'd be in for a better shot than with a career politician with a ton of baggage. 

[Factotum]

Quote

but I like Dave Lammy. I don’t agree with absolutely everything he says, but on the whole I think he’s effective.

Lammy is a Soundbite on Twitter. He's a shit MP all round. Ask anyone who's lived in Tottenham. He couldn't even save the High Road KFC! (one of the many reasons I moved out eventually)

On Andrew Neil. He does that to everyone so in many ways its being a prick to all. Plus I think he just gets fed up when people are evasive.

Anyway, I don't know who is advising Corbyn but for fuck sake apologise for the hurt caused to a lot ofJews In Britain. That's basically all he had to do. Instead he keeps bringing up 'all forms of racism' That's not what is being discussed.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Factotum

[Carbomb]

2 hours ago, AVM said:

My only hope is that Labour elect someone with a broader reach such as Keir Starmer (retaining the good policy that Corbyn has brought in such as the National Education Service and National Care Service - both of which would have real impact if they were the key focal points of the campaign) rather than a continuity candidate like Rebecca Long-Bailey and Laura Pidcock. I fear that will be the difference between five more years of Tory rule and ten more years of Tory rule.

 

2 hours ago, RedRooster said:

Starmer would be decent. I’m not sure what the consensus is, but I like Dave Lammy. I don’t agree with absolutely everything he says, but on the whole I think he’s effective.

From the top of my head I’m struggling to think of an obvious choice though, someone who would consistently make Johnson look like the fool he is. They very much need their own version of Nicola Sturgeon or Ruth Davidson. 

That person may be sitting in parliament right now. It’s just that...they’re not obvious.

 

39 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I really like David Lammy, but he is divisive. Even putting aside the racist trolls, looking at his Twitter and the replies he gets suggests he'd probably be no better than Corbyn in terms of public perception, and the press would eat him alive by painting him as anti-British, along with all the usual dog whistles.

What the Tories did right with David Cameron is that he was basically a blank slate - no one knew anything about him. If Labour can find someone like that, who the voting public can basically project their own wishes on to, we'd be in for a better shot than with a career politician with a ton of baggage. 

I think Long-Bailey would be excellent, as would Pidcock, but one thing working against them is that they're quite young; we've never had a PM younger than their 40s in the modern era, and I don't think we'll see another Pitt the Younger any time soon (which is probably a good thing, because when they're that young and capable, it usually means they've been "bred" for office, something people probably don't want to see in this era of career-politician fatigue).

I've mentioned them before, but I think Angela Rayner or Clive Lewis would be the best bets. Keir Starmer's not a bad shout, but those two candidates are the perfect opportunity for Labour to finally have a female or ethnic minority leader, which they should've fucking had ages ago. It's a disgrace that the Tories are able to laud having had two female PMs over Labour, especially when they were both so fucking shit in different ways.

36 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Lammy is a Soundbite on Twitter. He's a shit MP all round. Ask anyone who's lived in Tottenham. He couldn't even save the High Road KFC! (one of the many reasons I moved out eventually)

He's certainly not a patch on Bernie Grant, for sure. I've gradually come around about him regarding his performances as a parliamentary MP, but he's never been much cop as a constituency MP, that's true. And whilst I'm glad he's finally copped on that things are not all hunky dory for BME people, and that he actually does need to fight instead of toeing the Blairite line, I still don't 100% trust him.

One thing that pisses me off is all the right-wing cunts calling him a racist, when he's the exact opposite. But apparently standing up for ethnic minority rights makes you one. He should be an excellent candidate for leadership - working class black kid who grew up on a council estate with a single mum, went on to become a successful lawyer who was the first black British man to study law at Harvard, becomes MP, etc. Should be very difficult to slag off. But we're living in a country where the Far Right have now been emboldened to the point where pointing out their racism isn't as damaging to them as it should be, and Lammy's credentials can be easily dismissed by many.

36 minutes ago, Factotum said:

On Andrew Neil. He does that to everyone so in many ways its being a prick to all. Plus I think he just gets fed up when people are evasive.

Anyway, I don't know who is advising Corbyn but for fuck sake apologise for the hurt caused to a lot ofJews In Britain. That's basically all he had to do. Instead he keeps bringing up 'all forms of racism' That's not what is being discussed.

Yeah, but how many times has he got to apologise? He's done it so many times, and every single time has just been ignore or swept under the carpet, either by the media or by the establishment as a whole.

Labour's procedures, as a result of all this scrutiny, really are the Gold Standard now, but it seems what their detractors want is for every single person accused of anti-Jewish racism to be found guilty, in which case what's the point of having any kind of procedure at all?

[Hannibal Scorch]

If Corbyn apologised, the headlines would have been Corbyn admits to anti-semitism issue in the Labour Party. He couldn't win.

Now, will he ask Boris about Islamaphobia and that investigation he said was started (which hasn't)?

[Dead Mike]

4 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

If Corbyn apologised, the headlines would have been Corbyn admits to anti-semitism issue in the Labour Party. He couldn't win.

Now, will he ask Boris about Islamaphobia and that investigation he said was started (which hasn't)?

He's already apologies in the past though? I agree it was lose/lose purely based on how it would be reported. IMO it's better to apologise again rather than skirt around it. It'll be telling if Johnson apologises for his 'watermelon smiles' & 'bumboy' comments. I could actually see that happening so it can be spun as Johnson having the moral high-ground over Corbyn (something I never thought was plausible!).

Corbyn has just handed out un-redacted documents regarding UK/US trade discussions which prove that Johnson has been lying all along & the NHS is 100% on the table in future trade deals. Now is the time when we see how much people actually give a shit.

 Since Brexit we've seen a shift in politics where opposition claims can be dismissed as lies at the time but then referred to as truth at a later date. The fact that the public 'knew' but still voted against = a mandate. 'People were told Brexit would make them poorer but still voted for it so this is what you're getting'.

 

[MrK]

Is there somewhere online that lists every fuck up, mistake and controversy the tories have been involved in since the election was announced?

[Hannibal Scorch]

4 minutes ago, MrK said:

Is there somewhere online that lists every fuck up, mistake and controversy the tories have been involved in since the election was announced?

@tory_fibs on twitter in a good start

[BomberPat]

For what it's worth, the Mirror printed a story about a Holocaust survivor today, and on Twitter the majority of the replies were full-blown Holocaust denial.

I went through and reported every single one, and they were all (unsurprisingly) a mixture of 4chan edgelord humour, far-right politics, and decades old debunked Holocaust denial conspiracies.

Despite that, there were multiple replies saying "disgusting comments from Labour supporters", "this is the impact of Corbyn refusing to apologise", "Corbynistas" and so on. It's small, anecdotal evidence, and you'd have to assume that at least some of those using it as stick to beat Labour with were acting entirely in bad faith, but it's enough to suggest that there's a public perception conflating anti-semitism with Labour. 

[Factotum]

Looking forward to the Mail etc. utterly ignoring the NHS sell off tomorrow morning