The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[meregreen]

I like what he writes. Better watch my back then.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, meregreen said:

I like what he writes. Better watch my back then.

Depends but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about him being an irritating berk

[snowychap]

That's the earliest possible opportunity, I guess.

Edited September 9, 2019 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

FTFY, there is absolutely no evidence that the attack on him was politically motivated, he as much as said so himself. He was just speculating as to the reason. He was never unconscious and they didn't say a single thing about politics when they beat him up

It's not right obviously but he is the sort of person that pisses others off by just opening his mouth. If someone spilled his pint he'd put it on twitter and claim it was a right wing attack

Okay, I'm not going to argue the point; I had the impression from reports at the time that it had been politically-motivated, but possibly that was from what he wrote and your interpretation of it is correct. Neither of us were there, so we're not going to know the answer. 

However, I don't see the need to diminish the seriousness of it. Jo Cox was murdered; Corbyn would have been murdered but for a missed opportunity; members of National Action have been jailed for a plot to murder Rosie Cooper. Maybe this particular prominent left-wing commentator got beat up for his politics or maybe not, but the general context is clear. 

[peterms]

51 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

To be fair to Tony

Steady on there.

[snowychap]

 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

However, I don't see the need to diminish the seriousness of it

Neither do I, which is exactly why adding attacks with an unproven motive to a list doesn't help. Neither of us were there but we can read Own Jones' own words, iirc he said, I have no proof but he "knew" it was a far right attack (or similar)

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

Neither do I, which is exactly why adding attacks with an unproven motive to a list doesn't help. Neither of us were there but we can read Own Jones' own words, iirc he said, I have no proof but he "knew" it was a far right attack (or similar)

I mean, you're setting quite a high bar for evidence here. Of course it is possible for thugs to attack someone for political reasons without actually explaining, in earshot of witnesses, their belief structure and philosophy, or leaving a note explaining their actions. Again, we can't know either way, but taken in combination with the farmer's banner on the previous page it isn't much of a stretch to assume that his politics has placed him in the firing line. 

[ml1dch]

34 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That's the earliest possible opportunity, I guess.

On the prorogation vs election thing, thinking about Labour strategy, what is the downside for them in:

*voting against tonight

*prorogation means it can't now be called for another month but they effectively use the month to get their election machinery into gear, giving them several weeks of not-officially-but-really-they-are campaigning time.

*they loudly shout that the delay is all the fault of the prorogation, and the first thing they will do when the "pointless, unnecessary, Government-caused delay" is over will be to remove them via a no-confidence vote

I might be missing something, but surely that is the ideal combination of electoral benefit for a November election and optics for the next month?

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by ml1dch

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, you're setting quite a high bar for evidence here

No I'm really not. There is zero evidence, that isn't a high bar

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

the first thing they will do when the "pointless, unnecessary, Government-caused delay" is over will be to remove them via a no-confidence vote

Would they be able to do this immediately? Or would they have to wait until, say, voting on the Queen's Speech motion which would likely be on the Thursday (17th)?

If the government lose that (the FTPA vote rather than just the motion on the debate), we're in to the unknown world of the 14 days which takes us up to 31st October with, initially, a PM and Government that have indicated that they wouldn't resign.

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

No I'm really not. There is zero evidence, that isn't a high bar

Well somebody did it, for some reason, and I personally think this is the most plausible explanation. I'm not a prosecuting lawyer presenting a case in court, I'm simply arguing that there is a climate of threat to left-wing political figures. If it makes you happier, you can mentally alter my initial post in this series to 'was, in my estimation of the balance of probabilities, attacked by far-right thugs'. 

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

several weeks of not-really-but-really campaigning time

Also, on this - it's not going to be a great look, I wouldn't have thought, campaigning having just voted against an early election twice.

I'd say it may well piss a lot of people off.

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Would they be able to do this immediately? Or would they have to wait until, say, voting on the Queen's Speech motion which would likely be on the Thursday (17th)?

If the government lose that (the FTPA vote rather than just the motion on the debate), we're in to the unknown world of the 14 days which takes us up to 31st October with, initially, a PM and Government that have indicated that they wouldn't resign.

True. A month of rhetorical "immediately", then once the (hoped for) extension is in place, go the no confidence route once 31st October is no longer a thing.

Looking at it, seems like that's the plan:

 

 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well somebody did it, for some reason, and I personally think this is the most plausible explanation.

not, some people were drunk at 3am leaving a pub and they picked a fight on someone they didn't like for any manner of reasons as drunk people do

THAT is the most plausible reason

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

tricky one tbh ... Local policy at the moment is to build about 80,000 houses on green belt land in the area /surrounding areas and a 6 lane super dual carriageway straight through the village i live in ....  that's a Tory council pushing from funds form the government to do this ( seems like there are pots of money for regeneration projects that councils apply \ fight for ? )

so  local issues might come before Brexit , they did in the recent council elections where we voted in 3 independents who are opposed to the deal ... I'd have to see who stands and on what policy , yes I'm, a leaver but I'm not an at all costs one

 

 

 

Thanks Tony.

I get that it might be local issues that swing it. Our system is set up so that in theory everyone should elect based on local issues. By all accounts my local MP (Tory) is a decent bloke. Besides the fact that he's Tory and I object to them philosophically on a number of issues, I couldn't vote for the guy because of Brexit.

During the indicative votes process the guy voted against everything except "no deal". I emailed to register my disgust at his inability to compromise explained what a no deal outcome would do to my family members livelihoods. The response I got can be summed up as "we have to deliver the referendum and anything other than no deal in my eyes isn't Brexit". I regard that as a dangerous extremist position. Also, he was/is a Johnson backer a man who I view to be divoid of a moral compass.

I'm in a bit of a quandry reagrding who I vote for. I suspect Labour would be the best chance to displace my MP but I don't want to support Corbyn. I'm having trouble divorcing the idea of voting for an MP/party and the leader. My priority is to get my MP out and getting someone my moderate in. In an ideal world the closest party to my "values" are the Liberals/Greens. 

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Also, on this - it's not going to be a great look, I wouldn't have thought, campaigning having just voted against an early election twice.

I'd say it may well piss a lot of people off.

But there's campaigning and there's "campaigning".

With a month out of parliament, what else is a constituency MP supposed to do but work really hard, listening to his constituents, helping with their problems and clearly showing what a good MP they are.

Doesn't need to be "vote for me" leafletting and door knocking.

[snowychap]

Just now, ml1dch said:

True. A month of rhetorical "immediately", then once the (hoped for) extension is in place, go the no confidence route once 31st October is no longer a thing.

Looking at it, seems like that's the plan:

 

 

The extension won't be in place until the end of that week at the earliest, though - that's on the understanding that Johnson even goes through with seeking it.

This would have them voting down the government's legislative package and then refusing to table a motion under FTPA until the following week. I think that might start to look bad.

And, just thinking aloud, isn't the first week back going to be an almighty mess? The EU Council gathering is on the 17th/18th, isn't it? Is Johnson going to not go in case there's a confidence vote in him and his government in his absence?

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

But there's campaigning and there's "campaigning".

With a month out of parliament, what else is a constituency MP supposed to do but work really hard, listening to his constituents, helping with their problems and clearly showing what a good MP they are.

Doesn't need to be "vote for me" leafletting and door knocking.

That's true but couldn't Tories be openly campaigning on the back of opposition parties' line?

[ml1dch]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The extension won't be in place until the end of that week at the earliest, though - that's on the understanding that Johnson even goes through with seeking it.

This would have them voting down the government's legislative package and then refusing to table a motion under FTPA until the following week. I think that might start to look bad.

And, just thinking aloud, isn't the first week back going to be an almighty mess? The EU Council gathering is on the 17th/18th, isn't it? Is Johnson going to not go in case there's a confidence vote in him and his government in his absence?

You're right, the prorogation gives them breathing space to avoid the "scared" narrative while Parliament isn't sitting, but it certainly won't wash for a long time once they are back. 

On the second point, it would presumably be hypothetically possible for Johnson to turn up and have to leave halfway through after losing a confidence vote. Although I suppose he'd still technically still be Prime Minister so probably wouldn't.