Jump to content

UK Politics: Tory Closing Down Sale- Everything Must Go


polishgenius
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

No, it’s Minister of State Without Portfolio. It’s basically the least important job Sunak could give to someone from the right of the party to try and appease the nutjobs. 

Yeah, and it's still utterly ludicrous. Both to create such a fake position and to accept it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I know both Blair and Cameron were disappointments, but compared to today’s crowd aren’t they practically geniuses?

 

 

Blair was a superb politician. It kind of gets downplayed a bit now because of (1) rightful fury about Iraq and (2) his intransigence over in any way acknowledging the left of the party even though Corbyn showed there is support there, which makes him look a fool. But he was excellent at both playing to a crowd and at organising things to his advantage, in a way we haven't close to seen since, in either party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ministers without portfolio are nothing new. The ‘minister for common sense’, ‘anti woke’ stuff is mostly just spin, and not very good spin at that. McVey will have very little actual influence and very little to do in policy terms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Corbyn be incapable of saying this? What does he see himself as preserving by not saying it? The UK officially recognizes Hamas as a terror organization, so he seems to be marching to the beat of his own drummer on this point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is the possibility he is just belligerent and refuses to do what Piers Morgan tells him, but even if that was the case it highlights what a problem he would have been. This is hardly an isolated incident, there are so many occasions where he could have made everything easier if he just said the thing, but he refuses to do it.

I doubt he does see Hamas as a terror organisation, I'm sure part of him sees them as freedom fighters. We've seen in the Israel thread that is not an uncommon view on the left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Why would Corbyn be incapable of saying this? What does he see himself as preserving by not saying it? The UK officially recognizes Hamas as a terror organization, so he seems to be marching to the beat of his own drummer on this point.

 

My take:

Corbyn is an elderly idealist, incapable of making the smallest compromise. His values were set in stone many years ago and he is not open to changing them no matter what has happened since. He will not say anything he believes untrue, but has has just enough political nous to remain silent sometimes.

Of course Piers Moron's motives are hardly pure here either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

Blair was a superb politician. It kind of gets downplayed a bit now because of (1) rightful fury about Iraq and (2) his intransigence over in any way acknowledging the left of the party even though Corbyn showed there is support there, which makes him look a fool. But he was excellent at both playing to a crowd and at organising things to his advantage, in a way we haven't close to seen since, in either party.

My memory of Blair was that he was a decent enough PM, he just got sucked into Iraq. Here in Canada, the PM was Jean Chretien and he made the decision that Iraq was not our fight, but then we ended up in Afghanistan because we hadn’t done Iraq.

Cameron I’m not impressed with. Between Brexit and his cost cutting moves he caused a lot of harm. And who the hell privatizes your country’s mail system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

he just got sucked into Iraq

I don't think he got sucked into Iraq. To a large extent he was the source of the suction (horrible image there). Blair got "sucked into" Iraq like Cameron and Osborne got "sucked into" austerity. Sure, there were external global factors that made it possible, but it was an ideological project he pursued enthusiastically.

 

3 hours ago, A wilding said:

Of course Piers Moron's motives are hardly pure here either.

The entire rhetorical strategy of "will you condemn?" and its variants is almost always bad faith and almost never enhances any discussion. I think more people should blanket refuse to engage with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notable that the court says the principle of sending asylum seekers to a third country is lawful, it’s specifically the Rwanda plan that is unlawful. Gives the government the opportunity to try again if they can get Rwanda to fix their system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that is that the scheme was predicated, though in an unspoken way, on the idea that asylum seekers wouldn't be sent to a safe third country. They'd be sent to a shitty third country, one they didn't want to go to, one that was unsafe, and so would be deterred from coming to the UK for fear of winding up there.

Because sending them to a safe third country is an ineffective policy. It's just wasting money. It only works if it somehow succeeds where every other measure that involves telling refugees 'don't come here because we will treat you like shit' has failed, as if refugees really are just like rich first world people selecting a holiday from a brochure, as they are in the fevered imaginations of the Tory right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...