Will the old Tories turn out in the cold?
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
/
Right on Paul, knew I could rely on you.
Increasing spending on defence (0.5%) is all propaganda eh!! Not when you are already billions in debt and public services are on their knees and more and more people are registering as 'unavailable for work'. Never mind that NATO is getting drawn inextricably into a new 'cold war' scenario in East European arena; that the US ( our eternal strategic partner) will not allow its only major ally in the Middle East Israel to fail, especially with Iran calling the shots.
According to you then Paul these things are incidental to the real problem of 'what comes after Brexit'.... really?
I suspect whatever government is in power after the GE, the Brexit 'fallout' will become a side show, especially as the EU is suffering internal machinations on immigration and border issues as well. All the Western World will have to close ranks over the next decade. If Trump wins in US presidential race, then he may well try to force a plan within NATO where the US takes the lead in the Middle East supporting Israel, (whatever it takes) whilst Europe is expected to take the lead in locking horns with Putin and pushing him back over Ukraine.
Meanwhile back to the climate change front, things will be looking decidedly doggy especially as China has already said it will continue to utilise its furnaces to provide its energy, whilst we sit alone, only half filling our kettles and bathing in only 50 cm's of water. Probably being reminded (by Government) how eating carrots help us to see better in the dark (joke of course, only for people in their 70's)
Scary times ahead Paul, if Starmer's not up to it, we shall have to find someone who is... any suggestions?
An extra 0.5% to 2.5% is nothing and is certainly not ' a war footing' and it's planned in the future not now and only if the finances allow it. They're even going to build landing craft - where are they planning on landing?
Throughout my life time, we've had the Cold War, The Vietnam war, Falklands, Bosnia, Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless others. And the British Armed Services have been decimated due to cuts. They even don't dare say that they'll cut arms sales to Israel because the reality is they hardly sell any, "not good for propaganda, you see, old boy". Sounds as if you've bought into Sunak's the next five years will be the most dangerous in UK history, really. Its only major ally - really.
How does Brexit become a sideshow? As I say, everyone thinks it's all over, but it's only just beginning. Reality will (hopefully) start to hit soon and certainly by 2028/9 just before the next election. If you stick your fingers in your ears, go la la la and get a veterinary agreement it will all go away.
Starmer's definitely not up to it. Surely there must be one candidate. Who? I haven't the slightest idea.
Last edited:
Yet they managed it in 2019 with Boris Johnson, a known man of complete ineptitude at the helm
Would love it if he loses his seat
But they've doubled or tripled in ineptitude since 2019 because Johnson surrounded himself with complete dumbos and cheerleaders so he wouldn't be under threat. Those people are still there.
Unless Labour are radical in their first term and really change things and not tinker with Tory policies, the Tories will be back in 2029 - either even worse than they are now or a complete change of tack. If Starmer is scared of Brexiters or Tory voters now, he'll be scared in 2029 if he's still there.
If Labour can't beat the Tories now after all that's happened, they never will.
To be fair there's a disclaimer saying another future is possible.
Those are not mutually incompatible things.
Defend migrants rights! (to not come here but be treated like scum if they still manage it. also your national insurance payments won't mean anything unless you work in the health sector but we'll still take them out of your wages)
@Sweet Square except the task force is aimed at stopping the people traffickers. This is a clear improvement on current policy which is aimed at punishing those who've been trafficked.
Admittedly I'd have preferred it to be 'Re-Open Safe & Legal Routes', but this is objectively better than what the Tories are offering.
Admittedly I'd have preferred it to be 'Re-Open Safe & Legal Routes', but this is objectively better than what the Tories are offering.
They are completely two different things, at times you're hatred of Starmer is making your posts look silly.
What exactly is this taskforce supposed to be doing? Rampaging around Europe or the rest of the world or around the UK. Are they going to be lined up on the coast repelling any boats that try to come ashore?
Legal routes are the only way to reduce the need for migrants to use the gangs. These gangs must be trembling - hiding under the bedclothes.
Legal routes alone aren't going to stop gangs. What is going to happen if your application is rejected for example, you aren't going to just give up, people will go back to illegal gangs again. The best thing would be to have both solutions.
But it will reduce it considerably. And they won't need to make arduous journeys to have to get to the UK to make their asylum claim if they can make their claim at an Embassy or dedicated place outside the UK like in Calais for example. Therefore would not need to use the criminal gangs. Of course it won't eliminate them completely like any other criminal activity.
Don't forget both Tories and Labour are really really really concerned about the safety of those poor asylum seekers across a dangerous sealane.
This time the task force are going to go after the bad guys isn’t a serious answer yet alone one which is about compassion
Although does speak to the Labour leadership overall ideology which is agreeing with Tory policy but thinking the issue is with the management and administration of policy.
If Starmer ran as a David Cameron style politician during the leadership race and members voted for it then while stupid would at least be somewhat democratically consistent. But he didn’t and I have no idea why so many left wing the leadership.
Sad story but who the feck thinks like this?
"If my cancer had been caught early, I would be looking at another 30 years of economic productivity"
Not 30 more years with my friends and family, but 30 years of economic productivity. What an existence.
Not sure if you read my response but I agree legal routes are needed alongside better border security to tackle the gangs.
Is that the key takeaway?
I did but what exactly is this border security to tackle the gangs?
Most people just see a Tory defecting and she'll only be around for 6 or so months. I can see why he did it, not a lot of downside risk really. In fact, the surprise is such a cautious politician took the risk.
The public won't easily swing back to the Tories, because they are going to get shattered, not just beaten. The lessons they need to learn to rebuild as a centrist party are going to take 2-3 crushing electoral defeats to sink in, as it did for Labour. They need to change everything, as their base withers and dies. It is going to be far harder for them to come back, because of the ground they need to travel to get back to reality.
And I think you underprice the power that comes with Labour being able to set the terms of the political debate. That is something they cannot do at the moment. But they will in a few months.
The Tories have gone so far right and are so corrupted that they've completely vacated the ground they stood on to win the previous elections. Labour have now just slid right in there to fill the gap. The gap now is where the Labour party used to be which is why so many are now feeling politically homeless.
She's left the Tories because she wanted to be a housing minister and didn't get a ministerial post. She thinks that Starmer will be more efficient at stopping the boats. She will also have meltdown in the summer with the queues at Dover and when the EU Entry/Exit system comes into operation, probably in the Autumn and Dover becomes a carpark.
I really don't see her gracefully fading into the background. Or telling the truth. Have a sneaky feeling she'll want to be MP either in Dover or somewhere else and a ministerial post on top.
The Tories crushed Labour in 2019 but will be crushed in 2024. Same five year difference. If nothing dramatically improves...
People smuggling will still exist, this will be people who cannot get in through the legal route or those who don't want to go through legal routes at all so tacking people smuggling is a big deal to stop people putting their lives in danger by crossing the channel. Obviously we will need to see the detail and how it works in practice but it certainly sounds better than the Rwanda scheme.
Will be interesting to see who they elect next as leader, if it turns out to be Braverman, things will get even worse for them.
I agree but don't see what the detail can be. The criminal gangs operate in the Uk, in Europe and elsewhere and are being caught and stopped but there are lots that aren't and another gang willl probably replace another if there's a market and without legal routes there's a bigger market.
What I don't see is what this Border Security force is going to do or how it will have any deterrent effect.
Oh boy a task force, that's never been tried
It's exactly the same lines as the Tories have been parroted for about a decade now. Johnson did his bill in what 2020 with a similar restructure and similar new funding.
The bar is being set so low for Starmer that he's been praised for basically Tory policy. If it's just a vote winner fine but why are so many in here acting like ministers turning up on the Sunday rounds spinning bollocks.
Oh boy a task force, that's never been tried
It's exactly the same lines as the Tories have been parroted for about a decade now. Johnson did his bill in what 2020 with a similar restructure and similar new funding.
The bar is being set so low for Starmer that he's been praised for basically Tory policy. If it's just a vote winner fine but why are so many in here acting like ministers turning up on the Sunday rounds spinning bollocks.
The Tories line is the Rwanda bill deterrent effect.
Yes, by the way you have missed out the Suez Canal debacle in the 1950's. I was only a 'whipper-snappy' myself then, but all the wars you mentioned, although we didn't always have 'boots on the ground' in some (well officially anyway) cost us lots of money that went into and still is featured in the national debit, somewhere. Make no mistake Paul preparing for any emergency, be it pandemic or war, costs money and as we've seen with Covid, lots of money gets siphoned off into the pockets of the 'carpet-baggers' and it takes away emphasis on other things.
Yes, the armed services get decimated, in between such emergencies, it used to be known 'as the 'peace dividend'
I do think Sunak is right to worry about the next 5 years, I would say the next 5-15 years. However, I don't buy into his pitch about what a Labour government would do, that is just sabre-rattling/scare-mongering.
Because it is already a sideshow, the effects may not yet be fully felt that's true, but compared with what is likely to 'come down the pike' it will be something that will be put to the side, both here and in the EU; essentially because mutual survival (economic and political) will require some changes, the more idiot rules/regulations on both sides will be 'eased' or passed over. No one will be seen to be breaking any 'golden rules' of trade, but then again no one will be specifically looking.
'Black markets', smuggling, and other war time/emergency situations will occur if it becomes necessary... maybe the criminals smuggling people will be orientated towards smuggling goods.... less profitable, but much less hazardous in the future, especially in emergency situations. That is what is referred to as a 'wartime economy'
Paul If you haven't any idea who can do what is necessary, then Starmer is 'johnny on the spot' and we go with him.
Yeah because they already did the people smuggler attack line. They can't keep saying it because it hasn't worked and people spot that. Labour now using lines from Boris Johnsons time doesn't make it suddenly new.
At least Labour aren't sticking with the Rwanda plan that's something I guess.
She's not standing at the next election and I imagine Labour will have accepted her on that basis.
I think there's bit more to it than that...
Oh boy a task force, that's never been tried
It's exactly the same lines as the Tories have been parroted for about a decade now. Johnson did his bill in what 2020 with a similar restructure and similar new funding.
The bar is being set so low for Starmer that he's been praised for basically Tory policy. If it's just a vote winner fine but why are so many in here acting like ministers turning up on the Sunday rounds spinning bollocks.
Except it's not the same line as the Tories though is it? They are using the Rwanda bill which Starmer has said he will dump and has suggested this new policy which makes sense however the detail is yet to come out. The Tories did some work with France but focused all their efforts on Rwanda. I'll wait to see what's in the policy before judging.
The media are pulling so far to the right that I'm not sure I see the Tories drifting back to the centre if they suffer a heavy election defeat. They might well lurch further right.
Suez was before my time.
Brexit has been made out to be a sideshow because nobody dares mention it and furthermore nobody has any idea how to get out of the problems they brought on themselves, which yes, are only just starting. The Tories and Labour don't want the public to talk about it but strangely every day there's another problem brought up. It's barely mentioned in the EU apart from companies who exported to the UK.
The rules aren't going to change. This is Starmer's fantasy. Because he still does not understand what Brexit has brought to the UK. It's not only EU rules, Single Market Rules, Customs Union rules, it's WTO rules, international rules. Please stop believing Starmer's nonsense.
The EU does not need the UK despite the Brexit rubbish from eight years ago for mutual survival. This has to stop soon for the Uk's sake.
There are 67 milion people in the UK. Surely there must be one to replace Starmer.
I think they will totally make that mistake, they are run by ideologues. Short term, if they were wise it'd be a sort of Michael Howard type of figure post Blair, who can sort out the machinery of putting the party back in touch with the voters (rather than the members).
Long term, it has to be someone less ideological who recognises there is no future for them in being UKIP, all while their base narrows through demographic change and natural wastage.
I don't think they have anyone like that though - the closest they got to that was Boris Johnson but he only managed to square the circle by lying to everyone. Brexit has destroyed the Tories by making it become an English nationalist party. I think the long term route back for them will involve them becoming the sort of party they were under Cameron, but I think it's going to take them being kicked a few good times before they re-learn that lesson, a bit like Labour had to learn their lesson about the centre ground.
I've absolutely no idea how long you've closely been following politics but outside of the last 12 months focus on Rwanda the line has been people traffickers. Cameron had it, May had her slavery/trafficking act then Johnson the border bill.
That goes all the way back to Cameron where the NCA and intelligence were involved at the height of the Med crisis (which seems to be the detail of Starmers 'new policy).
So if by new the announcement is 'we're not doing Rwanda' then yeah it's new in the back to Cameron rather than Trump-lite way.
The US has multiple times that and see who they found.