[Politics] The Johnson gambit

[hans kraay fan club]

The chair of Enfield Conservatives has been suspended.

[tweet]1513922239074385924[/tweet]

Good grief. The state of him.

He actually looks less dodgy in the nazi outfit, than in his recent photo!

 

[darkwolf666]

Right to suspend him, but will likely be found to be an innocent fancy dress get up, rather than a form of hero worship, I suspect and hope that is all it was.

I rather agree with this, bit of a non story from decades ago, unless there IS evidence of him being a card carrying member of the Nazi party, and agree with another poster, he looks less iffy in the uniform!

 

[A mex eyecan]

See, this is interesting because I've always been Labour and this right here is exactly how I try and live as well.

Quote Originally Posted by Knocky's Nose View Post
As I've said before, I've always been Conservative. Make your own way in the world, get up and work, do the best you can for yourself and your family, pay your taxes and try to do some good.


Shouldn’t matter whatever your political views, those morals and attitudes are what should be just what every one aims for.

 

[dazzer6666]

Majority too big, opposition far too weak and toothless…….a recipe for the disaster of a government we now have. Stuck with them until the next GE - between now and then who is going to step up and show themselves as capable (from any party ?)

****ing depressing.

 

[Seasider78]

See, this is interesting because I've always been Labour and this right here is exactly how I try and live as well.

Politics has been hugely divisive in this country since Brexit and as your post suggests we all have a lot more in common in terms of goals than differences.

Politics now suffers from the same issue as the social media society where to get coverage and clicks you operate on the extremes of the left and right which is a huge turn off for much of the electorate.

When you look at the quality of politicians on the front benches you cannot help but think is this really the best this country can come up with, we all deserve and need better

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1514147020470108161[/tweet]

 

[A mex eyecan]

Politics has been hugely divisive in this country since Brexit and as your post suggests we all have a lot more in common in terms of goals than differences.

Politics now suffers from the same issue as the social media society where to get coverage and clicks you operate on the extremes of the left and right which is a huge turn off for much of the electorate.

When you look at the quality of politicians on the front benches you cannot help but think is this really the best this country can come up with, we all deserve and need better

Trouble is Seasider, who would truly want to put themselves forward and hope to be elected. No matter how ‘clean’ they are, our media will dig and delve until they find the smallest of errors, poor judgement etc, that lays in their past and once they’ve found it continue to hound the person, hopefully until resignation. Let’s be truthful, is there anyone on here, or elsewhere, who can honestly say they have never committed any act that may have been even trivially wrong?

It seems to be a dreadful national trait we have whereby we build a person so high until they sit atop a pedestal and then commence to throw stones and rocks at them until they fall off it.

Same with politicians, sports people and almost every other aspect in life.

If we are looking for candidates that could pass a truthful and honest examination of ‘squeaky cleanness’ then we will sadly be searching from now until kingdom come and in the meanwhile have to put up with the dross we have had over the past decades.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Trouble is Seasider, who would truly want to put themselves forward and hope to be elected. No matter how ‘clean’ they are, our media will dig and delve until they find the smallest of errors, poor judgement etc, that lays in their past and once they’ve found it continue to hound the person, hopefully until resignation. Let’s be truthful, is there anyone on here, or elsewhere, who can honestly say they have never committed any act that may have been even trivially wrong?

It seems to be a dreadful national trait we have whereby we build a person so high until they sit atop a pedestal and then commence to throw stones and rocks at them until they fall off it.

Same with politicians, sports people and almost every other aspect in life.

If we are looking for candidates that could pass a truthful and honest examination of ‘squeaky cleanness’ then we will sadly be searching from now until kingdom come and in the meanwhile have to put up with the dross we have had over the past decades.

If the media can't find any dirt, they just make it up.

 

[A mex eyecan]

If the media can't find any dirt, they just make it up.

True ..

oh well looks like we’re stuffed either way then ..

 

[dazzer6666]

Politics has been hugely divisive in this country since Brexit and as your post suggests we all have a lot more in common in terms of goals than differences.

Politics now suffers from the same issue as the social media society where to get coverage and clicks you operate on the extremes of the left and right which is a huge turn off for much of the electorate.

When you look at the quality of politicians on the front benches you cannot help but think is this really the best this country can come up with, we all deserve and need better

Agree re divisiveness….suspect a large majority are somewhere near the centre. Re the state of those in charge, when you pay an MP the salary of, for example, nothing more than a junior to middle manager in the City (even without taking bonuses into account), you’re never going to get the number of quality people needed IMO. Why would anyone want to put up with the hassle, scrutiny and likelihood of losing their job every 5 years for that ?

 

[Knocky's Nose]

See, this is interesting because I've always been Labour and this right here is exactly how I try and live as well.

Not a swipe at you personally, I assure you. I've just always been turned off by the 'punish the rich and hardworking to look after the feckless and lazy' attitude of the Labour Party whilst growing up in the 70's. Our economy was ruined in a very different way to that of today by self-entitled workers whipped up to think they were indispensable and the only workforce in the world who could do what they do and deserved to be paid handsomely. They weren't.

Corbyn worried the hell out of me as I felt he was cut from the same cloth, so I didn't vote Labour.

This is a whole different debate, though - and I very rarely get involved in political ones. Nobody wins, we just go round in circles.

 

[Justice]

Agree re divisiveness….suspect a large majority are somewhere near the centre. Re the state of those in charge, when you pay an MP the salary of, for example, nothing more than a junior to middle manager in the City (even without taking bonuses into account), you’re never going to get the number of quality people needed IMO. Why would anyone want to put up with the hassle, scrutiny and likelihood of losing their job every 5 years for that ?

It’s all about the backhanders. Giving your wife or chums multi million pound government contracts.

 

[dazzer6666]

It’s all about the backhanders. Giving your wife or chums multi million pound government contracts.

For some, yes, but not 600+

 

[golddene]

It was mostly ERG group members like Mark Francois and Peter Bone, and DUP that voted against Mays Brexit, Tory remain MP's mostly backed it. If May had not lost the majority she inherited, she would have got it through.

This is so true, Labour had the chance to possibly mitigate against the hard Brexit we eventually got, but put party politics ahead of what was possibly a better softer outcome and relished in joining with the ERG to defeat time and time again May’s sitting government. It looked great at the time in the HOC but all the time I felt this was playing into the hard right hands of the Conservative party. This may be simplistic and I do not hold the Labour Party responsible for the eventual outcome, but they did not help matters in my opinion.

 

[BBassic]

Not a swipe at you personally, I assure you. I've just always been turned off by the 'punish the rich and hardworking to look after the feckless and lazy' attitude of the Labour Party whilst growing up in the 70's. Our economy was ruined in a very different way to that of today by self-entitled workers whipped up to think they were indispensable and the only workforce in the world who could do what they do and deserved to be paid handsomely. They weren't.

Corbyn worried the hell out of me as I felt he was cut from the same cloth, so I didn't vote Labour.

This is a whole different debate, though - and I very rarely get involved in political ones. Nobody wins, we just go round in circles.

Oh no I didn't think it was a swipe at all, no worries there!

I just found it interesting that, despite us having at least some political differences, we're ideologically aligned on how we choose to live our lives.

I think other posters have said since - we might vote differently but we're all probably a lot more alike than we think we are. Which makes it really frustrating that most political debates end up, as you say, going round in circles.

 

[Baldseagull]

This is so true, Labour had the chance to possibly mitigate against the hard Brexit we eventually got, but put party politics ahead of what was possibly a better softer outcome and relished in joining with the ERG to defeat time and time again May’s sitting government. It looked great at the time in the HOC but all the time I felt this was playing into the hard right hands of the Conservative party. This may be simplistic and I do not hold the Labour Party responsible for the eventual outcome, but they did not help matters in my opinion.

The deal was too Brexity for Labour, not Brexity enough for the ERG. The DUP held a lot of power at that time, winkled a £Billion out of May in extra funding for Northern Ireland to allow her to form a Government, and then shafted her deal still.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It’s all about the backhanders. Giving your wife or chums multi million pound government contracts.

For some, yes, but not 600+

Certainly agree that it is only some and probably a relatively small number. It's just that the majority of that small number happen to be the Cabinet. How did that happen

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

What I cant get my head around is why anyone would think that after 12 years of a Conservative government anything would be significantly different for the next four.

I also dont get why anyone thinks coalition is a bad idea and something to be avoided.

Strange narratives in politics

I don't have any problem with a coaltition. If the numbers of seats won means that no single party has a majority then a coaltion makes absolute sense. I really don't mind a coalition if that is how the cookie crumbles. It is how we get to a coalition that bothers me.

My beef is with PR. PR (apparently) guarantees coalitions. Why is that good?

Voters currently vote for one individual, usually because they represent the party they favour at the time. Nobody actually votes for a coalition. One may accept it as an outcome (albeit many don't and would prefer a second ballot), but to desire it? Why? To stop extremism? We all know the answer to that one. No it must be something to do with 'fairness'.

Of course we could radically change the system so that we no longer vote for one candidate. We could be allowed to vote for, say, up to five out of a possible fifteen on a ballot. That would allow us to pick and mix candidates from different parties, so that a coaltition of our desired flavour is created.

However with that, there is even less chance each voter would get what they want. If I want a parliament that is run by a coalition which is itself 60% labour and 40% green, and instead I get a coalition that is 80% labour (too laboury) 10% green and 10% libdem, then I am not getting what I voted for and (in the time-honoured tradition of those unsatisfied with our electoral system) would have the right to be outraged at the unfairness of it all. Every election.

Let's face it, in nations that have PR, their societies, voters and politicians are rather different from ours. Maybe they go to the ballot box in the certain knowledge that their preferred party will almost certainly not win, yet content that the more likely outcome, a coalition, will at least result in some of their heartfelt desires being met. That is, of course if the coalition was 'centre right' and you are right wing. What if the outcome was centre left? I suppose the answer one may give is that most people are in the centre so it hardly matters. A bit like coffee with or without sugar versus with or without milk*.

Somehow the idea of a phlegmatic electorate and a similar phlegmatic news media network in the UK seems a bit unlikely (albeit maybe I'm living in the past).

Perhaps the news media and the politicians would change if we had PR. Maybe. But right now any coalition we might have in the UK will be made up of the same mix of the dutiful backbencher type and the psychopathic gobshite, with the latter rising up to the leadership roles, whatever the system by which they obtain their seat, with the newmedia doing their usual thing.

All that said....perhaps we may start to consider changing the system....the problem of course is this has to be triggered by the government itself, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

But.... just as with Brexit, my view is if it is a bit broken, fix it, don't just bin it. I am not persuaded by any argument that PR would transform British life for the better, so why bother? Of course the smaller parties want it - they would, wouldn't they? The 'unbiased' wider arguments all seem to be far too nuanced for me, and once people start talking about systems such as single transferrable vote, and preference voting.....FFS! I want to cast one vote, tactically, to keep out the tories (next time). If I had to work out what sort of spread bet, weighting and ranking I would need to place across a field of candidates, or worse no specific candidate but instead a party identifier, I'd not bother.

And at least with FPTP I am 100% happy at least some of the time. Well, during the honeymoon period, at least.

*That reminds me of an anecdote about Sartre. He was in a Paris cafe once and ordered a coffee without cream. The waitress said 'we don't have any cream'. So Satre said 'in that case I will have it without sugar'. Bloody foringers!

 

[Happy Exile]

For some, yes, but not 600+

Even if it's not multimillion pound government contracts at least one of our local MPs employs their partner in a fulltime office position that I think is paid from Parliamentary expenses. I'm not suggesting for a second there's any wrongdoing, I'm sure there isn't and that it's been through proper scrutiny and a rigorous check for fairness and ensuring they are the right person for the job and being paid a fair salary, but I don't think MPs should be allowed to employ family members.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I don't have any problem with a coaltition. If the numbers of seats won means that no single party has a majority then a coaltion makes absolute sense. I really don't mind a coalition if that is how the cookie crumbles. It is how we get to a coalition that bothers me.

My beef is with PR. PR (apparently) guarantees coalitions. Why is that good?

Sorry Harry, just a quick one, it's not guaranteed.

The only time you would get a coalition is when there isn't a majority of the electorate wanting a single party to govern them