Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] The NSC 'up all night' election night *** OFFICIAL MATCH THREAD ***



jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,500
I follow politics closely, so I’m not dense about these things - but there is something I really don’t understand here. Perhaps someone can give their thoughts.

After the Tories got their expected and well-deserved pasting (ongoing), Starmer immediately does that thing that opposition leaders do and calls for Sunak’s resignation.


Now, Sunak is on course for a record-breaking defeat at the GE. He hasn’t “rallied the troops” for battle; and in fact looks completely lost and ready to cry. He is deeply unpopular with Conservative voters and said to be so within his own cabinet.

Why would Labour want him gone? I’d want him to stay as long as possible. Just like the Tories would’ve surely wanted Corbyn to stay.

Is there not a chance that the Tories would actually mitigate their losses by replacing an unpopular leader?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.
 






Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
9,120
I follow politics closely, so I’m not dense about these things - but there is something I really don’t understand here. Perhaps someone can give their thoughts.

After the Tories got their expected and well-deserved pasting (ongoing), Starmer immediately does that thing that opposition leaders do and calls for Sunak’s resignation.


Now, Sunak is on course for a record-breaking defeat at the GE. He hasn’t “rallied the troops” for battle; and in fact looks completely lost and ready to cry. He is deeply unpopular with Conservative voters and said to be so within his own cabinet.

Why would Labour want him gone? I’d want him to stay as long as possible. Just like the Tories would’ve surely wanted Corbyn to stay.

Is there not a chance that the Tories would actually mitigate their losses by replacing an unpopular leader?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Me neither. The next people to choose the next PM should be the electorate not the Tory party.
What Starmer should be calling for is a Summer election. There is simply no point in postponing the inevitable change of power, this government has no mandate.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
I follow politics closely, so I’m not dense about these things - but there is something I really don’t understand here. Perhaps someone can give their thoughts.

After the Tories got their expected and well-deserved pasting (ongoing), Starmer immediately does that thing that opposition leaders do and calls for Sunak’s resignation.


Now, Sunak is on course for a record-breaking defeat at the GE. He hasn’t “rallied the troops” for battle; and in fact looks completely lost and ready to cry. He is deeply unpopular with Conservative voters and said to be so within his own cabinet.

Why would Labour want him gone? I’d want him to stay as long as possible. Just like the Tories would’ve surely wanted Corbyn to stay.

Is there not a chance that the Tories would actually mitigate their losses by replacing an unpopular leader?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Do they actually want him gone or is it part of the game?

Calling for his resignation leads to press asking Sunak if he intends to quit. Why not? Look at all this failure, isn't it the honourable thing to do? Didn't you say you were going to bring honour back? Are you not a man of your word? It makes the press narrative about his failure, and impending doom, and further exposes his comments when he took over as being empty promises. If he doesn't resign he is deadman walking. If his party try to oust him, it's either another leadership race making the tories look a mess, or he calls for a GE to fend off the challenge to his leadership and Labour get their election. If they don't it's a party that is failing.
 


jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,500
Do they actually want him gone or is it part of the game?

Calling for his resignation leads to press asking Sunak if he intends to quit. Why not? Look at all this failure, isn't it the honourable thing to do? Didn't you say you were going to bring honour back? Are you not a man of your word? It makes the press narrative about his failure, and impending doom, and further exposes his comments when he took over as being empty promises. If he doesn't resign he is deadman walking. If his party try to oust him, it's either another leadership race making the tories look a mess, or he calls for a GE to fend off the challenge to his leadership and Labour get their election. If they don't it's a party that is failing.
Good points, but in reality though I don’t think anyone in Labour wants him gone.
 




CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 27, 2009
6,230
Shoreham Beach
I follow politics closely, so I’m not dense about these things - but there is something I really don’t understand here. Perhaps someone can give their thoughts.

After the Tories got their expected and well-deserved pasting (ongoing), Starmer immediately does that thing that opposition leaders do and calls for Sunak’s resignation.


Now, Sunak is on course for a record-breaking defeat at the GE. He hasn’t “rallied the troops” for battle; and in fact looks completely lost and ready to cry. He is deeply unpopular with Conservative voters and said to be so within his own cabinet.

Why would Labour want him gone? I’d want him to stay as long as possible. Just like the Tories would’ve surely wanted Corbyn to stay.

Is there not a chance that the Tories would actually mitigate their losses by replacing an unpopular leader?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.
I think you are mis-interpreting the message. Labour wants a general election sooner rather than later. Sunak resigning and forcing another Tory leadership farce would delay a general election by months, so they are not calling on him to resign but to call a general election.
 


Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
16,029
I follow politics closely, so I’m not dense about these things - but there is something I really don’t understand here. Perhaps someone can give their thoughts.

After the Tories got their expected and well-deserved pasting (ongoing), Starmer immediately does that thing that opposition leaders do and calls for Sunak’s resignation.


Now, Sunak is on course for a record-breaking defeat at the GE. He hasn’t “rallied the troops” for battle; and in fact looks completely lost and ready to cry. He is deeply unpopular with Conservative voters and said to be so within his own cabinet.

Why would Labour want him gone? I’d want him to stay as long as possible. Just like the Tories would’ve surely wanted Corbyn to stay.

Is there not a chance that the Tories would actually mitigate their losses by replacing an unpopular leader?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.
On the contrary, I don't follow politics hardly at all, but I'm guessing because he knows Sunak's massive ego won't every allow him to step down as leader – he'd rather face a GE. Therefore, the default is to call it and lose.

So, Starmer is effectively asking for a GE now, not for Sunak to stand down.

IMO, like.
 


Greg Bobkin

Silver Seagull
May 22, 2012
16,029
Good points, but in reality though I don’t think anyone in Labour wants him gone.
They probably don't. It's all part of some stupid infantile game that all parties seem to play (which is almost certainly one of the reasons why I have close to zero interest in the whole charade).
 




Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,262
I think you over-estimate the electorate.
They don't vote on any of the above factors and are increasingly unlikely to.
I'm not sure I understand you. My point was about the analysts and their supposed predictions of Labour being in the cold for a decade which - I'd argue - was never likely.

The electorate like clarity, so when someone says "Labour Isn't Working", "Take Back Control" or "Get Brexit Done" it can define an election. However, there's also times when it is clear to the public a party has reached the end of the road, i.e. Labour under Callaghan in 79, the Tories in 97, Labour in 2010 and now the Tories in 2024.

I think the public also know it's going to take a while to rebuild the UK after 14 years of Tory government and I don't see a 'one and done' Labour term. We've had 11 years of one party, then 13 years, then 14 years, so more than likely we could have a decade of Labour. Even in the USA the voters tend to give a president two terms unless they are completely useless.
 








Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
12,113
I'm not sure I understand you. My point was about the analysts and their supposed predictions of Labour being in the cold for a decade which - I'd argue - was never likely.

The electorate like clarity, so when someone says "Labour Isn't Working", "Take Back Control" or "Get Brexit Done" it can define an election. However, there's also times when it is clear to the public a party has reached the end of the road, i.e. Labour under Callaghan in 79, the Tories in 97, Labour in 2010 and now the Tories in 2024.

I think the public also know it's going to take a while to rebuild the UK after 14 years of Tory government and I don't see a 'one and done' Labour term. We've had 11 years of one party, then 13 years, then 14 years, so more than likely we could have a decade of Labour. Even in the USA the voters tend to give a president two terms unless they are completely useless.
This is the point I disagree with.

The electorate don't give a damn about how difficult the job is. they just want the government to solve the problem.

After the next election, Labour will be inheriting a bigger shitshow, than they left the Tories last time.
They will need to make a real impact to people's lives, to stand a chance of being re-elected.

The Tories will either lurch further to the right or refocus under a centralist, but either way, Starmer will be an easy target, because the economy will still be f***ed.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,770
Fiveways
You talk as if these analysts were the mainstream. I'd make the following points:

1. Using historic precedent it is clear Jeremy Corbyn and his team were very 'left' wing by recent Labour standards (i.e. Kinnock onwards).
2. It was also clear they would be ousted for a more centrist leader.
3. It is also a near certainty Labour would have to move to the centre to hope to win a General Election
4. It was clear to any Remainer that Brexit was not going to work.
5. It was clear in 2019 that Boris was a proven liar and would doubtless be hoist by his own petard.

Therefore, none of this political swing we have experienced in the last 3 years comes as much of a surprise to me.

The gamechanger is that we have Brexited. That process was instigated by Cameron having been agitated for by Farage. This is - essentially - an internecine war of the Right of British politics.

We are paying a heavy economic price for Brexit, the Tories are supposedly the party of business so I don't see how the stars are going to align for them in a post-Brexit world.

In time I can see a right of centre, pro-business, anti-Brexit, one nation party emerging from the wreckage, but it would have some brass neck to call itself the Conservative Party after the last 8 years of chaos that party has caused following the 2016 EU Referendum.
RE your point 1, you're talking about Corbyn in 2019, but on a fairly similar programme, Corbyn did surprisingly well in 2017
RE your point in your previous post about the Conservatives being destroyed. I disagree. They've been around for 300 years and been in office for about 200 of those. They've had convulsive events in the past that people say they'd never recover from (eg Poor Laws, Home Rule), and they have done. Also factor in: 1, they're the party of the establishment which facilitates them; and ii, the opposition parties are split which favours them in FPTP electoral contests. They'll be back as a credible force to the electorate. Wouldn't expect it to happen in the next parliament, but most likely by the one after.
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,770
Fiveways
I follow politics closely, so I’m not dense about these things - but there is something I really don’t understand here. Perhaps someone can give their thoughts.

After the Tories got their expected and well-deserved pasting (ongoing), Starmer immediately does that thing that opposition leaders do and calls for Sunak’s resignation.


Now, Sunak is on course for a record-breaking defeat at the GE. He hasn’t “rallied the troops” for battle; and in fact looks completely lost and ready to cry. He is deeply unpopular with Conservative voters and said to be so within his own cabinet.

Why would Labour want him gone? I’d want him to stay as long as possible. Just like the Tories would’ve surely wanted Corbyn to stay.

Is there not a chance that the Tories would actually mitigate their losses by replacing an unpopular leader?

It just doesn’t make sense to me.
It's quite simple. He hasn't called for Sunak to resign. He's called for him to announce a general election.
 




Giraffe

VERY part time moderator
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Aug 8, 2005
27,221
Khan in trouble? Hard to believe but would be sensational if true.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
26,182
West is BEST
Khan in trouble? Hard to believe but would be sensational if true.
Where did you read that? I think it’s rumoured it will be closer than originally thought but not that he’s in trouble.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,014
This is the point I disagree with.

The electorate don't give a damn about how difficult the job is. they just want the government to solve the problem.

After the next election, Labour will be inheriting a bigger shitshow, than they left the Tories last time.
They will need to make a real impact to people's lives, to stand a chance of being re-elected.

The Tories will either lurch further to the right or refocus under a centralist, but either way, Starmer will be an easy target, because the economy will still be f***ed.
not so much, the numbers say the economy isn't doing nearly as badly as the commentary. not because of anything much Conservatives are doing mind, just the general global macro is turning upward. Germany just avoided recession, US looks steady, inflation fallen, interest rates likely to start falling before autumn. Starmer will have fair bit of room from green shoots of recovery, likely to spend the fruit on services rather than tax cuts.

my theory, this is why Sunak is holding on, to take some credit for the turnaround, maybe get in an autumn statement with some good news and tax cuts to boot.
 






aftershavedave

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
7,139
as 10cc say, not in hove
not so much, the numbers say the economy isn't doing nearly as badly as the commentary. not because of anything much Conservatives are doing mind, just the general global macro is turning upward. Germany just avoided recession, US looks steady, inflation fallen, interest rates likely to start falling before autumn. Starmer will have fair bit of room from green shoots of recovery, likely to spend the fruit on services rather than tax cuts.

my theory, this is why Sunak is holding on, to take some credit for the turnaround, maybe get in an autumn statement with some good news and tax cuts to boot.
Your last sentence is imo, the only reason he's going to hang on. Unless of course they go for him and he calls a GE in spite
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here