[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[wellquickwoody]

I'm saving a days leave for the Friday after GE night. I intend to stay up all night watching interviews like this as various Tory arseholes lose their seats. Even JRM is looking less than certain to be an MP in the next parliament.

70% would be a fairly average turnout for a GE, but I though that by-elections were always quite low.

Can he do that? I thought it'd need to be voted through parliament (not that there'd be much opposition from most opposition parties).

I did the staying up thing when Kinnock was expected to win. Young, heart on sleeve, and rather unaware of how economics need to work in those days. I felt heartbroken when it all went tits up.

Now having voted Tory ever since Blair was ousted I will certainly not be doing so this time around. Either Labour or not bother, probably the former as I do like a strong government.

 

[TomandJerry]

Liz Truss, the former British prime minister, spoke at a far-right conference in America on Wednesday, styling herself as a populist who took on America’s equivalent of the “deep state” in her own country.

Former Conservative PM, tells CPAC she fell victim to UK’s ‘establishment … its bureaucrats and lawyers’"

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I did the staying up thing when Kinnock was expected to win. Young, heart on sleeve, and rather unaware of how economics need to work in those days. I felt heartbroken when it all went tits up.

Now having voted Tory ever since Blair was ousted I will certainly not be doing so this time around. Either Labour or not bother, probably the former as I do like a strong government.

I assume you mean a massive majority.

Nobody likes a weak government, surely? Lin-Lab pact and all that.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I did the staying up thing when Kinnock was expected to win. Young, heart on sleeve, and rather unaware of how economics need to work in those days. I felt heartbroken when it all went tits up.

Now having voted Tory ever since Blair was ousted I will certainly not be doing so this time around. Either Labour or not bother, probably the former as I do like a strong government.

Interesting idea. I don't care who I vote into Government on the other side of the world as long as they have a big majority

You must have been very pleased with your vote and result in 2019. That worked out well

 

[A1X]

Liz Truss, the former British prime minister, spoke at a far-right conference in America on Wednesday, styling herself as a populist who took on America’s equivalent of the “deep state” in her own country.

Former Conservative PM, tells CPAC she fell victim to UK’s ‘establishment … its bureaucrats and lawyers’"

Will she be using the fee to pay the extra I have to pay for my mortgage thanks to her, I wonder?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Liz Truss, the former British prime minister, spoke at a far-right conference in America on Wednesday, styling herself as a populist who took on America’s equivalent of the “deep state” in her own country.

Former Conservative PM, tells CPAC she fell victim to UK’s ‘establishment … its bureaucrats and lawyers’"

Her Labour supporting parents must despair of how she turned out. She started out as a Liberal. Still, grifters gonna grift.

 

[nicko31]

Her Labour supporting parents must despair of how she turned out. She started out as a Liberal. Still, grifters gonna grift.

I have a friend who used to work with her before she went into politics, always said she's got some strange ideas.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Interesting idea. I don't care who I vote into Government on the other side of the world as long as they have a big majority

You must have been very pleased with your vote and result in 2019. That worked out well

I only voted last time for the party that said that they would act upon the referendum result, even though I disagreed with the outcome. If Labour had the balls to do as the electorate had requested I would have voted for them.

 

[BBassic]

Former Conservative PM, tells CPAC she fell victim to UK’s ‘establishment … its bureaucrats and lawyers’"

Liz Truss fell victim to being a f***ing half-wit.

 

[BBassic]

I sometimes wonder if Liz Truss just can't eat lettuce now.

Does she recoil in fear at the sight of our leafy green vegetable, never again to enjoy the simple pleasure of a well made BLT?

 

[chickens]

I sometimes wonder if Liz Truss just can't eat lettuce now.

Does she recoil in fear at the sight of our leafy green vegetable, never again to enjoy the simple pleasure of a well made BLT?

A Bloody Liz Truss?

The bacon represents pork markets.
The lettuce invokes memories of her short lived reign.
The tomato is a reminder to vote for the Labour Party at the next election.

 

[ROSM]

The whole issue of yesterday is that politicians of all hues were playing games with a serious issue. Some were worse than others.

The snp motion went beyond calling for a ceasefire it aimed to apportion blame. Knowing this would be problematic for both tories and labour. More the latter as the former are shameless.

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely

Tories then offer an amendment as they could see the snp trap has failed. Playing the system as it were.

Hoyle did break convention but he didnt break the rules or indeed precedent. As the letter above explains

Tories then pulled their amendment because they knew they would be subject to a rebellion of their own as many on their party would back the labour position (indeed many in snp do too). Point is their amendment never had the votes and was only put forward to try and stop the labour amendment being debated. That was trying to use the convention for party political games.

But rather than just losing they decided to take their ball home too. Snp then walked out too.

If tories hadnt offered an amendment there wouldn't have been the issue we had yesterday. As for tories ditching Hoyle? He has been ineffective at pmq's so they need to be careful what they wish for as the replacement could be a lot worse for them

 

[Is it PotG?]

The whole issue of yesterday is that politicians of all hues were playing games with a serious issue. Some were worse than others.

The snp motion went beyond calling for a ceasefire it aimed to apportion blame. Knowing this would be problematic for both tories and labour. More the latter as the former are shameless.

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely

Tories then offer an amendment as they could see the snp trap has failed. Playing the system as it were.

Hoyle did break convention but he didnt break the rules or indeed precedent. As the letter above explains

Tories then pulled their amendment because they knew they would be subject to a rebellion of their own as many on their party would back the labour position (indeed many in snp do too). Point is their amendment never had the votes and was only put forward to try and stop the labour amendment being debated. That was trying to use the convention for party political games.

But rather than just losing they decided to take their ball home too. Snp then walked out too.

If tories hadnt offered an amendment there wouldn't have been the issue we had yesterday. As for tories ditching Hoyle? He has been ineffective at pmq's so they need to be careful what they wish for as the replacement could be a lot worse for them

Certainly ONE version of events.

What do you make of the story that Labour figures had admitted that Hoyle was pressured to change the rules, which a top official warned “represents a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments on opposition days” and that "Senior Labour figures tell me that The Speaker was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the General Election unless he called Labour’s Gaza amendment."

 

[ROSM]

Certainly ONE version of events.

This will be confirmed today by at least 2 tory MPs who were privy to the mourdant decision to pull out

 

[MJsGhost]

I sometimes wonder if Liz Truss just can't eat lettuce now.

Does she recoil in fear at the sight of our leafy green vegetable, never again to enjoy the simple pleasure of a well made BLT?

A Bloody Liz Truss?

The bacon represents pork markets.
The lettuce invokes memories of her short lived reign.
The tomato is a reminder to vote for the Labour Party at the next election.

Bacon sandwiches are off limits to MPs after what happened to Milliband

 

[chickens]

Bacon sandwiches are off limits to MPs after what happened to Milliband

View attachment 176871

That looks like the “Taste of Truss” alright.

 

[TomandJerry]

 

[beorhthelm]

....

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely
...

seems unlikely government wouldn't offer an amendment on such an important issue, especially as the motion was worded to go against their policy.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Considering the initial scandal had basically nothing to do with her, she seems hell bent on placing herself at the heart of it (and not in a good way)

Her political instincts are terrible

I'm less sure.

I think she wants the sack. I think she knows that the post office scandal will be yesterdays chip paper in 6 months time.

What she doesn't want is association with the calamitous tory defeat she knows is coming. She wants to be able to be able to plausibly say that Sunak botched the campaign and she can do better

The whole issue of yesterday is that politicians of all hues were playing games with a serious issue. Some were worse than others.

The snp motion went beyond calling for a ceasefire it aimed to apportion blame. Knowing this would be problematic for both tories and labour. More the latter as the former are shameless.

The tories were not planning to offer an amendment as they saw labour as the only losers in this debate. Labour then did offer an amendement which in normal circs would have been ok. Labour's amendment took blame out and did explain a ceasefire needs work from bot sides and did offer a what next element. Ironically thos is where france, nz, australia and canada alreay are as states national policy and US are moving there too. Should labour have got there quicker? Yes definitely

Tories then offer an amendment as they could see the snp trap has failed. Playing the system as it were.

Hoyle did break convention but he didnt break the rules or indeed precedent. As the letter above explains

Tories then pulled their amendment because they knew they would be subject to a rebellion of their own as many on their party would back the labour position (indeed many in snp do too). Point is their amendment never had the votes and was only put forward to try and stop the labour amendment being debated. That was trying to use the convention for party political games.

But rather than just losing they decided to take their ball home too. Snp then walked out too.

If tories hadnt offered an amendment there wouldn't have been the issue we had yesterday. As for tories ditching Hoyle? He has been ineffective at pmq's so they need to be careful what they wish for as the replacement could be a lot worse for them

This is exactly how I see it.

SNP are the big losers here. They look like (because they were) they are taking their removal; of some parliamentary advantage as a more serious matter than the war in Gaza. They were obviously setting traps and have been caught.

The Tories don't look amazing. Their actions are initially confusing to understand. But it very much looks like they were trying to avoid their MP's not backing it.

Labour are provisionally the ones who come out of this looking not too bad. With the proviso that they are now open to accusations, whether true or not of bullying the speaker. It's also unclear if they benefit or lose from the general degredation of parliament we saw last night. Probably lose. but there's an opportunity here. They can go into the election on a platform of parliamentary reform. Really make a play of throwing out all the anachronisms

 

[Randy McNob]

I did the staying up thing when Kinnock was expected to win. Young, heart on sleeve, and rather unaware of how economics need to work in those days. I felt heartbroken when it all went tits up.

Now having voted Tory ever since Blair was ousted I will certainly not be doing so this time around. Either Labour or not bother, probably the former as I do like a strong government.

So you gave John Major the thumbs down but austerity and brexit a big thumbs up?