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

[KZNSeagull]

Actually, in his speech on Friday Starmer said that the tory party needs to get rid of Johnson now rather than let him hang on as he sees fit. He argued that when Teresa May stayed on, she was being removed because of policy disagreement, not because her colleagues considered her to be untrustworthy or dishonest. He said that, if the tories don't oust Johnson, that Labour would step up and call a vote of no confidence in the house, requiring the tories to either vote that they have confidence in a leader they had just got rid of because they were sick of his lies, or vote for the motion, thus bringing on a general election at a time when they don't have a leader. My thought was that this would put the tories in such an impossible position that they would have no choice, but to get him out themselves this week. I tuned in on Friday night expecting this to be discussed as the possibility of an immediate general election seemed to be something of note. Nope - Wasn't even mentioned. I tuned in tonight thinking that the subject might now be up for discussion following the 1922 committee elections. Nothing mentioned again.

Neither was Starmer being cleared covered, a story that was featured multiple times on the programme before confirmation that there was no case to answer, neither was him ruling out any possibility of a coalitiion with the SNP.

The editors decide what the news is and they seem to think that there is only one subject of note.

Very interesting - as you say all of those stories have been covered elsewhere on the BBC.

 

[nicko31]

It’s quite clear that Tim Davie has done a job on Newsnight. There was a recent show with Mark Urban presenting; he just let the Tory he was interviewing off the hook completely. If Paxman had been there, the Tory would have been toast but Urban was just excepting a load of BS from the Tory.

We’ll have to wait until Davie is gone before the show is revitalised.

I thought all the MSM was against the Tories?

 

[Deleted member 2719]

He’s basically ripping the piss out of those you worship, if you found him funny you’d basically be laughing and ridiculing yourself.
I used to find him a bit over the top but considering the behaviour of the cretins that he lampoons he’s pretty much on the money.

Let’s face it ‘the thick of it’ used to be a comedy programme … now it’s a documentary on Tory government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hit a bit too close to home huh?

This actually just proves my point, even more, the Left is very angry and insulting of others all the time and they even find that type of humour is funny to the point of endorsing it.


Sorry guys, it's all very odd and very unprofessional IMO.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

He isn't actually and one of his original writers is a now a contributor to GB News.

You know, that channel that replaced babestation for men of a particularly demographic.

I'm sure the above information will make your brain explode, but here is a picture of a 1970s launderette to calm you down.

This a well known calming technique and I encourage others to do the same. Pictures of white dog shit are apparently very effective as are screenshots of Mike Reid's Runaround but I'm never tried them.

I am not sure you have seen my point its the angry left that needs calming down, I just said I don't understand their strategy of getting middle ground voters its weird.......like watching washing machines.


What was wrong with babestation?

 

[Baldseagull]

This actually just proves my point, even more, the Left is very angry and insulting of others all the time and they even find that type of humour is funny to the point of endorsing it.


Sorry guys, it's all very odd and very unprofessional IMO.

There has been a lot of that about lately.

 

[Acker79]

[tweet]1546548083340808192[/tweet]
(for avoidance of doubt, yes, this is a parody account)

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

This actually just proves my point, even more, the Left is very angry and insulting of others all the time and they even find that type of humour is funny to the point of endorsing it.


Sorry guys, it's all very odd and very unprofessional IMO.

I think you may have missed the point. When a parody is hard to distinguish from reality then you have a problem.

The fact that you have missed it entirely is in itself rather amusing … and odd if I’m honest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Machiavelli]

I watched a lot of Newsnight last week and it had guests from all ends of the political spectrum.... of the tory party. Thangam Debbonaire was the only Labour voice I saw represented. Left wing journalist Ash Sarkar was on another segment. No Lib Dems all week, no SNP. Given the circumstances I could understand that there would be a lot of tory noise, but despite Starmer and Rayner being cleared and Starmer giving a press conference about it on Friday and Starmer giving another press conference today, its still been almost nothing but wall to wall tories: three in studio tonight and nobody from any other party. When there are journalists, they often have at least two out of three from right wing journals. Katy Balls of The Spectator seems to have a season ticket. Its not the whole organisation, BBC News covered Starmer's speeches, but Newsnight's editorial policy seems to be more and more of the view that there is only one party in British politics. I'm getting a bit sick of it,

This is how the BBC construe 'balance' and 'political neutrality' these days, with Davie very much to the fore. It's just a beauty parade for one party getting maximum exposure through their latest act of theatre. All achieved through the threat of removing the licensing fee and the privatisation of C4. If the situation was reversed (although it would never be allowed, because the Labour Party would never get away with such levels of psycho-drama), the press and the Tory Party would be spitting feathers that all the leftie, lovie BBC are churning out Labour, Labour, Labour and they can't get a word in -- what about balance they'd say, what about equal air time? Surely the opposition party should get more air time than the incumbent government so the public -- paying so much for the license fee -- can be versed in alternative policies to those provided by the government, they would insist.

 

[The Clamp]

This actually just proves my point, even more, the Left is very angry and insulting of others all the time and they even find that type of humour is funny to the point of endorsing it.


Sorry guys, it's all very odd and very unprofessional IMO.

You are laughably stupid.

 

[The Clamp]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/12/labour-to-call-for-confidence-vote-in-boris-johnson

Ridiculous that we have to chase a VONC to get someone who has apparently resigned, out of office.

What a joke we have become.

 

[JBizzle]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/12/labour-to-call-for-confidence-vote-in-boris-johnson

Ridiculous that we have to chase a VONC to get someone who has apparently resigned, out of office.

What a joke we have become.

A VONC to remove a Tory PM, dethroned by the very same Torys who will then vote against removal in a VONC, I suspect.

They really don't know their **** from their elbow, do they?

 

[beorhthelm]

This is how the BBC construe 'balance' and 'political neutrality' these days, with Davie very much to the fore. It's just a beauty parade for one party getting maximum exposure through their latest act of theatre. All achieved through the threat of removing the licensing fee and the privatisation of C4. If the situation was reversed (although it would never be allowed, because the Labour Party would never get away with such levels of psycho-drama), the press and the Tory Party would be spitting feathers that all the leftie, lovie BBC are churning out Labour, Labour, Labour and they can't get a word in -- what about balance they'd say, what about equal air time? Surely the opposition party should get more air time than the incumbent government so the public -- paying so much for the license fee -- can be versed in alternative policies to those provided by the government, they would insist.

except it was the same for the Labour party leader election wasnt it? constant coverage, programmes dedicated to it. there isnt really a "balance" to be had with in the scope of a party leadership contest.

 

[Baldseagull]

This is how the BBC construe 'balance' and 'political neutrality' these days, with Davie very much to the fore. It's just a beauty parade for one party getting maximum exposure through their latest act of theatre. All achieved through the threat of removing the licensing fee and the privatisation of C4. If the situation was reversed (although it would never be allowed, because the Labour Party would never get away with such levels of psycho-drama), the press and the Tory Party would be spitting feathers that all the leftie, lovie BBC are churning out Labour, Labour, Labour and they can't get a word in -- what about balance they'd say, what about equal air time? Surely the opposition party should get more air time than the incumbent government so the public -- paying so much for the license fee -- can be versed in alternative policies to those provided by the government, they would insist.

To be fair, if the main topic is the Tory leadership race, why would you have as many Labour MP's giving an opinion as Tories? It only takes one to mention how although any candidate would all be an improvement on Boris, most, if not all the candidates were telling us how great he was just a couple of weeks ago.
Their squabbling over which unsuitable person they back is better for Labour than Tories, it highlights the paucity of quality politicians in their ranks.

 

[Pevenseagull]

....anyway, where were we?

 

[Bob!]

Pritti not standing

 

[vegster]

Slytherin, Mogg and Dorries, have thrown their block vote behind Truss, apparently because she is more anti Europe than they are.

 

[Acker79]

[tweet]1546794107946803200[/tweet]

[tweet]1546807178777993217[/tweet]

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

So the UK will shortly have an unelected Prime Minister along with an unelected Head of State and an unelected Second Chamber.

So much for the Mother of all Parliaments

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

So the UK will shortly have an unelected Prime Minister along with an unelected Head of State and an unelected Second Chamber.

So much for the Mother of all Parliaments

But an elected party as that is our system.

 

[Gwylan]

Actually, in his speech on Friday Starmer said that the tory party needs to get rid of Johnson now rather than let him hang on as he sees fit. He argued that when Teresa May stayed on, she was being removed because of policy disagreement, not because her colleagues considered her to be untrustworthy or dishonest. He said that, if the tories don't oust Johnson, that Labour would step up and call a vote of no confidence in the house, requiring the tories to either vote that they have confidence in a leader they had just got rid of because they were sick of his lies, or vote for the motion, thus bringing on a general election at a time when they don't have a leader.

This isn't quite right. What would happen if the Tories lost a VONC is that they have a set period of time to find another leader. I think it's two weeks, but it could be a week. What it would mean is that the Tory members wouldn't get a chance to vote for the leader as an election couldn't be organised in time. That's something that could lead to friction within the party - there's already disquiet about the way that Johnson's been kicked out. preventing the members from choosing a successor would get the gammon pot frothing over.