A Political Thread pt. 2

[Reiser99]

So according to a yougov poll of 507 tory party members Truss won the debate hands down on all areas except for being prime ministerial, which Sunak took by 1%.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62273292?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62dfcecc1136d922db66f897%26Truss%20outperformed%20Sunak%20in%20debate%20-%20Tory%20members%20poll%262022-07-26T13%3A10%3A42.619Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:39c11285-ec79-446c-bb71-bdf2e4e4c011&pinned_post_asset_id=62dfcecc1136d922db66f897&pinned_post_type=share

Obviously you can't completely trust polls, but considering Sunak's camp have been making the most noise about winning the debate so far as I can see, that's got to be pretty damning.

 

[General Melchett]

So according to a yougov poll of 507 tory party members Truss won the debate hands down on all areas except for being prime ministerial, which Sunak took by 1%.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62273292?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62dfcecc1136d922db66f897%26Truss%20outperformed%20Sunak%20in%20debate%20-%20Tory%20members%20poll%262022-07-26T13%3A10%3A42.619Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:39c11285-ec79-446c-bb71-bdf2e4e4c011&pinned_post_asset_id=62dfcecc1136d922db66f897&pinned_post_type=share

Obviously you can't completely trust polls, but considering Sunak's camp have been making the most noise about winning the debate so far as I can see, that's got to be pretty damning.

Truss was already well ahead in the (Tory membership) opinion polls before last night's debate and so it was always likely that the latest poll would show her winning regardless of how she actually performed in the debate. All it shows is that Tory party members don't really change their minds pre/post TV debates.

Truss had the advantage of just having to keep things ticking over and not implode whereas Sunak had to take risks and go for the jugular. It'll be interesting to see if there is any difference in tonight's debate.

 

[Which Tyler]

Our Running Coach Analyzes Senator Josh Hawley’s January 6 Sprint

Hawley is lucky that his awkward run didn’t end in injury, writes Zoë Rom

www.outsideonline.com

At a Capitol Hill hearing last night, the January 6th committee prompted a dramatic audience reaction when they played video of Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) fleeing insurrectionists.
As a running coach, I had a similarly visceral reaction. His form! His apparel! His complete and utter lack of regard for democratic norms!
Let's break it down.
Whether you're on a jog around the neighborhood or fleeing the violent mobs whose fury you stoked for your own political gain, you'll want to make sure you have a good forward lean. A keen eye will notice Sen. Hawley's torso is straighter than Mike Pence's freshly cleared search history. Runners will often struggle with a forward lean because they haven't developed enough core stability. However, in Hawley's case, it may be due to the absence of any spine. I'd recommend some lower core work and/or the adherence to any core values whatsoever.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

And a government based on precedence that they can choose to ignore or be selective on precedence is better?

At least with them voting to change the rules they have to commit to it publicly. At the moment the rules, especially ones around behaviour of those in government change so often no one knows what they are anymore. I know it won't happen anytime soon, but at the moment our democracy us broken.

Not saying it's better, just saying that as long as Parliament can simply ignore any rules put on it by make a new rule with a simple majority, any attempt to apply codified restraints will be useless. Before any other changes are made, some process to ensure Parliament cannot simply vote a law limiting it out of existence needs to be done.

Eg Parliament now could make a law saying you need 67% of the vote to change the Constitution and the next Parliament could simply make a new law saying that law isn't valid. It's a completely stupid system that means the only check on Parliament are the MPs themselves. They can simply vote away anything else.

 

[Reiser99]

Not saying it's better, just saying that as long as Parliament can simply ignore any rules put on it by make a new rule with a simple majority, any attempt to apply codified restraints will be useless. Before any other changes are made, some process to ensure Parliament cannot simply vote a law limiting it out of existence needs to be done.

Eg Parliament now could make a law saying you need 67% of the vote to change the Constitution and the next Parliament could simply make a new law saying that law isn't valid. It's a completely stupid system that means the only check on Parliament are the MPs themselves. They can simply vote away anything else.

I see what you mean. I guess in theory they could do that but if you need a 70% majority no government is likely to get that.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Debate called off after Kate McCann faints/collapses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62273292?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62e02ab67ee7d84cb2283b35%26Watch%3A%20Moment%20debate%20is%20disrupted%20after%20crash%20heard%262022-07-26T17%3A57%3A40.714Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:a6835912-9cae-49a2-a748-750ca59bc186&pinned_post_asset_id=62e02ab67ee7d84cb2283b35&pinned_post_type=share

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Boris Johnson says meeting with ex-KGB agent Alexander Lebedev was social event

Boris Johnson tells MPs officials did not need to be present at Alexander Lebedev event.

www.bbc.co.uk

They just keep coming.

 

[Which Tyler]

Boris Johnson says meeting with ex-KGB agent Alexander Lebedev was social event

Boris Johnson tells MPs officials did not need to be present at Alexander Lebedev event.

www.bbc.co.uk

They just keep coming.

Either:
He's lying
Or
He was too drunk to remember
I'll allow that both things can be true

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Debate called off after Kate McCann faints/collapses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62273292?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62e02ab67ee7d84cb2283b35%26Watch%3A%20Moment%20debate%20is%20disrupted%20after%20crash%20heard%262022-07-26T17%3A57%3A40.714Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:a6835912-9cae-49a2-a748-750ca59bc186&pinned_post_asset_id=62e02ab67ee7d84cb2283b35&pinned_post_type=share

I'm going straight to hell for repeating this comment I saw but... "Rishi's wallet fell out of his pocket".

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Honestly despite the countless lows we have had as a nation Truss being PM is the biggest embarrassment I have seen.

Literally all the media is pushing truss soooo much and it's like is this the best the right actually have?

Like Johnson is a Buffon but even if you don't like him you can't say he isn't a great campaigner he has charisma with no morals so will say anything.

 

[Amiga500]

Not saying it's better, just saying that as long as Parliament can simply ignore any rules put on it by make a new rule with a simple majority, any attempt to apply codified restraints will be useless. Before any other changes are made, some process to ensure Parliament cannot simply vote a law limiting it out of existence needs to be done.

Eg Parliament now could make a law saying you need 67% of the vote to change the Constitution and the next Parliament could simply make a new law saying that law isn't valid. It's a completely stupid system that means the only check on Parliament are the MPs themselves. They can simply vote away anything else.

Problem is the house of lords is a useless entity.

It should be replaced. IMO with each registered professional body* being able to elect a representative.

House of Commons - (supposedly) representing the common people
House of Professions - (supposedly) representing expertise

Of course, the imbalance that currently exists between the two houses should be eradicated.

I'd actually go one step further and suggest only the house of professions should be able to propose laws**, and they are vetted by the house of commons.

*may need a member threshold or some form of credibility threshold

**as they are much more likely to be carefully considered with proper broad collaboration rather than adversarial party politics.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Whilst I'm no fan of hereditary ***les etc. hasn't the house of lords saved our skin numerous times under the Tories?

 

[Amiga500]

Whilst I'm no fan of hereditary ***les etc. hasn't the house of lords saved our skin numerous times under the Tories?

While they have intervened and fair play

Several arguments against.

Look how many nominations wakner is making. With a continued collection of mays, his and probably truss' cronies in future, that sanity check is likely to become less sane.

They haven't intervened in many other things.

They aren't any more qualified to understand individual issues than the house of commons.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Keir Starmer sacks shadow transport minister who backed rail strikes

Sam Tarry defied Sir Keir Starmer by joining striking rail workers on the picket line.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour said he had been fired for making unauthorised media appearances.

Sigh
Labour better hope the Tories continue to self destruct once BoJo is gone because they're hardly winning hearts and minds atm

 

[Gavin]

Keir Starmer sacks shadow transport minister who backed rail strikes

Sam Tarry defied Sir Keir Starmer by joining striking rail workers on the picket line.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sigh
Labour better hope the Tories continue to self destruct once BoJo is gone because they're hardly winning hearts and minds atm

I really don't understand why Starmer feels the need to distance himself from supporting the strikes.

Perhaps he feels the demonisation of the unions is going to be agreed with by the Red Wall who he is trying to woo back across the divide.

 

[ncurd]

I mean they've been quite specific it was nothing to do with joining the picket itself but contradicting policy in a televised interview.

Still it was a guy making a matyr of himself by deciding to join one the day after Starmer said the top team should not be doing so. So it feel like finding an excuse other than joining one.

Yay Labour factionalism!

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

An interesting article on the HIMARS missile system in Ukraine, provided by the US. It does nothing to allay my concerns that some of the most vocal supporters of Ukraine (who are doing good things) do not want Ukraine winning quickly or retaking pre-2014 borders. For example, Poland are looking to order 500 HIMARS systems. The US have provided a total of 20 to Ukraine and the mood music sounds like they are reluctant to provide more. Ukraine and Poland are comparably sized countries.

‘The Russians have nothing equivalent’: How HIMARS help Ukraine

The US-made system has struck Russia’s advance and is the weapon of choice on NATO’s eastern flank.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Reiser99]

An interesting article on the HIMARS missile system in Ukraine, provided by the US. It does nothing to allay my concerns that some of the most vocal supporters of Ukraine (who are doing good things) do not want Ukraine winning quickly or retaking pre-2014 borders. For example, Poland are looking to order 500 HIMARS systems. The US have provided a total of 20 to Ukraine and the mood music sounds like they are reluctant to provide more. Ukraine and Poland are comparably sized countries.

‘The Russians have nothing equivalent’: How HIMARS help Ukraine

The US-made system has struck Russia’s advance and is the weapon of choice on NATO’s eastern flank.

www.aljazeera.com

I imagine there is a genuine concern of US military hardware falling into Russian hands. Look what happened in Afghanistan.

 

[Which Tyler]

I imagine there is a genuine concern of US military hardware falling into Russian hands. Look what happened in Afghanistan.

Plus, Poland is in NATO, Ukraine isn't. Poland is buying them, Ukraine is relying on charity. Poland might order 500 (or 200, or 100, of 50), Ukraine has 20.

 

[ncurd]

I mean if that's true regardless of the picket line stuff its a perfectly understandable reason to sack someone even if you agree with what they are saying. I mean essentially he booked himself to to speak publicly against the guy he works for.