General British politics discussion thread

Just because he's the spawn of the devil doesn't mean he doesn't tell the truth - in fact a devil needs to speak quite a lot of truth to be able to get away with the odd untruth.

Ha, Cummings a beacon of truth, said literally no one ever. Look, everybody knew of his and Kuennsbergs cosy little relationship anyway, it was westminsters worst kept secret. Its insulting peoples intelligence to even try and dispute that. But the real issue with Kuennsberg goes beyond anything to do with sources and to the crucial issue of trust and judgement. When a source gets in touch to inform you a tory official has been punched by a labour activist and you rush to spew that "news" out to your followers without conducting even the faintest trace of due diligence, im afraid you risk facing stern questions about your judgement and reliability. And that wasn't by any means an isolated incident, there has been a clear pattern of this with Laura Kuennsberg.

The funny thing is, i wondered whether I hadn't overstepped the mark a little when i said earlier you couldn't stand George Monbiot. Needn't have worried, i underestimated you. From your ad hominem it's clear you not just can't stand him, you viscerally loathe him. He really boils your blood.

Well, that's a relief. For a while, i was thinking to myself, god this man must have done something bad to you, made a pass at your girlfriend one night, tried to nick your pint. But no, you don't actually care a hoot about him one bit. That's good to know.

The thing is, when i initially mentioned Monbiot, I did say "iirc" and I don't think I did, at least i checked and can't find any link to him and Laura Kuennsberg so it must have been someone else who came up with it. So if you're reading George, I owe you a massive apology, you don't belong in this conversation at all!

What you say about Kuennsberg and opinions i don't fully agree with. A big part of her brief is weighing up events and analysing, i think it would be silly to expect this to come without some latitude to offer an opinion. Again, what it boils down to is judgement and a bit of skill and savvy in skirting that line you will always be dancing around. Kuennsberg fails that test too many times for my liking, i think her judgement is poor and lacking. That's my opinion anyway.

Leaving Monbiot out of it (again, sorry man), the comparison i would make is with Beth Rigby, who if I'm not mistaken, is her direct counterpart on sky, just without the public brief. As long as I've watched rigby, i honestly could not hazard even the remotest guess as to what way she swings politically. She could be a rabid right winger, have her bedroom decked out in farage and Johnson posters for all I know, but she comes across as scrupulously fair and incisive in her work and that's all i ever ask for someone in that position.

Couple of by-elections on the way, nothing too competitive but there's still usually some information in the swings.

First up is the wonderfully named 'Old Bexley and Sidcup' on the 2nd December. One of those constituencies that merit nothing more than 'Conservative hold' at the bottom of the screen on GE night. The late James Brokenshire won with 65% in 2019. Doubtless another Conservative win, but the percentage will be the tell.

2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election - Wikipedia

After that there will need to be by-elections early next year for the Sir David Amees & Owen Paterson constituencies. The later looks the more interesting, whilst again it's a safe seat (60%+ for Paterson) that has been Tory since it's creation, Labour did come close in 1997.

You may be right, but it may also indicate a movement from some (particularly younger) voters from the Conservatives to the Greens. After all, a similar thing is happening in Ireland where one of the threats to Fine Gael is also the Green party.

Now whether these younger people actually vote (and I see that Barack Obama is at COP trying to encourage them), is another matter. But if they do, it may hive off enough Tory votes to let Labour win in some constituencies.

I really can't imagine that there is any sort of swing vote between Tories and Greens.

More likely some Labour has gone Green but balanced by similar numbers of Tories going Labour

I think this was long mooted as a possibility, that even with his huge majority, they wouldn't be slow to ditch Johnson as soon as the veneer of his populism wore off and he was deemed an electoral liability. Thatcher, remember, delivered an even bigger majority in '87 and was gone 3 years later so the numbers are no guarantee of impregnability. We were reminded last week too of the power and influence the telegraph retains over Johnson, if they were to turn on him for any reason, that could easily spell the beginning of the end for him.

Very noticeable that a lot of the internal anger was being driven by the newer intake of mps, a generally younger set who aren't as steeped in the arrogance and entitlement of the older crew and were simply appalled at what they witnessed, albeit hardly saying much for their sense of judgement if they were that shocked by it! And, of course, given all the stuff swirling around randox and testing contracts, phones going missing, messages being wiped etc, they must be terrified at more stuff emerging that will make all this, the absurd Geoffrey Cox included, look like chicken feed.

I think it's not merely the whiff of scandal, but more the lack of judgement and jarring complacency that is alarming tories. Taking that risk for Paterson, for whatever reason, was simply reckless and stupid. If they'd jettisoned him, and latterly Cox too, there's every chance they'd have got through this and also further limited the damage by dragging opposition politicians into the murk and broadening the public disdain. It's that complacency will be his undoing, if not now then sooner rather than later and quite noticeable, sunak keeping his powder dry this past week, though did see him on one of the channels a while back.

It's an interesting mix Johnson has coming to him. The soft right "I work hard for my money" types will put up with a serious amount of unpalatable social and foreign affairs moves from the Tories as long as their taxes and jobs are ok. But one thing they won't take is sleaze and corruption (if it doesn't benefit them)

On the other side has the hard right who won't care about this but will hate what he is saying at Cop

"Time constraints" or "unforseen production glitch" or "tiredness" due to overworking, always some excuse with the bbc as when they edited out the audience laughing at Johnson or "inadvertently" used a 3 year old clip of the cenotaph wreath placing. Whenever this crops up, though, can never stop being reminded of that Thick of It scene where Tucker barges into the edit booth and stands over their shoulder while they work. Think that was itv but same difference really.

There was a brilliant edit a few years back where the lads on The Thick of It are watching an interview of a politician who has a blinking twitch when he is lying and perfectly spliced in a Jeremy Hunt interview

The lads at South Park admitted to being in crisis after the Trump vote because they couldn't outdo the real world for wacky BS anymore. It was just beyond satire.

Parts of that Brexit border patrol show were good too. Great premise but the humour was tame and Ide love to have seen it in Ianucci's hands.