General British politics discussion thread

I personally couldn't care less.

But pointing out that Channel 4 isn't some beacon of public service broadcasting.

Free market ideology is probably to blame.

Well they had a pretty exposing piece on Sunack the other night, about his upbringing not being as modest as he makes out, that his parents paid for him to go to one of the most expensive schools in the country while his supporters were claiming he got a scholarship, that when in USA he was involved with companies in the Cayman Islands, etc. I certainly couldn't see BBC going that "gloves off", will be interesting to see if Truss gets the same treatment.

RIP David Trimble. Not sure how I feel about his contribution to UK, Irish and Northern Irish politics.

He seemed at the time to be dragged screaming into the Good Friday Agreement, but did the correct thing in the end, and his party paid a hefty price.

His legacy will be that he done a lot for peace on the island.

I wonder why the conveyer of the first debate allowed so much speaking time to Sunack and significantly less tome to truss

Why also did she allow Sunack to be constantly butting in on a truss . Truss would be half ways to making her point when Sunack , on most occasions, would overspeak her. Bias comes to mind

Starmer sacks Tarry because Tarry went on the picket line today. If Labour cannot show support for striking workers, what on earth are they for? You might as well vote Tory

Sunak (your spelling just looks kinda weird, but no big deal).

I didn't read anything untoward into it. Ultimately it's an editorial decision as to whether you are going to let them debate in a robust method, or a strict 'your turn'. They are both perfectly valid ways of doing it. If one person grabs more time and the other person doesn't respond and force their way in, then so be it.

As I understand it there is no 'equal time' broadcasting rule that has to be adhered to in this 'intra party' debate. When it's Starmer v Truss (or Sunak) in two years time then there'll obviously be strictly agreed rules.

This is what the Blairites wanted.

Could have taken the best of what Corbyn was and merged it with a moderate stance and more electable leader but no it was straight back to full on Thatcher light.

Blair wasn't far from Thatcher at all.

Here's a Guardian article:

Here's Thatcher on Blair:

Here's the man himself:

Tony Blair: 'My job was to build on some Thatcher policies'

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has described Baroness Thatcher as "a towering political figure" whose legacy will be felt worldwide.

Mr Blair said Lady Thatcher had always been "immensely kind" to him.

He added: "I always thought my job was to build on some of the things she had done rather than reverse them.

"Many of the things she said, even though they pained people like me on the left... had a certain creditability."

Lol, so Rachel Reeves should expect the bullet for going off script re nationalisation of the railways should she?

Sunak’s story re family entering the UK is of interest . He would like you to believe that they were very poor when they came, etc, etc, etc . It would be of interest to find out the status of the relatives back home in India. Also the family owned and ran a pharmacy. Where did it get the finance to set one up. And was it necessary to have a degree in pharmacy before one is qualified to run a pharmacy.

it would not surprise me if the family came from a wealthy background back in India.

re his family working very, very hard - of course eg the Irish on the building sites did not . Only the Sunaks worked very hard. Everyone else just worked