General British politics discussion thread

Best government money can buy. Even if you're a fake Korean business in a prank set up by Led By Donkeys.

The picture of Matt Hancock in the article is a winner.

It's fuking stupid for Labour to making headlines for themselves like this.

I just don't see the logic of doing this from Labours pov.

If Corbyn stands they are going to have to put some campaign time and resources into Islington North which is a total waste. Surely better to just accept it as a slam-dunk Labour win by an MP who is just going to be a uncooperative back-bencher. Every party has them - after all Corbyn was MP throughout the Blair/Brown premierships.

Take your easy wins and put your resources into the 110 target seats you need to get an overall majority.

I can kind of understand Labour doing this, Corbyn did just release a statement directly criticising Starmer. If he is so desperate to remain ideologically pure, he needs to find a new party. He probably should have been pushed out after losing the leadership, he had nothing more to offer the party and has only been using the party to promote himself.

The fact is, Corbyn had his chance to lead the party and he made such a hash of it, the Tories waltzed to a massive majority which is the foundation for some of what we are seeing today. He has done more to facilitate the right than to further the left. He's a beaten docket, nobody should care what he says. His views on Ukraine show how what a liability he is.

Agree though that it isn't good look for Labour. Maybe they see that constituency as win/win, they are take the seat or Corbyn does, no chance the Tories take it. He's just a grumpy old man, he'll fade into irrelevance as an independent. Even if he keeps his seat this time, he'll be gone in the following election.

The reason they are doing this, the reason they had to do this, is that Corbyn continues to cast a very dark shadow over Labour and particularly Starmer. It is to go to get out of jail card whenever a government minister is faced with a difficult question.

Corbyn is distraction and a weakness for the LP and as such he needed to be dealt with. Its far more painful then it needs to be and COrbyn, if he really cared for the LP would accept that it is in the best interests of the party, and the country if you are that way politically, to avoid these types of issues and fade into the background.

If grumpy old man is your sthick, then I suggest Jeramy Corbyn takes example from Bernie Sanders. Fight the battles you can win.

Another of the many failings of FPtP. Corbyn and his close allies should have been their own party but that's suicide in England.

The two things are linked. The UK electoral syatem is designed to minimise the power of the voter, in favour of maximising the power of the dominant political parties. The result is that the political parties don't have to be particularly good at what they do, or particularly successful, in order to retain power; the system strongly entrenches them.

It is often noted that UK political parties are among the longest-lived parties anywhere in the democratic worlds. In most other democracies parties form, split, merge, rise, fall, dissolve, reform; in the UK the major parties just go on and on and on. They don't need to be particularly good to do this because, even if they are particularly bad, they are still pretty much assured that they will always be either the govermment, or the government in waiting. Thus the Tory party can have,, e.g., a succession of disastrously incompetent leaders, chosen in an obviously not-fit-for-purpose leadership selection process, without having its position seriously threatened. Yes, they'll lose the next election, but they'll still be the official oppoisition, and the only feasible alternative government.

The only other country to have similarly long-lilved political parties governing in a duopoly is the United States, where — gasp! — they also have the first-past-the-post electoral sytem. What a surprise!

It doesn't just make for poor political leadership. It also means that if you have a pet project you want to advance, you don't need — and would probably be wasting time and resources if you tried — to build up a consensus among voters in favour of the project. You need to enter one or other of the major parties, and seek to take over control of the party. Then you can implement your radical ideas without the tiresome bother of persuading voters that they are a good idea.

Case in point: Brexit. The UK has had a far harder Brexit than could ever have hoped to secure support from the voters, if support from the voters were required.

Another factor is that those from the political extremes have no choice but to join the Tories or Labour if they want become an MP (a huge flaw in the system).

psycho didn't like that lol

Which is handy for them because whichever side can benefit better from a failing government can come to the fore. Like Clegg targeting young voters or the current march on the Tory home counties.

He didn't just target students though. A lot of natural Labour voters who came of age under the toxic Blair seem to have been swayed by him not just students.

Yep, it is that crazy. I'm currently going through SC vetting and it ain't for £50k..

The salary for the head of cyber security is unreal, no chance will they attract anyone with any experienece and that is the problem when the Tories disembowel the public sector

The Tories getting slaughtered on Question Time for the second week running. Fiona Bruce asked for a show of hands for support for the so called Illegal Migration Bill (which is supposed to be hugely popular with the public) and one solitary auld fella in the audience raised his hand.

Are the opinions of the GB News crowd being hugely overrepresented? Every attack on the Tories by members of the audience was met with loud applause.

It wouldn't be so bad if that charted course was not straight for the rocks..

We are allowed make our own agreements.

We agreed to join the common market and we get to agree on what happens in it.

I'm British and I voted remain. What I now see is the utter sh!tshow expected from an ill-thought-out endeavour.

I assume you haven't read this analysis

Are you seriously arguing that we are missing out on something with that agreement. Or do you want to hand over control to large multinational corporations?

I just don't want to be governed by a government in Brussels. I don't want my country to be a province instead of the nation state it used to be.