[Macros]

Don't get me started on the Christians and 'marriage' nonsense. Fuck I hate people sometimes.
The likely hood of labour getting it's shit together is looking increasingly unlikely, not that labour is much of a stretch from the fucking Tories these days anyway, and as such we're probably heading for another torie gov, headed by May, whilst we gleefully hammer ourselves into recession with Brexit.
And it's still raining


I'm moving

[Tiste Simeon]

Macros, on 07 July 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Don't get me started on the Christians and 'marriage' nonsense. Fuck I hate people sometimes.
The likely hood of labour getting it's shit together is looking increasingly unlikely, not that labour is much of a stretch from the fucking Tories these days anyway, and as such we're probably heading for another torie gov, headed by May, whilst we gleefully hammer ourselves into recession with Brexit.
And it's still raining


I'm moving

What's even scarier is that we might end up with a Tory/UKIP coalition...

I think May will call a General Election fairly soon tbh but if the Labour party can't get their act together, they won't win anything. They could unite and do so under a banner of "We will not invoke article 50" and it would probably do well, but I fear that won't be the case...

[Solidsnape]

https://www.theguard...-genuine-change

I haven't really weighed in here, and I'm not going to.
But I read this today. 🤔

By the by, as someone who gets paid in £'s and buy his bacon in €'s, I'm losing a fair bit of money compared to this time last month.

This post has been edited by Solidsnape: 08 July 2016 - 08:52 AM

[Gorefest]

A bit delusional, this writer. Nothing will change, it's just more austerity and a rollback in gradually acquired employee rights and consumer safety. Claiming that the UK has 'taken one for the team' and that we have delivered a wake-up call to the EU is either downright narcissistic or a vain attempt at self-delusion to make the result feel less painful.

It strikes me that most of the people writing these newspaper opinion columns are people who have enough of a safety cushion themselves to avoid most of the truly painful hits from an EU withdrawal. The people who will bear the brunt of it ironically will be the same people who probably voted to leave and who are also not eloquent or connected enough to ever get to write an opinion column in a national newspaper. You do have to wonder when both politics and the media finally wake up to the realisation that the bubble that they operate in excludes a vast swathe of the voter and consumer base. But I guess if this referendum result hasn't done it, nothing will. Business as usual.

[Werthead]

Interesting suggestions that the 2011 EU Act - which Cameron put in place to stop any future EU treaty like Lisbon or Maastricht being passed without a UK referendum - now requires that any "Brexit deal" be put to the British people in the form of a new referendum. This isn't related to last month's one, so the advisory result to leave the EU would still stand, but the referendum required by the 2011 act would be legally binding. In effect, it would force Britain to withdraw its Article 50 declaration if the deal is rejected by the British people (apparently Article 50 can be uninvoked once it's started, but it would likely require clarification from the EU Supreme Court) and a better deal sought.

This can only be avoided if the 2011 act is repealed - which the government has shown no sign of doing - or if there is no deal and we just leave under normal WTO trading rules.

[Maark Abbott]

Tiste Simeon, on 07 July 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

Well, at least Michael Gove isn't going to be PM, and we are - one way or another - going to get our next female PM!

I still dislike Theresa May but I do think she might be the best option (rock and a hard place anyone??)

And both of them are utterly TERRIBLE choices - one's quoting 'Bliblical' rhetoric when questioned about marriage, the other is Thatcher Part II. Having a female PM isn't a winning situation when it's someone like these nutbars.

[polishgenius]

Maark Abbott, on 08 July 2016 - 02:03 PM, said:

And both of them are utterly TERRIBLE choices - one's quoting 'Bliblical' rhetoric when questioned about marriage, the other is Thatcher Part II. Having a female PM isn't a winning situation when it's someone like these nutbars.

I honestly think that could prove quite an insulting comparison to Thatcher.

[Gorefest]

Leadsom has just withdrawn from the race, stating she felt that having only 25% of the MPs backing her was not sufficient to provide adequate leadership. So it is going to be Theresa May. Beru fend and Queen of Dreams help us all.

[Khellendros]

Gorefest, on 11 July 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Leadsom has just withdrawn from the race, stating she felt that having only 25% of the MPs backing her was not sufficient to provide adequate leadership. So it is going to be Theresa May. Beru fend and Queen of Dreams help us all.

And so another prominent Brexiter quits just when about to face any pressure or answer any questions.

The 25% of MPs thing might be *a* reason, but it's not *the* reason - it's just a dig at Corbyn and Labour. The actual reason which she will never admit to is that she had no clue as to what she was going to do. Or should I say, how she was going to do it. Just that single terrible interview the other day revealed that immediately.

[Maark Abbott]

Gorefest, on 11 July 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Leadsom has just withdrawn from the race, stating she felt that having only 25% of the MPs backing her was not sufficient to provide adequate leadership. So it is going to be Theresa May. Beru fend and Queen of Dreams help us all.

Queenie better get her arse in gear and call a general. Oh god. What have we done to deserve this?

[Mezla PigDog]

I can't decide what my feelings on the Angela Eagle leadership bid and whole Jeremy Corbyn thing but it would be interesting to see how PMQs would go with a female Prime Minister and female leader of the opposition.

I read an interesting interview with Neil Kinnock about when his leadership was challenged in 1988 (it was on the Guardian website, too lazy to link). Corbyn was in the camp of the challenger and they insisted that the leader needed the backing of 20 members of the PMP in order to go on the ballot. Corbyn is now saying that he doesn't need that and the leader should be on the ballot automatically.

[Khellendros]

Mezla PigDog, on 11 July 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

I can't decide what my feelings on the Angela Eagle leadership bid and whole Jeremy Corbyn thing but it would be interesting to see how PMQs would go with a female Prime Minister and female leader of the opposition.

I read an interesting interview with Neil Kinnock about when his leadership was challenged in 1988 (it was on the Guardian website, too lazy to link). Corbyn was in the camp of the challenger and they insisted that the leader needed the backing of 20 members of the PMP in order to go on the ballot. Corbyn is now saying that he doesn't need that and the leader should be on the ballot automatically.

That is indeed true (and was a stupid thing to do by Benn, Corbyn et al), because the leader should be on the ballot automatically unless they've decided to stand down. Otherwise, what exactly are you challenging?

I suspect that the NEC will rule that Corbyn does need nominations, which will either trigger an appeal and even more wranglings at a time when Labour can hardly afford it, or the leadership contest will go on and be held without him, in which case the winner will have 'won' without actually allowing the membership an actual choice, and that victory will always be questioned.

The only reason they're expending so much effort in saying that Corbyn cannot stand without nominations is because they realise he has a very real chance of just winning all over again, and certainly not because they just want to 'adhere to the rules.'

[Gorefest]

He'll win by a landslide. This whole situation is ludicrous. The other MPs calling him unelectable is a joke. He's just about the only believable alternative there is in the current political landscape. Apart from 'socialist' Corbyn Labour, you have UKIP and everyone else who represent big corporatinos and banking in some form or other. If the referendum has shown one thing, it is that London politics have lost touch with the grassroots. And Labour's answer to that is to cut down the only person who still seems able to reach those historical grassroot Labour voters. It's insane.

[Tiste Simeon]

Theresa May becomes PM with 0% of the vote and will most likely not call a general election. Aren't you glad we're free from that "undemocratic" EU??

This post has been edited by Tiste Simeon: 12 July 2016 - 03:22 PM

[Khellendros]

To be fair, we vote for party represenatives, not individual leaders. And the Conservatives won a 5-year term. It's not like we get to decide the Cabinet either.

Having said that, I can see May calling an early election anyway in order to take advantage of the Labour mess.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 12 July 2016 - 03:29 PM

[Khellendros]

So the NEC have actually voted 18-14 to allow Corbyn on the ballot without nominations from MPs.

And then they also voted that no one who has joined Labour in the last six months can vote in the leadership election...unless they stump up another £25 within a two-day period (18-20 July). This disenfranchises the 130,000 who have joined Labour since January.

Obviously, they believe these are mostly Corbyn supporters, but I think they've just shot themselves in the foot - again. Their only hope of beating Corbyn was to mobilise an even larger support base to join up (their "Saving Labour" campaign), but they've effectively killed this before it even got going, as the second vote disenfranchises those people too. Instead, they've tried to make Corbyn quit, and failed. They've tried to keep him off the ballot, and failed. And now they're trying to keep his supporters from voting, and they're going to fail there too.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 13 July 2016 - 07:28 AM

[Tiste Simeon]

Khellendros, on 13 July 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

So the NEC have actually voted 18-14 to allow Corbyn on the ballot without nominations from MPs.

And then they also voted that no one who has joined Labour in the last six months can vote in the leadership election...unless they stump up another £25 within a two-day period (18-20 July). This disenfranchises the 130,000 who have joined Labour since January.

Obviously, they believe these are mostly Corbyn supporters, but I think they've just shot themselves in the foot - again. Their only hope of beating Corbyn was to mobilise an even larger support base to join up (their "Saving Labour" campaign), but they've effectively killed this before it even got going, as the second vote disenfranchises those people too. Instead, they've tried to make Corbyn quit, and failed. They've tried to keep him off the ballot, and failed. And now they're trying to keep his supporters from voting, and they're going to fail there too.

I mean I don't know the full ins and outs but surely there comes a point where they go "yeah this actually isn't legal any more..." How many changes can they make without it becoming just a fixed election?

[Gorefest]

Three.

[Tiste Simeon]

Cool.

[Coltaine -]

http://www.bbc.com/n...litics-36789972

Boris Johnson is back.

Okay, I'm a bit confused. I thought he would try now to lie as low as possible. And now he is foreign secretary.

It would be a good thing if he tries to clean up the mess he caused. But he is probably someone who will add more fuel to the flames. No other brexit-supporters available for the job?