Snap General Election called

[Donny osmond]

As a teacher who went on strike last week and is supporting my colleagues who are on strike this week, I can tell you that our demands for wage increases, and I have spoken to a few postie's etc who feel the same, is only partly driven by the energy/cost of living increases. A good deal of wage rise demands is driven by genuine anger over the rich profiteering from everyone else's misery. Clearly that's been going on for years, but the way it was done during COVID and since with food, oil and energy, there is (I think) a growing feeling of them feckers shouldn't be getting away with this and if govts can find X billion down the back of the sofa for their gazillionaire mates, they can fecking well find it for everyone else too.

[Donny osmond]

sorry, my usual lack of clarity shining through again.

I'm disagreeing with Stom labelling Sandy a neo-fascist for starters, simply for having different politics.

Then there's the idea that a weary resignation that politicians of all stripes lie and cheat is somehow a justification of the actions of the conservative party.

To be clear, I’m not justifying anything that this government does. But I do recall the Campbell years so find it a bit odd not to recognise that all governments have only a passing relationship with the truth in recent years.

Yes, sorry my clarification wasn't very clear on reading it back but I was agreeing with you

[Sandydragon]

As a teacher who went on strike last week and is supporting my colleagues who are on strike this week, I can tell you that our demands for wage increases, and I have spoken to a few postie's etc who feel the same, is only partly driven by the energy/cost of living increases. A good deal of wage rise demands is driven by genuine anger over the rich profiteering from everyone else's misery. Clearly that's been going on for years, but the way it was done during COVID and since with food, oil and energy, there is (I think) a growing feeling of them feckers shouldn't be getting away with this and if govts can find X billion down the back of the sofa for their gazillionaire mates, they can fecking well find it for everyone else too.

I understand the anger.


But.....

Do they think that the strikes will hurt those people in any way? Do the top .5% use public transport, or send their kids to state schools? Or use the NHS? The people who will suffer from the strikes are those who have to use those services and who are almost certainly not in that top tier bracket.

At the moment the strikers have the majority of the public onside (except for railway workers). How long that remains that way will be interesting to see. If this drags on then expect that to change. If the Tories can pain a picture of union-created chaos that Labour is then forced to be mute on, it might rally some people to the anti-union banner.

The way to punish to Tories for handing out money to their mates is to smash them at the next election, which could still be 2 years away.

[Donny osmond]

As a teacher who went on strike last week and is supporting my colleagues who are on strike this week, I can tell you that our demands for wage increases, and I have spoken to a few postie's etc who feel the same, is only partly driven by the energy/cost of living increases. A good deal of wage rise demands is driven by genuine anger over the rich profiteering from everyone else's misery. Clearly that's been going on for years, but the way it was done during COVID and since with food, oil and energy, there is (I think) a growing feeling of them feckers shouldn't be getting away with this and if govts can find X billion down the back of the sofa for their gazillionaire mates, they can fecking well find it for everyone else too.

I understand the anger.


But.....

Do they think that the strikes will hurt those people in any way? Do the top .5% use public transport, or send their kids to state schools? Or use the NHS? The people who will suffer from the strikes are those who have to use those services and who are almost certainly not in that top tier bracket.

At the moment the strikers have the majority of the public onside (except for railway workers). How long that remains that way will be interesting to see. If this drags on then expect that to change. If the Tories can pain a picture of union-created chaos that Labour is then forced to be mute on, it might rally some people to the anti-union banner.

The way to punish to Tories for handing out money to their mates is to smash them at the next election, which could still be 2 years away.

No I get it, there are many paths we as a society could take from here and the ones with all the strikes have a pretty decent chance of turning private sector employees against public sector employees.

But as you say, the next GE isn't for years yet, the anger is real and it's now and this is the only way we have of showing our anger. Yes it might be better to run a coherent and slick public relations campaign for the next 2 years but that is a path with its own issues and pitfalls, not least a generally (still) small c conservative population and the largely sympathetic press that feeds them their outrages.

[Son of Mathonwy]

That’s every government for the past 25 years.

Not that I'm claiming Blair and Brown were bastions of honesty at all times (more than a few dead Iraqis can testify to that), but they absolutely didn't have this level of casual relationship with the truth.

Puja

Boris wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him on the arse. Blair was more polished but hardly more honest with his army of spin doctors setting the standard.

Blair was a despicable liar who (particularly over Iraq and WMDs) lowered expectations for truth from politicians. But he lied as cleverly as he could and (presumably) attempted to maintain the image of honesty.

Johnson is on a different level - a man whose very persona (constructed though it may be) seems to float on a continuous stream of self-aggrandising bullshit - a man whose first instinct on opening his mouth is to lie. His lying is much more insidious than Blair's as his strategy was to create total uncertainty by never appearing to be serious. Nothing could be taken for the truth because everything he said came with a nod and a wink. Was it a joke, was it a half-truth, was it pure bullshit? And to add to this he expected his subordinates to lie in the same way (and rewarded them accordingly). Lessons learned in the Brexit campaign showed that repeating a ridiculous lie was pretty effective. It didn't even matter if the lies or the liar were plausible (see Matt Handcock): in the face of a continuously maintained lie even the best journalists had to move on to the next question eventually. So Johnson moved us into a post-truth age of politics where no statement could really be relied on. One of the most illustrative moments of this culture was the first post-election cabinet meeting where Johnson had his ministers repeat the campaign lies about the number of new hospitals they would build and the number of new nurses to be hired etc - it was a display not of the promises they intended to keep but of pure bravado at the success of their shamelessness.

None of this is to say that Johnson is on balance better or worse than Blair. They're both monsters, just different breeds.

[Stom]

You have a short memory if you think I support this government. And the Blair government was famous for its spin. Merely quoting a fact.

Don’t call me a fascist again sonny.

The fact I think I called you a fascist says a lot...

No, this government and the past few have been on a different level to anything beforehand. We're in the age where right-wing governments routinely use the 'but Labour are just as bad' argument, and their voters lap it up. You parroting that is problematic.

Cut the crap. You’ve insulted another poster, I’ve asked you to refrain. Enough.

I apologise. I did not mean to call you fascist. But I did mean to highlight that by repeating the 'all politicians are the same' bull, you're basically supporting the campaign of the fascists, even if unintentionally. And it's a problem. And I think intelligent people should be able to look at their actions and adapt them...to be able to challenge their own views, even if those views seem mild and unobtrusive, they can be extremely damaging.

[Sandydragon]

Not that I'm claiming Blair and Brown were bastions of honesty at all times (more than a few dead Iraqis can testify to that), but they absolutely didn't have this level of casual relationship with the truth.

Puja

Boris wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him on the arse. Blair was more polished but hardly more honest with his army of spin doctors setting the standard.

Blair was a despicable liar who (particularly over Iraq and WMDs) lowered expectations for truth from politicians. But he lied as cleverly as he could and (presumably) attempted to maintain the image of honesty.

Johnson is on a different level - a man whose very persona (constructed though it may be) seems to float on a continuous stream of self-aggrandising bullshit - a man whose first instinct on opening his mouth is to lie. His lying is much more insidious than Blair's as his strategy was to create total uncertainty by never appearing to be serious. Nothing could be taken for the truth because everything he said came with a nod and a wink. Was it a joke, was it a half-truth, was it pure bullshit? And to add to this he expected his subordinates to lie in the same way (and rewarded them accordingly). Lessons learned in the Brexit campaign showed that repeating a ridiculous lie was pretty effective. It didn't even matter if the lies or the liar were plausible (see Matt Handcock): in the face of a continuously maintained lie even the best journalists had to move on to the next question eventually. So Johnson moved us into a post-truth age of politics where no statement could really be relied on. One of the most illustrative moments of this culture was the first post-election cabinet meeting where Johnson had his ministers repeat the campaign lies about the number of new hospitals they would build and the number of new nurses to be hired etc - it was a display not of the promises they intended to keep but of pure bravado at the success of their shamelessness.

None of this is to say that Johnson is on balance better or worse than Blair. They're both monsters, just different breeds.

Most politicians try to maintain and air of respectability even if they are up to all sorts in private.

Johnson was one of those who just didn’t give a shit and the bigger the rogue he was the more
People seemed to like him because he wasn’t a carbon copy grey politician.

Whilst amusing on occasion, he was utterly unfit to be PM, part of which was his utter lack of familiarity with the truth.

[kk67]

Say what you like about Liz Truss but she does have a cracking pair of knockers. She could definitely call my general erection.


Sorry about that, I know we can't say that sort of thing anymore, I was having a 1970's flashback.

Then don't.

Meh. No.

[kk67]

Apologies if I've been causing board trouble.. I think someone has been editing my posts.

[kk67]

Feck wits can go say what?

[Which Tyler]

Jonathan Pie - so NSFW

[Which Tyler]

Zahawi gone:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ishi-sunak

[Sandydragon]

Zahawi gone:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ishi-sunak

About bloody time. Sunak has properly messed up here. It was clear at the outset that Zahawi wasn’t being truthful and yet he insisted on appointing an independent review, and then sacking Zahawi once the pressure got too much. Reinforces the concept that Sunak isn’t leading his government, he’s just trying to hold his party together.

Already some commentators, Frederick Forsyth in the Telegraph, is calling for another change in leader. He wants either Frost or Wallace. One lone nutter doesn’t make a chorus, but I wouldn’t bet on Sunak making it to the next election, unless timescales change significantly.

[Mellsblue]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

[Sandydragon]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I disagree. There was clearly something amis here and whilst due process looks very good for many employers, it just paints an narrative that Sunak can't be decisive and make a big call. Maybe the investigation was needed to keep the party nutters in check, but a decisive PM (think Blair in the early day or Maggie) would have booted him much earlier and killed any discussion. This has overshadowed everything the government has been trying to do for over a week and they don't need this level of distraction.

[Stom]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I disagree. There was clearly something amis here and whilst due process looks very good for many employers, it just paints an narrative that Sunak can't be decisive and make a big call. Maybe the investigation was needed to keep the party nutters in check, but a decisive PM (think Blair in the early day or Maggie) would have booted him much earlier and killed any discussion. This has overshadowed everything the government has been trying to do for over a week and they don't need this level of distraction.

Maybe that distraction was the entire point…

[Puja]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

[Banquo]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

Pretty fair and totally nails that everything is optics and subjective these days. Oh for something else.

[Mellsblue]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

‘Your predecessors repeatedly made a mistake which means you must now repeat the mistake for all time’ is an interesting attack line.
Starmer identified Labour’s biggest weakness under he predecessor - the antiemetic underbelly - and dealt with it as it needed to be dealt with and is rightly praised. Sunak is looking to deal with one of the biggest weaknesses under his predecessors - failing to stick to due process - but is in the wrong! Horses for courses. Everything in the first nearly 100 days in office have been about deliberate, well evidenced decision making and I think that’s not only just who he is but a very public u-turn on how his predecessors ran their govts. Ultimately, this will be nothing but a footnote in history come the next election but a body of evidence that the Cons are no longer run without a care for the consequences of their actions will be front and centre, albeit it’s probably too late.
Beating someone with the following due process stick is a dangerous tactic in the long term.

[Banquo]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

‘Your predecessors repeatedly made a mistake which means you must now repeat the mistake for all time’ is an interesting attack line.
Starmer identified Labour’s biggest weakness under he predecessor - the antiemetic underbelly - and dealt with it as it needed to be dealt with and is rightly praised. Sunak is looking to deal with one of the biggest weaknesses under his predecessors - failing to stick to due process - but is in the wrong! Horses for courses. Everything in the first nearly 100 days in office have been about deliberate, well evidenced decision making and I think that’s not only just who he is but a very public u-turn on how his predecessors ran their govts. Ultimately, this will be nothing but a footnote in history come the next election but a body of evidence that the Cons are no longer run without a care for the consequences of their actions will be front and centre, albeit it’s probably too late.
Beating someone with the following due process stick is a dangerous tactic in the long term.

Starmer also needs to reflect on how Rosie Duffield has been treated.

[Puja]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

‘Your predecessors repeatedly made a mistake which means you must now repeat the mistake for all time’ is an interesting attack line.
Starmer identified Labour’s biggest weakness under he predecessor - the antiemetic underbelly - and dealt with it as it needed to be dealt with and is rightly praised. Sunak is looking to deal with one of the biggest weaknesses under his predecessors - failing to stick to due process - but is in the wrong! Horses for courses. Everything in the first nearly 100 days in office have been about deliberate, well evidenced decision making and I think that’s not only just who he is but a very public u-turn on how his predecessors ran their govts. Ultimately, this will be nothing but a footnote in history come the next election but a body of evidence that the Cons are no longer run without a care for the consequences of their actions will be front and centre, albeit it’s probably too late.
Beating someone with the following due process stick is a dangerous tactic in the long term.

Oh, absolutely it is, and I doubt it'll even need to run as far as the long term. All it takes is one good scandal sticking to Starmer himself and he'll be hoist by his own petard. "Beergate" nearly undid him and that was completely invented nonsense.

Puja

[Puja]

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

‘Your predecessors repeatedly made a mistake which means you must now repeat the mistake for all time’ is an interesting attack line.
Starmer identified Labour’s biggest weakness under he predecessor - the antiemetic underbelly - and dealt with it as it needed to be dealt with and is rightly praised. Sunak is looking to deal with one of the biggest weaknesses under his predecessors - failing to stick to due process - but is in the wrong! Horses for courses. Everything in the first nearly 100 days in office have been about deliberate, well evidenced decision making and I think that’s not only just who he is but a very public u-turn on how his predecessors ran their govts. Ultimately, this will be nothing but a footnote in history come the next election but a body of evidence that the Cons are no longer run without a care for the consequences of their actions will be front and centre, albeit it’s probably too late.
Beating someone with the following due process stick is a dangerous tactic in the long term.

Starmer also needs to reflect on how Rosie Duffield has been treated.

I will note that the attack line of "How Rosie Duffield has been treated" is something which has a lot of fantasy around the fact and also cannot be easily discussed without getting into the topic of conversation which isn't allowed on the board. I know I'm not a mod on the Politics forum, but I think we should leave it there and stay friends.

Not least because I don't want to reward the Conservatives for their culture war bullshit to distract from all their failings.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

‘Your predecessors repeatedly made a mistake which means you must now repeat the mistake for all time’ is an interesting attack line.
Starmer identified Labour’s biggest weakness under he predecessor - the antiemetic underbelly - and dealt with it as it needed to be dealt with and is rightly praised. Sunak is looking to deal with one of the biggest weaknesses under his predecessors - failing to stick to due process - but is in the wrong! Horses for courses. Everything in the first nearly 100 days in office have been about deliberate, well evidenced decision making and I think that’s not only just who he is but a very public u-turn on how his predecessors ran their govts. Ultimately, this will be nothing but a footnote in history come the next election but a body of evidence that the Cons are no longer run without a care for the consequences of their actions will be front and centre, albeit it’s probably too late.
Beating someone with the following due process stick is a dangerous tactic in the long term.

Oh, absolutely it is, and I doubt it'll even need to run as far as the long term. All it takes is one good scandal sticking to Starmer himself and he'll be hoist by his own petard. "Beergate" nearly undid him and that was completely invented nonsense.

Puja

I meant for our politics as a whole.

[Banquo]

‘Your predecessors repeatedly made a mistake which means you must now repeat the mistake for all time’ is an interesting attack line.
Starmer identified Labour’s biggest weakness under he predecessor - the antiemetic underbelly - and dealt with it as it needed to be dealt with and is rightly praised. Sunak is looking to deal with one of the biggest weaknesses under his predecessors - failing to stick to due process - but is in the wrong! Horses for courses. Everything in the first nearly 100 days in office have been about deliberate, well evidenced decision making and I think that’s not only just who he is but a very public u-turn on how his predecessors ran their govts. Ultimately, this will be nothing but a footnote in history come the next election but a body of evidence that the Cons are no longer run without a care for the consequences of their actions will be front and centre, albeit it’s probably too late.
Beating someone with the following due process stick is a dangerous tactic in the long term.

Starmer also needs to reflect on how Rosie Duffield has been treated.

I will note that the attack line of "How Rosie Duffield has been treated" is something which has a lot of fantasy around the fact and also cannot be easily discussed without getting into the topic of conversation which isn't allowed on the board. I know I'm not a mod on the Politics forum, but I think we should leave it there and stay friends.

Not least because I don't want to reward the Conservatives for their culture war bullshit to distract from all their failings.

Puja

well I saw what happened in parliament to her, did you. I'm not making a political point or cultural one per se but a human one. I was not esp aware of the history prior to that.

I was not aware of such a discussion being sacrosanct either.

[Sandydragon]

Messed up by starting the proper investigative procedure and then acting on receiving the report? To me, it reinforces the idea that he’s trying to bring some due process back to govt. which, given the reaction when Boris didn’t follow due process, I thought would be welcomed. I’m very much in favour of political leaders not making decisions based on how outraged Twitter is. Starmer leads in a similar fashion and though neither will present HIGNFY or have their name chanted at Glastonbury, I’m glad both of them are in charge of their party instead of their predecessors - both of them in Sunak’s case.
From what I’ve read, Zahawi has burnt all his bridges flip flopping around during the end of Boris’s reign and the ensuing leadership election. I doubt anybody in the pcp is remotely concerned he’s left a fairly minor role.

I agree in part that having an enquiry and following proper procedure is valid and that Starmer especially is playing dickish politics by framing it as Sunak being weak and indecisive. However, the Tories have already poisoned the well of "we should go through due process and wait until we have the report to act," by first attacking Corbyn for not taking immediate action and sacking people on first news article, and then by using it as an excuse to protect Boris during the COVID breaches by "waiting for a report" on facts that were self-evident, so now the due process sounds like it's bullshit.

While I don't care for Starmer or his safety-first, no-values, style of politics, his early decisions were clever and are paying off now - by being ruthless with anybody who offered even a hint of scandal or something embarrassing to the party, he's got carte blanche to use the vindictive you-should've-known-you-should've-acted-already environment that the Conservatives created as a weapon against them while being (relatively) secure against any blowback. And Sunak's lost a lot of the newspapers (admittedly some of them only because of daring to have brown skin, rather than any values), so they're happy to join in.

In short, you're right and so is Sunak. But the Tories shat the bed, so they have to lie in it. If Sunak was smarter/in a stronger position, he should've aped Starmer and told Zahawi that he needed to offer his resignation immediately for embarrassing the party, regardless of the enquiry. But he wouldn't or couldn't, so here he is, being beaten by the stick he helped carve.

Puja

Exactly. Waiting for an independent inquiry is the fair thing to do, but its politically a bad idea. It also opens the door for the question of why Zahawi didn't resign. So the idea of Tory sleeze is doubled down and Sunak is left in a weaker position as a result.