How is the Tory government doing?

By that standard no criticism of the government can ever be valid because we don’t know whether or not Labour would do the same. This is not standard practice no matter how much you would love to claim it is. Grow a backbone and stand up for some sort of standards from your party, it’s embarrassing.

Yvette Cooper, Lisa Nandy, Rachel Reeves and the Tigress would make an excellent front bench.....intelligent, articulate, and principled....(and females who are in tune with national sensitivities and moods)

BREAKING: @UKLabour newest MP - former Tory @Christian4BuryS -backs up @William_Wragg allegations about rebel MPs being threatened by whips. He says he was told that plans for a new high school in his constituency could be scrapped unless he voted a certain way. pic.twitter.com/b2sMu8bKMC

— BBC North West (@BBCNWT) January 20, 2022

Took a pretty dim view of this guy (and Labour for letting him in). But if this was the case fair enough, defecting is a strong way to fight back against the threats.

Still think Bury South needs to go to a by-election asap.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Took a pretty dim view of this guy (and Labour for letting him in). But if this was the case fair enough, defecting is a strong way to fight back against the threats.

Still think Bury South needs to go to a by-election asap.

I would think Labour would love to as well!

Tiny Conservative majority, previously Labour held and with more than enough anger from the electorate there to revert back to voting Labour again by those who swung to the Conservatives in the last election.

However you have to factor in the two rules of politics.

Would Wakeford him want to stand, I suspect he doesn't.

I suspect the deal he made to cross the floor was that he wouldn't need to resign his seat and try to win it again - maybe he calculates that many will stay voting Tory on principal in that is why they voted for him in the first place - but may well have voted Labour again if Wakeford wasn't the one standing in a by-election (as they would have no needed to be bloody minded/point of principle as such).

As it was Wakeford invoked Rule 2, when in power do what you have to, to keep your power.

I, if I was plotting, would have offered to quit my seat, not stand in the by-election but obtain a guarantee to stand in a very safe Labour seat in the next GE.

However that probably would have meant a good two to three years outside of politics at the national level and maybe he has other plans for himself outside politics in a few years time.

All speculation on my part obviously but that's why I think he hasn't stood down.

Surprised you think Labour would be keen for a by election, I suspect the Bury South constituents would be peeved off at Wakeford and not vote him back in.

Politically i don't think Starmer will risk it, democratically I don't think he should have the choice.

Please God stop with the '2 rules of politics', it's painful.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Surprised you think Labour would be keen for a by election, I suspect the Bury South constituents would be peeved off at Wakeford and not vote him back in.

Politically i don't think Starmer will risk it, democratically I don't think he should have the choice.

Please God stop with the '2 rules of politics', it's painful.

Don't you read what I write or do you simply not understand it?

I specifically said that I strongly believe that Labour would win a by-election if the Labour Party candidate contesting it was NOT Wakeford.

You, me, Kier Starmer and the Labour Party and even Wakeford himself believes it might well not be the case if he stood!!!

As for the two rules of politics, I'll keep banging on about them until people finally grasp that things are done in accordance with them and not for any other reasons.

People can seem to grasp that politicians and political parties both 'play' politics themselves in how they go about things - in this case morally Wakeford should resign and stand again - he even backed a bill mandating this very thing!!!

Christian Wakeford backed bill mandating by-elections for MPs who switch party before jumping to Labour

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/christian-wakeford-backed-bill-mandating-22802850

It isn't about morals or doing the 'right and proper' things, it is about achieving and once achieved, retaining 'power'.

Labour would have highly desired to hold a by-election in Bury right now (without Wakeford standing) but clearly Wakeford held the 'power' not to stand down and so Wakeford isn't doing what morally he stood for and isn't doing it in the best interests of his new party either, he is solely doing it for his own best (short term) interest - he's obtained power by being elected as an MP and he's holding on to it by doing what's right for him and no one else, no matter what.

That is exactly how the game works yet very few grasp that and think instead it is all about more nobler and principled things somehow?

It isn't!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Surprised you think Labour would be keen for a by election, I suspect the Bury South constituents would be peeved off at Wakeford and not vote him back in.

Politically i don't think Starmer will risk it, democratically I don't think he should have the choice.

Please God stop with the '2 rules of politics', it's painful.......

.......and if those "rules" are likely to harm the country in favour of benefitting one's own political party, they should not be entertained!

I note that Starmer was asked if he'd rather keep the clueless PM in power so that Labour could benefit from Boris' continued own goals, and his reply was that he had to do what was right for the country.

 Hence occasional support for the government from the Labour Party.

 Can you see Tories ever reciprocating and admitting that Labour had the right policies?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Surprised you think Labour would be keen for a by election, I suspect the Bury South constituents would be peeved off at Wakeford and not vote him back in.

Politically i don't think Starmer will risk it, democratically I don't think he should have the choice.

Please God stop with the '2 rules of politics', it's painful.

I would think that voters in Bury South including the Tories would be far more peeved off to hear that their representative was being held to ransom over the building of the desperately needed high school in their town.
I hadn't been aware that Radcliffe hasn't had a high school for the last 10 years so I would imagine it's a key priority for every parent regardless of their political persuasion and to have it promised to them and then taken away just to shore up a dishonest and corrupt prime minister would not go down at all well.

And let's face it, persuasion is one thing but threatening to cut local funding if they don't prop Boris up is corruption.

wanderlust wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Surprised you think Labour would be keen for a by election, I suspect the Bury South constituents would be peeved off at Wakeford and not vote him back in.

Politically i don't think Starmer will risk it, democratically I don't think he should have the choice.

Please God stop with the '2 rules of politics', it's painful.

I would think that voters in Bury South including the Tories would be far more peeved off to hear that their representative was being held to ransom over the building of the desperately needed high school in their town.
I hadn't been aware that Bury hasn't had a high school for the last 10 years so I would imagine it's a key priority for every parent regardless of their political persuasion and to have it promised to them and then taken away just to shore up a dishonest and corrupt prime minister would not go down at all well.

And let's face it, persuasion is one thing but threatening to cut local funding if they don't prop Boris up is corruption.

Fwiw it wouldn't be cutting local funding it would be more to do with not increasing them in the following years annual grant funding rounds of local government authorities.

It might sound as though I'm splitting hairs but in the real world there is a massive difference between the two.

As for corruption I doubt it.

How can you prove something that hasn't happened, with those 'threatening' these things having no personal power to influence such things happening?

I don't doubt these things have been said but it is very hard to prove corruption in a court of law without proof beyond reasonable doubt that such threats have been made and would be carried out?

Bullying - yes, corruption - no.

Ye but, nobody can prove he opened the email... and even if they could nobody can prove he had his eyes open at the time...

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-20/sue-gray-finds-email-warning-against-no10-drinks-party-in-may-2020

To be pedantic the email wasn't sent to Johnson but his PPS.

I assume you meant your comments to be ironic (which they are) rather than accurate.

It does, at least for me, raise an interesting question to who this very senior civil servant was who sent the email.

Martin Reynolds himself will be very high up in the civil service hierarchy, so there can't be too many not only above him but also who would have seen the email (I doubt the top permanent civil servants in the other government departments would have had it brought to their attention).

It's also interesting that Reynolds both ignored his senior manager and went ahead - and also that this senior officer apparently did nothing following the party taking place!

The most obvious explanation would be the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case sending the email and the 'work gathering' (I say this tongue in cheek before you start!) being authorised by Boris himself.

Case couldn't bollock Reynolds for going ahead with the 'party' if he was instructed to do by Johnson - and at the time it would be insufficient enough not to be a resigning matter for Case or Reynolds to fall on their swords for.

It's inconceivable to me that Johnson didn't know about the 'do' nor that he wasn't told by Reynolds about the email and it breaking Covid rules at the time.

The only way out now is for Reynolds to claim he didn't bring the matter to Johnson's attention and defied the very senior civil servants warning on his own authority - and that he wasn't disciplined by the senior civil servant for doing so.

Not sure what Gray will do if Reynolds has admitted to telling Boris that the 'event' did break Covid rules - her job is to report the facts not pass judgement.

Interesting too if Case accepted leading the inquiry IF he was the one who sent the email in the first place!

Reeves: "lost decade of economic growth under Tories"

Labour continues to position itself as the party for business, lower taxes, higher growth.

And the next person under the bus will be ...............Martin Reynolds !!!  

" I swear on the Holy Bible Sue, Martin never said a word to me about there being a party in my back garden."

wanderlust wrote:Reeves: "lost decade of economic growth under Tories"

Labour continues to position itself as the party for business, lower taxes, higher growth.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaah, good one Lusty but that’s what they’ve promised before every election yet not once has a Labour government left office with the country not broke.

Don’t you find it just a tad worrying that despite all the trials and tribulations the Tory’s are having at the moment that voters still don’t see Starmer as a PM? I actually like Rachel Reeves, she should cross the floor and join the Conservatives but as long as you’ve still got the hard lefties behind her back, you’re never going to form a government, no matter how badly Boris does.

Face it, Boris will survive this, turn things around and still win the next election. Without Scotland, Labour will never form another government on its own and you know it.

Browns response to the global banking crash actually won many plaudits, he pulled world leaders together around his five point plan to bail out the banks. You can argue the merits of saving the banks or not but as a leader he acted decisively and effectively.

Unfortunately the Tory spin machine blagged people like you Whites that it was a Labour caused crash and Brown had to go. Osborne has since openly admitted this was untrue - but it worked and we swapped Brown for politically motivated austerity.

Whitesince63 wrote:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaah, good one Lusty but that’s what they’ve promised before every election yet not once has a Labour government left office with the country not broke.

Don’t you find it just a tad worrying that despite all the trials and tribulations the Tory’s are having at the moment that voters still don’t see Starmer as a PM? I actually like Rachel Reeves, she should cross the floor and join the Conservatives but as long as you’ve still got the hard lefties behind her back, you’re never going to form a government, no matter how badly Boris does.

Face it, Boris will survive this, turn things around and still win the next election. Without Scotland, Labour will never form another government on its own and you know it.

I can't think of a time when a Labour government ever inherited the country from the Tories when it wasn't in turmoil so it's a moot point. Generally that's why governments change although Blair resigned when we were in good shape economically and Brown took us through the global crash until Labour self-destructed and handed to Cameron on a plate.

Agree that Labour won't have the numbers without Scotland and the left wing is marginalised (and divisive) but there are centrist alliance opportunities which I think is the general direction of travel but this is hampered by our antequated electoral system. I've always though everybody's vote should have the same value as the next person's but it doesn't and I can't see us moving to a fairer system like PR in my lifetime.

The i newspaper has commissioned a poll which shows that 71% of the public think Johnson will not survive until the next election and, for the first time, feel that Starmer would have handled the pandemic better. 

(Today's BBC website https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-60077777)

okocha wrote:The i newspaper has commissioned a poll which shows that 71% of the public think Johnson will not survive until the next election and, for the first time, feel that Starmer would have handled the pandemic better. 

(Today's BBC website https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-60077777)

The only poll that matters Oko is the general election one and 71% of the public don’t decide whether Boris survives or not so it’s totally irrelevant. I mean come on, with all the media negativity over BoJo and Partygate, it would be pretty incredible if Labour wasn’t ahead but it’s nearly three years to the next election and if Boris pulls back on some of his wackier policies he can still get the support he needs to win. It might sound incredible but stranger things have happened. 🤪