Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
yorkie1999

Also in the news

By yorkie1999, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

Interesting Telegraph report, though most of it is behind a pay wall: 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/16/exclusive-conservative-donors-open-secret-talks-nigel-farage/?fbclid=IwAR2k8UMhGj9FNd7_dq1l9N8-zvJdXacOPmJeW5CvvqpRRXQr5c-LX5DR75w

 

"Conservative Party donors have opened secret talks with Nigel Farage about an electoral pact which would see the party not stand candidates against the Brexit Party in dozens of seats at a snap general election.

Speculation is growing that the next Tory leader will have to call a snap election to bring in new MPs who will agree to take the UK out of the European Union by the end of October.

A new poll in the Sunday Times put Mr Farage's Brexit Party in first place on 24 per cent, three points ahead of the Tories and Labour on 21 per cent".

 

Boris (or whoever) agreeing some such pact with Farage makes perfect sense tactically. Even if no pact is formalised, you could imagine the Brexit Party not standing against ERG-type Hard Brexit Tories & the minority of Lab Brexiteers, and maybe local Tory associations not campaigning very hard in seats that the Brexit Party could win.

 

Preparation for an early general election (Sept?) makes sense, too. Firstly, to gain a parliament that will support No Deal on 31st October, but secondly to ensure the election happens while the Remain vote is still split.

Labour Party members will surely force a policy shift to support a referendum at party conference. But that's not until late September & Corbyn seems determined to resist until then.....by which time it might be too late.

While Labour is still a Soft Brexit party, there's little prospect of an electoral pact between Labour & Lib Dems/Greens. A Tory/Brexit Party alliance could scoop a majority govt with a lot less than 50% of the national vote.

 

So, a September election yielding a majority No Deal Govt under PM Boris & Deputy PM, Nigel Farage MP? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Yeah but they must be lying cos why would Iran do anything that could risk war?

As per the conversation of a day or two ago, the Iranians are (likely) playing with fire here, underestimating the willingness of the current US administration to go to war and that could well be a fatal miscalculation.

 

That doesn't preclude the possibility that other parties might be setting them up as an insurance policy or to make absolutely sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As per the conversation of a day or two ago, the Iranians are (likely) playing with fire here, underestimating the willingness of the current US administration to go to war and that could well be a fatal miscalculation.

 

That doesn't preclude the possibility that other parties might be setting them up as an insurance policy or to make absolutely sure.

Tbh I'm pretty sure it's only certain sections of the western media that thinks the US would go to war without serious escalation. The same people that run around panicking about a war whenever the US has a foreign policy issue. We're still waiting for Trump to press his big red button on NK. If you read sources in the Middle East they don't expect the US to be going top war anytime soon and with decent reason.

 

As for this being set up, nobody seems able to provide a reason that stands up to scrutiny better than Iran doing it themselves. I was going to come back to your Saudi point. You saying about Saudi wanting to be the dominant regional power, yes maybe they do. But Iran is fortunate that it is well set for defence and it will bomb the shit out of Saudi in any war, the Houthi's are already launching missiles at Aramco pipelines and Abha and Jizan airports. Saudi's military is crap, as the Israeli's say 'they have a heap of shiny useless metal' and as demonstrated by how inefficient they are in Yemen compared to Iran. It just seems strange to me that people would genuinely think Saudi would be prepared to risk the cost to themselves from a position of comfort but Iran wouldn't be taking risks when it's been backed into a corner and its economy is dying on its knees.

Edited by Kopfkino
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxin_Mad

Foxin_Mad

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Interesting Telegraph report, though most of it is behind a pay wall: 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/16/exclusive-conservative-donors-open-secret-talks-nigel-farage/?fbclid=IwAR2k8UMhGj9FNd7_dq1l9N8-zvJdXacOPmJeW5CvvqpRRXQr5c-LX5DR75w

 

"Conservative Party donors have opened secret talks with Nigel Farage about an electoral pact which would see the party not stand candidates against the Brexit Party in dozens of seats at a snap general election.

Speculation is growing that the next Tory leader will have to call a snap election to bring in new MPs who will agree to take the UK out of the European Union by the end of October.

A new poll in the Sunday Times put Mr Farage's Brexit Party in first place on 24 per cent, three points ahead of the Tories and Labour on 21 per cent".

 

Boris (or whoever) agreeing some such pact with Farage makes perfect sense tactically. Even if no pact is formalised, you could imagine the Brexit Party not standing against ERG-type Hard Brexit Tories & the minority of Lab Brexiteers, and maybe local Tory associations not campaigning very hard in seats that the Brexit Party could win.

 

Preparation for an early general election (Sept?) makes sense, too. Firstly, to gain a parliament that will support No Deal on 31st October, but secondly to ensure the election happens while the Remain vote is still split.

Labour Party members will surely force a policy shift to support a referendum at party conference. But that's not until late September & Corbyn seems determined to resist until then.....by which time it might be too late.

While Labour is still a Soft Brexit party, there's little prospect of an electoral pact between Labour & Lib Dems/Greens. A Tory/Brexit Party alliance could scoop a majority govt with a lot less than 50% of the national vote.

 

So, a September election yielding a majority No Deal Govt under PM Boris & Deputy PM, Nigel Farage MP? :ph34r:

I would say IF for example Boris becomes PM which seems highly likely, and then pursues no deal which seems inevitable with the seeming unwillingness of the EU to give any further ground.

 

The only way to get it passed by parliament is to have a general election and count on more Brexit supporting MPs being returned to the house. I suspect if Boris stands on out by Halloween that he could win an election without the Brexit Party.

 

Labour seem to have some blind loyalists who will continue to vote for than no matter how utterly hopeless they are and as such the Remain vote is split between Lib Dem/Green and Labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

Yeah but they must be lying cos why would Iran do anything that could risk war?

Come on you know the score.

 

If Iran might have done something bad we wait for the conclusive evidence, if they have done something bad then we have to find out what Trump or the Americans did to make them do something bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MattP said:

Come on you know the score.

 

If Iran might have done something bad we wait for the conclusive evidence, if they have done something bad then we have to find out what Trump or the Americans did to make them do something bad.

 

That's not the case and you know it.

 

Some of us don't blindly assume that other powers are all telling the truth just because they are 'our people' - did you learn nothing from Iraq? You treat politics like a football team, displaying blind loyalty without question.

Edited by Buce
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest SO1

Guest SO1

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

As per the conversation of a day or two ago, the Iranians are (likely) playing with fire here, underestimating the willingness of the current US administration to go to war and that could well be a fatal miscalculation.

 

That doesn't preclude the possibility that other parties might be setting them up as an insurance policy or to make absolutely sure.

Simple math for the Donald. More war and US aggression he will lose in 2020. Still waiting for the troops to come home and our wars around the world to end as he promised.

Won't be able to BS the public on the economy anymore as well. The investment class may have it awesome but the rest of us are barely making it.

Prices on necessities keep going up up up...............Are we out of Syria and Afghanistan yet?..... Thought so. Dems/Repubs same as the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Buce said:

That's not the case and you know it.

 

Some of us don't blindly assume that other powers are all telling the truth just because they are 'our people - did you learn nothing from Iraq? You treat politics like a football team, displaying blind loyalty without question.

Yet that's exactly what you do when it comes to Trump and the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charl91

Charl91

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yet that's exactly what you do when it comes to Trump and the USA.

That's different.

 

The difference is, Trump is an absolute fvcking arse, without a shred of moral fibre or integrity in his body; the spineless, self-serving weasel has proved time and time again that he only cares about himself and his own interests. On top of that, he is either a Grade A moron, or seriously suffering from dementia.


Prince of Whales, ffs. Imagine if Dianne Abbott had written that.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, MattP said:

Rory Stewart coming across as a right arrogant tosser - he's the dream Tory PM for Nigel Farage. 

 

No surprise the C4 audience are cheering every word he says, Boris spot on to sidestep this.

Wouldn't it have been better for him to man up, appear and tell C4 what a load of cretins they were. 
Surely that's what you or I'd do and he's a man of the people isn't he?

 

I think it's disgusting that he can sidestep questions at this moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
SouthStandUpperTier

SouthStandUpperTier

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
24 minutes ago, FIF said:

Wouldn't it have been better for him to man up, appear and tell C4 what a load of cretins they were. 
Surely that's what you or I'd do and he's a man of the people isn't he?

 

I think it's disgusting that he can sidestep questions at this moment.

Can't believe he didn't show. All he has to do is mumble some complete nonsense, say something in Latin, and ruffle his hair up a bit, and his supporters would have lapped it up.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MattP said:

Come on you know the score.

 

If Iran might have done something bad we wait for the conclusive evidence, if they have done something bad then we have to find out what Trump or the Americans did to make them do something bad.

 

Also experts. Experts say Brexit is bad or Trump is doing something bad, lap it up. The experts that study the ME and Iran every day almost universally agree it was Iran must be wrong because Israel doesn't like Iran therefore Israel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
On 16/06/2019 at 13:00, Alf Bentley said:

What is Boris' strategy in committing to Brexit by 31st October, Deal or No Deal?

- Does he really believe it's possible to negotiate a new deal by then? Impossible, surely, with holidays, no negotiations scheduled, new Commission due in early Nov & need to get it all through parliament?

- Is that just cover for really wanting No Deal, believing he can get that through parliament & No Deal in Oct will turn out alright? Both dubious conclusions, surely?

- Is it all just meaningless bullshit to help him become PM? If so, does he know what he'll do about Brexit if he wins? Renegotiate? Extend? No Deal? Election? Make it up off the back of a fag packet?

- Does he hope to trigger a general election before October, blaming the EU/Westminster for the impasse & hope to win by committing to an October exit so as to win back voters who've defected to the Brexit Party? Seems possible...

....Alternative suggestions? @MattP? @Kopfkino? @Jon the Hat?

 

Clearly is looking for an election pretty much immediately I'd say. Dangerous though because CCHQ probably isn't ready for it in the slightest. I don't think Boris genuinely wants No Deal or would really fight parliament. I find it strange how people think of Boris as a compulsive liar that says what he needs to immediately lap up what he says when they can make a drama out of it. I think most likely is, election to bin off the DUP, revert to NI-only backstop, try to get more of a commitment from the EU on alternative arrangements that he can sell and some stronger wording about Canada-style FTA. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Clearly is looking for an election pretty much immediately I'd say. Dangerous though because CCHQ probably isn't ready for it in the slightest. I don't think Boris genuinely wants No Deal or would really fight parliament. I find it strange how people think of Boris as a compulsive liar that says what he needs to immediately lap up what he says when they can make a drama out of it. I think most likely is, election to bin off the DUP, revert to NI-only backstop, try to get more of a commitment from the EU on alternative arrangements that he can sell and some stronger wording about Canada-style FTA. 

I don't think he's a compulsive liar.

 

I think he's someone who is disconnected from most of the real world and an egocentric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Guvnor

The Guvnor

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Charl91 said:

That's different.

 

The difference is, Trump is an absolute fvcking arse, without a shred of moral fibre or integrity in his body; the spineless, self-serving weasel has proved time and time again that he only cares about himself and his own interests. On top of that, he is either a Grade A moron, or seriously suffering from dementia.


Prince of Whales, ffs. Imagine if Dianne Abbott had written that.

I'm not defending him generally but would there be any chance that 'whales' was a predictive text mistake?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

I'm not defending him generally but would there be any chance that 'whales' was a predictive text mistake?

I think that's from the Wayne Hennessey and Danny Baker co-authored book of embarrassing excuses. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Charl91 said:

That's different.

 

The difference is, Trump is an absolute fvcking arse, without a shred of moral fibre or integrity in his body; the spineless, self-serving weasel has proved time and time again that he only cares about himself and his own interests. On top of that, he is either a Grade A moron, or seriously suffering from dementia.


Prince of Whales, ffs. Imagine if Dianne Abbott had written that.

 

Do you mean Diane Abbott ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, MattP said:

Come on you know the score.

 

If Iran might have done something bad we wait for the conclusive evidence, if they have done something bad then we have to find out what Trump or the Americans did to make them do something bad.

 

6 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Also experts. Experts say Brexit is bad or Trump is doing something bad, lap it up. The experts that study the ME and Iran every day almost universally agree it was Iran must be wrong because Israel doesn't like Iran therefore Israel.

Cripes, this strawman thing must be catching today.

 

For the record, the possibility of this being a set-up was being discussed given the US's previous expertise in that regard as opposed to the certainty of it being so, and Iran are certainly no angels given how provocative they have been as well as there was no good reason for them to start spouting off about their enrichment capabilities. Since when was waiting for "conclusive evidence" (of course the burden of proof evidently differs from person to person) a bad thing in matters like this? I honestly don't get the idea that someone with power in one place is somehow consistently more trustworthy than someone in a different place merely because of where those places are - being born and raised in the "right" country doesn't give you some kind of inviolable moral purity that means you don't lie or cheat for your own advantage. People keep telling me that realpolitik is a fact of life - well that's the basis of it, right there, and we see it every day.

 

Is it possible to have some kind of nuance in these debates at all?

 

NB. Regarding Trump, it's difficult to analyse the actions of his administration with nuance as he shows so little of it, however that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done and is being done. The opinion that most of the actions it is taking are almost universally bad (with the possible exception of economic matters, being enthusiastic about NASA and not getting involved in a full-scale war yet) is a result of analysis of those actions, not prejudice.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...