General News Thread

Alf Bentley · 16 April

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Can Burnham run for another seat if someone steps down? Or does that decision to bar him earlier mean he can't try for a seat in x amount of time?

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that Burnham could apply to run for another seat, but that it would be very difficult politically.

Labour parliamentary by-election candidates have to be approved by the party's National Executive (NEC). I believe that last time they only blocked him from running in Gorton & Denton.

So, if another MP stood down, I think he could apply again to the NEC to stand in the new seat.

But, firstly would there be the partisan political will for the NEC, with a pro-Starmer majority, to allow him to stand?

Even if there was, he was publicly rejected last time on the grounds that it wasn't in the public interest (or the party interest) to trigger a by-election for the Manchester mayoralty....

How could they justify taking a different decision this time, even if they wanted to - which they probably wouldn't...?

If Starmer goes, I hope a means is found. It's actually arguably not in the party's interest or the public interest for him to be blocked!

st albans fox · 16 April

Trump claims that Iran has agreed to hand over the enriched uranium (not sure how that happens as he also claims it’s buried deep underground after the B2 raids last year)

he also claims that Iran has agreed they won’t have a nuclear weapon.

i was wondering how the ceasefire in Lebanon had come about. If Iran have allowed the Americans to claim these ‘victories’ then there must be a price. Suspect this price from Iran is the survival of hezbollah by calling Israel off. Can kicked down the road again unless they agree to become solely political and to disarm (can’t see that)

Alf Bentley · 16 April

54 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

BBC News - Starmer did not know Mandelson failed vetting, government says

BBC News - Starmer did not know Mandelson failed vetting, government says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2r15151xgo

He only knew that this week apparently.....

Yes, I heard that. If that's true, it's absolutely extraordinary - and suggests a dysfunctional system of governance.

I can believe that the idea of over-ruling the vetting failure MIGHT have originated from an official, who knew that the Govt was keen to appoint Mandelson for political reasons.

But I struggle to believe that an official could've taken that decision without notifying, at least, the Foreign Secretary - who in turn would surely have told Starmer?

If the decision was taken by an official, it would have been a very senior official, who surely would've been aware of the political and security risk of over-ruling a vetting decision - and surely would've felt obliged to have the decision signed off by senior ministers, be that Foreign Secretary or PM?! :dunno:

Innovindil · 16 April

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that Burnham could apply to run for another seat, but that it would be very difficult politically.

Labour parliamentary by-election candidates have to be approved by the party's National Executive (NEC). I believe that last time they only blocked him from running in Gorton & Denton.

So, if another MP stood down, I think he could apply again to the NEC to stand in the new seat.

But, firstly would there be the partisan political will for the NEC, with a pro-Starmer majority, to allow him to stand?

Even if there was, he was publicly rejected last time on the grounds that it wasn't in the public interest (or the party interest) to trigger a by-election for the Manchester mayoralty....

How could they justify taking a different decision this time, even if they wanted to - which they probably wouldn't...?

If Starmer goes, I hope a means is found. It's actually arguably not in the party's interest or the public interest for him to be blocked!

I'd expect there might be will for it IF Starmer steps down/gets the boot.

And the reality is they didn't want him in the seat to protect Starmer and keep drama to a minimum. If they changed their minds after he's gone, they'd get a few pelters, but I reckon if it got the man the majority wants into the hot seat, "yesterday's" decision would be fast forgotten.

And the £££ for the mayor race would be magically found IDD.

leicsmac · 16 April

In other news, Vance the Catholic blatantly questioning papal infallibility and arguing in favour of "just war".

Wasn't that an excommunication-worthy heresy the last time I checked?

Alf Bentley · 16 April

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

I'd expect there might be will for it IF Starmer steps down/gets the boot.

And the reality is they didn't want him in the seat to protect Starmer and keep drama to a minimum. If they changed their minds after he's gone, they'd get a few pelters, but I reckon if it got the man the majority wants into the hot seat, "yesterday's" decision would be fast forgotten.

And the £££ for the mayor race would be magically found IDD.

Yes, that logic had occurred to me, too. Maybe it could happen. But presumably other potential candidates (Streeting? Rayner? Mahmood?) might seek to have Burnham blocked again. I don't know enough about NEC politics to anticipate whether that would have any impact. If anything, I suspect Rayner might be the one with the most influence there - union links and a bit more left-wing than the other 2?

But then there's timing and practicalities. If Burnham only sought approval after Starmer had gone, it would take weeks, if not a couple of months, for him to get selected as candidate and then to hold the byelection. It would then take further weeks to hold a leadership election. That would leave the UK with a caretaker PM for, what, at least 3-4 months? At a critical time for foreign affairs & the economy...

If Starmer does step down/get the boot (after the May elections, presumably), I wonder if a Westminster deal might be stitched up to avoid a contested election - perhaps Rayner and Streeting as PM and Deputy with guarantees on policies and powers - and a senior cabinet position to buy off anyone, like Mahmood, with the potential to stand as a credible alternative candidate?

After all the (justified) rhetoric about Tory chaos, it wouldn't be a good look to have a temporary PM for several months, at a critical time, while the party busied itself with factional infighting...

EDIT: On second thoughts, ignore some of the above. :whistle: If Starmer goes, we probably wouldn't have a temporary PM, would we - we'd have a lame duck PM for 2-4 months: i.e. Starmer would announce his resignation, but would stay as Caretaker PM while a replacement was elected? Not great for the nation domestically or internationally, but has happened both in the UK (Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson....) and other countries (Scholz was lame duck Chancellor of Germany for several months). I suppose the summer recess would also come into calculations - could a byelection and leadership election be held before recess or would it be acceptable for them to wait until Sept? :dunno:

Edited 16 April by Alf Bentley
Second thoughts

worthosoriginals · 16 April

26 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Trump claims that Iran has agreed to hand over the enriched uranium (not sure how that happens as he also claims it’s buried deep underground after the B2 raids last year)

he also claims that Iran has agreed they won’t have a nuclear weapon.

i was wondering how the ceasefire in Lebanon had come about. If Iran have allowed the Americans to claim these ‘victories’ then there must be a price. Suspect this price from Iran is the survival of hezbollah by calling Israel off. Can kicked down the road again unless they agree to become solely political and to disarm (can’t see that)

He also claims to be jesus, amongst all his day to day claims, maybe we should take his claims to be at best very unreliable

bovril · 16 April

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In other news, Vance the Catholic blatantly questioning papal infallibility and arguing in favour of "just war".

Wasn't that an excommunication-worthy heresy the last time I checked?

Also defended Trump's Jesus post. Not sure anyone has ever had fewer principals than Vance in all human history. In terms of morals, the guy's a ****ing Dyson

leicsmac · 16 April

18 minutes ago, bovril said:

Also defended Trump's Jesus post. Not sure anyone has ever had fewer principals than Vance in all human history. In terms of morals, the guy's a ****ing Dyson

Yep. That's about right.

Jattdogg · 16 April

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Also defended Trump's Jesus post. Not sure anyone has ever had fewer principals than Vance in all human history. In terms of morals, the guy's a ****ing Dyson

48 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep. That's about right.

..he must be popular at the republican grindr retreat...especially with Lindsey and Johnson...

st albans fox · 16 April

1 hour ago, worthosoriginals said:

He also claims to be jesus, amongst all his day to day claims, maybe we should take his claims to be at best very unreliable

The two claims on irans nuclear ambitions are very specific. He could be making it up in order to put pressure on Iran. Perhaps the political side have agreed but the IRGC not.

CornwallFox · 17 April

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Yes, I heard that. If that's true, it's absolutely extraordinary - and suggests a dysfunctional system of governance.

I can believe that the idea of over-ruling the vetting failure MIGHT have originated from an official, who knew that the Govt was keen to appoint Mandelson for political reasons.

But I struggle to believe that an official could've taken that decision without notifying, at least, the Foreign Secretary - who in turn would surely have told Starmer?

If the decision was taken by an official, it would have been a very senior official, who surely would've been aware of the political and security risk of over-ruling a vetting decision - and surely would've felt obliged to have the decision signed off by senior ministers, be that Foreign Secretary or PM?!

BBC News - Top Foreign Office official to leave post after Mandelson vetting row

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c747r3v90k3o

They're saying no minister was informed.

As you say, sounds unlikely, but that's what we've got to go on

Lionator · 17 April

I know he’s wildly unpopular but I hope he doesn’t resign, the world is chaos right now and he seems to finally be getting it in terms of how to move forward with it. The next few months are going to be choppy economically and geopolitically. There’s not a single person Labour could put forward that would poll better than Starmer in the long run because of the wider socio-economic situation. People are frustrated because everyone’s standard of living is eroding, some of us blame the rich (me), some incorrectly blame immigration, realistically it was Thatcher and then Cameron/Osborne put the final nail in the coffin in 2010 and 2016. Its irreversible decline, Reform will only hasten it.

The point is, even if he’s a lame duck, any new person would be too. So he should stay, take some tough decisions with his massive once in a generation majority and do what he feels is right, not what might score +1 in next weeks Yougov poll, which is how British politics is run these days sadly.

Trav Le Bleu · 17 April

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I know he’s wildly unpopular but I hope he doesn’t resign, the world is chaos right now and he seems to finally be getting it in terms of how to move forward with it. The next few months are going to be choppy economically and geopolitically. There’s not a single person Labour could put forward that would poll better than Starmer in the long run because of the wider socio-economic situation. People are frustrated because everyone’s standard of living is eroding, some of us blame the rich (me), some incorrectly blame immigration, realistically it was Thatcher and then Cameron/Osborne put the final nail in the coffin in 2010 and 2016. Its irreversible decline, Reform will only hasten it.

The point is, even if he’s a lame duck, any new person would be too. So he should stay, take some tough decisions with his massive once in a generation majority and do what he feels is right, not what might score +1 in next weeks Yougov poll, which is how British politics is run these days sadly.

You can imagine Trump crowing about it if he does go. He'll bang on about it for weeks.

leicsmac · 17 April

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I know he’s wildly unpopular but I hope he doesn’t resign, the world is chaos right now and he seems to finally be getting it in terms of how to move forward with it. The next few months are going to be choppy economically and geopolitically. There’s not a single person Labour could put forward that would poll better than Starmer in the long run because of the wider socio-economic situation. People are frustrated because everyone’s standard of living is eroding, some of us blame the rich (me), some incorrectly blame immigration, realistically it was Thatcher and then Cameron/Osborne put the final nail in the coffin in 2010 and 2016. Its irreversible decline, Reform will only hasten it.

The point is, even if he’s a lame duck, any new person would be too. So he should stay, take some tough decisions with his massive once in a generation majority and do what he feels is right, not what might score +1 in next weeks Yougov poll, which is how British politics is run these days sadly.

56 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You can imagine Trump crowing about it if he does go. He'll bang on about it for weeks.

These are fair arguments too.

I would also repeat that IMO while what's happened here is a pretty damn serious failure of government oversight, there really doesn't seem to be any other valid candidates besides Burnham.

fox_favourite · 17 April

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/russia-threatens-strike-britain-5HjdXpc_2/

This just popped up.on my Google New feed...

Russia mentions Leicester, you'll never sing that.

Edited 17 April by fox_favourite

Zear0 · 17 April

12 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/russia-threatens-strike-britain-5HjdXpc_2/

This just popped up.on my Google New feed...

Russia mentions Leicester, you'll never sing that.

Medvedev tweeting over his breakfast vodka porridge?

CornwallFox · 17 April

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I know he’s wildly unpopular but I hope he doesn’t resign, the world is chaos right now and he seems to finally be getting it in terms of how to move forward with it. The next few months are going to be choppy economically and geopolitically. There’s not a single person Labour could put forward that would poll better than Starmer in the long run because of the wider socio-economic situation. People are frustrated because everyone’s standard of living is eroding, some of us blame the rich (me), some incorrectly blame immigration, realistically it was Thatcher and then Cameron/Osborne put the final nail in the coffin in 2010 and 2016. Its irreversible decline, Reform will only hasten it.

The point is, even if he’s a lame duck, any new person would be too. So he should stay, take some tough decisions with his massive once in a generation majority and do what he feels is right, not what might score +1 in next weeks Yougov poll, which is how British politics is run these days sadly.

What I don't really understand is why he's decided to try and pander to reform voters rather than left wing voters, even there's more of the latter in every election, just split across more parties.

Cost of living is the single biggest issue affecting the electorate right now - I understand the climate emergency we're in leicsmac but many don't.

Every time there's been direct government intervention to support the public - whether it be the COVID furlough scheme, or any other policy that has directly provided support to individuals - it's been popular.

Surely they could have come up with real, meaningful support regarding energy costs by now? Even if it was a direct government to energy companies payment coupled with deep drops to bills. The right would go argue like crazy, the telegraph would moan about national debt, but the public would be hugely positive

I do not understand why they haven't, other than the fact I think starmar genuinely is trying to make long term decisions he thinks it's best, while keeping any deficits as low as they can (which is really just pandering to the right wing press as the Tories never really bother with that when they want to do something). Starmar it's too focused on what is "right", rather than remembering governments need to win elections if they want to remain governments.

Edited 17 April by CornwallFox

leicsmac · 17 April

5 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

What I don't really understand is why he's decided to try and pander to reform voters rather than left wing voters, even there's more of the latter in every election, just split across more parties.

Cost of living is the single biggest issue affecting the electorate right now - I understand the climate emergency we're in leicsmac but many don't.

Every time there's been direct government intervention to support the public - whether it be the COVID furlough scheme, or any other policy that has directly provided support to individuals - it's been popular.

Surely they could have come up with real, meaningful support regarding energy costs by now? Even if it was a direct government to energy companies payment coupled with deep drops to bills. The right would go argue like crazy, the telegraph would moan about national debt, but the public would be hugely positive

I do not understand why they haven't, other than the fact I think starmar genuinely is trying to make long term decisions he thinks it's best, while keeping any deficits as low as they can (which is really just pandering to the right wing press as the Tories never really bother with that when they want to do something). Starmar it's too focused on what is "right", rather than remembering governments need to win elections if they want to remain governments.

I know what you mean, mate.

The transition has to happen, but you can't leave people by the wayside in a democracy otherwise it likely won't happen. Image in that way is very important.

If people need helping with cost of living (and they do), then both parts need to be addressed at the same time.

Lionator · 17 April

9 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

What I don't really understand is why he's decided to try and pander to reform voters rather than left wing voters, even there's more of the latter in every election, just split across more parties.

Cost of living is the single biggest issue affecting the electorate right now - I understand the climate emergency we're in leicsmac but many don't.

Every time there's been direct government intervention to support the public - whether it be the COVID furlough scheme, or any other policy that has directly provided support to individuals - it's been popular.

Surely they could have come up with real, meaningful support regarding energy costs by now? Even if it was a direct government to energy companies payment coupled with deep drops to bills. The right would go argue like crazy, the telegraph would moan about national debt, but the public would be hugely positive

I do not understand why they haven't, other than the fact I think starmar genuinely is trying to make long term decisions he thinks it's best, while keeping any deficits as low as they can (which is really just pandering to the right wing press as the Tories never really bother with that when they want to do something). Starmar it's too focused on what is "right", rather than remembering governments need to win elections if they want to remain governments.

You kinda mention it at the end but Starmer as a politician doesn’t actually believe in anything. He sees himself more as a manager, which is actually sad when you look at the evidence from his career, what his actual passions are.

fox_favourite · 17 April

14 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Medvedev tweeting over his breakfast vodka porridge?

Like Trump over his breakfast meds

Lionator · 17 April

29 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/russia-threatens-strike-britain-5HjdXpc_2/

This just popped up.on my Google New feed...

Russia mentions Leicester, you'll never sing that.

This place already got protested against as they’re 🇮🇱’s biggest drone provider in Europe. Seems they’re providing lots to Ukraine too.

Free Falling Foxes · 17 April

58 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/russia-threatens-strike-britain-5HjdXpc_2/

This just popped up.on my Google New feed...

Russia mentions Leicester, you'll never sing that.

We're safe.

One of just a handful of countries that has stood by Putin is Modi's India.

They did so after the Ukraine invasion, and are buying oil from them to make-up for any supply problems due to the Iran war.

They also have regular state visits to one another.

Modi would be on the phone to Putin, pointing out the very large Indian presence in Leicester and the risk of attacking the area.

bovril · 17 April

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

some of us blame the rich (me),

You don't come across as a millionaire

Tommy G · 17 April

7 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

BBC News - Top Foreign Office official to leave post after Mandelson vetting row

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c747r3v90k3o

They're saying no minister was informed.

As you say, sounds unlikely, but that's what we've got to go on

Another head has to roll to save KS, utterly predictable

Sign In

General News Thread

Recommended Posts

Alf Bentley

st albans fox

Alf Bentley

Innovindil

leicsmac

Alf Bentley

worthosoriginals

bovril

leicsmac

Jattdogg

st albans fox

CornwallFox

Lionator

Trav Le Bleu

leicsmac

fox_favourite

Zear0

CornwallFox

leicsmac

Lionator

fox_favourite

Lionator

Free Falling Foxes

bovril

Tommy G

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 6 members

Home

Activity

Match Ratings

History