(UK EURO THREAD) UK POLITICS MK2

[NoirAvlaa]

Are they considered particularly acceptable for tv news? I can't see why a reshuffle would be conducted for any other purpose. Labour need to have faces on mainstream news channels with politically acceptable views so the likes of Dories, Patel and Raab can be the contrast in the public psyche.

If people don't already think Dories, Patel and Raab are despicable wastes of oxygen then they'll never think that at this point.

[Rodj Blake]

Are they considered particularly acceptable for tv news? I can't see why a reshuffle would be conducted for any other purpose. Labour need to have faces on mainstream news channels with politically acceptable views so the likes of Dories, Patel and Raab can be the contrast in the public psyche.

They're certainly acceptable to Blair, Campbell, and Mandelson.

[Itiken]

You mean the people who actually got elected ?

[Keckers]

Are they considered particularly acceptable for tv news? I can't see why a reshuffle would be conducted for any other purpose. Labour need to have faces on mainstream news channels with politically acceptable views so the likes of Dories, Patel and Raab can be the contrast in the public psyche.

If people don't already think Dories, Patel and Raab are despicable wastes of oxygen then they'll never think that at this point.

The prevailing mood seems to be that 'they're all the same' and a general apathy to the quality of politicians from all parties. If one party can successfully demonstrate that isn't true it'll be pretty relevant to the next election.

[Smegs]

I have been very impressed with Reyners performances over the past couple of months, although i know she is far from perfect. She is a very good orator and seems to speak with some pretty good grounding in relation to the economical disparity on show in parts of England, has held the Tory front bench over hot coals when in the 'leader' role and she utterly wiped the floor with Alexander de Pfeffle Johnson on a couple of occasions to boot.

It does beg the question: as Starmer, although analytical, is pretty shit at PMQ's and holding the tories to account in the house, why was he elected and not Reyner? She seems so much better at the job than Starmer and would really resonate with a significant number of plebs.

[Rodj Blake]

I have been very impressed with Reyners performances over the past couple of months, although i know she is far from perfect. She is a very good orator and seems to speak with some pretty good grounding in relation to the economical disparity on show in parts of England, has held the Tory front bench over hot coals when in the 'leader' role and she utterly wiped the floor with Alexander de Pfeffle Johnson on a couple of occasions to boot.

It does beg the question: as Starmer, although analytical, is pretty shit at PMQ's and holding the tories to account in the house, why was he elected and not Reyner? She seems so much better at the job than Starmer and would really resonate with a significant number of plebs.

Because she didn't stand for the leadership. There are separate elections for leader and deputy.

Rebecca Long-Bailey was the nearest equivalent to Rayner who stood for the leadership.

[Lallante]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

[mewninn]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

idk that seems fine. Maybe you should stop being a baby

[Smegs]

I have been very impressed with Reyners performances over the past couple of months, although i know she is far from perfect. She is a very good orator and seems to speak with some pretty good grounding in relation to the economical disparity on show in parts of England, has held the Tory front bench over hot coals when in the 'leader' role and she utterly wiped the floor with Alexander de Pfeffle Johnson on a couple of occasions to boot.

It does beg the question: as Starmer, although analytical, is pretty shit at PMQ's and holding the tories to account in the house, why was he elected and not Reyner? She seems so much better at the job than Starmer and would really resonate with a significant number of plebs.

Because she didn't stand for the leadership. There are separate elections for leader and deputy.

Rebecca Long-Bailey was the nearest equivalent to Rayner who stood for the leadership.

Apologies, it was a bit of a rhetorical rant. I knew Reyner didn't stand.

Baring in mind, she IS proving to be a better leader than Starmer atm and would have resonated exceedingly well with the labour party members at the time, Starmer appears to be a pretty poor choice. Also iirc Starmer has already attempted to give Reyner the boot due to 'differences' on multiple occasions (and i would hazard a guess that he can see her being able to defeat him handily if another party vote was held today) as well as run his own purge within Labour. Atm it looks like we are running up to Blair Mk2, not because Starmer is good, just the current crop of Tories are utter piles of corrupt, moronic, selfserving dickbags.

[Rodj Blake]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

Yes, because obviously when she scheduled yesterday's speech ages ago she did it especially to distract from the reshuffle she knew nothing about.

[Lallante]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

Yes, because obviously when she scheduled yesterday's speech ages ago she did it especially to distract from the reshuffle she knew nothing about.

She had her people anonymously brief the press that the shuffle was done without her knowledge (a lie they later walked back to 'she knew it was happening but not when' which is probably also a lie)

[Zekk Pacus]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

So you mean she's doing exactly what Tom Watson spent his entire time in the Deputy Leader's position trying to do? But this time it's Bad, Actually?

[Zekk Pacus]

You mean the people who actually got elected ?

Mandelson was deeply involved in Ed Miliband's 2015 election. You know, the one where Labour got 29% of the vote that everyone's forgotten about while they go on and on about the worst result in a century where the Labour Party only got *checks notes* 32% of the vote.

[Keckers]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

So you mean she's doing exactly what Tom Watson spent his entire time in the Deputy Leader's position trying to do? But this time it's Bad, Actually?

It's only infighting when the left instigate it.

[Lallante]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

So you mean she's doing exactly what Tom Watson spent his entire time in the Deputy Leader's position trying to do? But this time it's Bad, Actually?

It was bad then too and the results were as I am saying.

[Rodj Blake]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

So you mean she's doing exactly what Tom Watson spent his entire time in the Deputy Leader's position trying to do? But this time it's Bad, Actually?

It was bad then too and the results were as I am saying.

I don't recall you saying so at the time.

[Siv]

Tories hold by-election but majority from 19k to 4.5k is quite a swing for a stronghold seat.

[Duckslayer]

Tories hold by-election but majority from 19k to 4.5k is quite a swing for a stronghold seat.

Gawd Bless FPTP!

[El Capitano]

Tories hold by-election but majority from 19k to 4.5k is quite a swing for a stronghold seat.

Absolute numbers mean nothing.

[Lallante]

Rayner is a good orator and excellent at firing up the "hang the tories from the streetlights" far left segment labour base.

But she has also demonstrated she is happy to very publicly try to undermine the elected leader of her party over and over again over basically non-stories (like this reshuffle).

She is pretty nakedly and obviously going to try to unseat Keir. This is good for Rayner, and its probably good for lots of you anti capitalists, but its guaranteeing Labour more years/decades in opposition.

So you mean she's doing exactly what Tom Watson spent his entire time in the Deputy Leader's position trying to do? But this time it's Bad, Actually?

It was bad then too and the results were as I am saying.

I don't recall you saying so at the time.

Sorry for the early onset alzheimers then mate