forkboy84 posted:

Who'd you have to replace her? Best odds you can get on Boris, the bookies favourite, is 6/1. Amber Rudd the 2nd favourite, then Philip Hammond. Not sure Rudd would stand much chance in the light of the past few days though.

forkboy84 posted:

Who'd you have to replace her? Best odds you can get on Boris, the bookies favourite, is 6/1. Amber Rudd the 2nd favourite, then Philip Hammond. Not sure Rudd would stand much chance in the light of the past few days though.

forkboy84 posted:

Who'd you have to replace her? Best odds you can get on Boris, the bookies favourite, is 6/1. Amber Rudd the 2nd favourite, then Philip Hammond. Not sure Rudd would stand much chance in the light of the past few days though.

NotJustANumber99 posted:

So when Theresa May is quoted this morning as supporting 'shoot to kill' wtf does she mean or any of the assembled journalists understand her to mean?

That when we did it with the IRA it was fine, or that we are doing it again now? Or just words are now meaningless beyond having used up a small sliver of time so that we can all get on with our decay into dusty nothingness?

Oberleutnant posted:

I remember that for me it was more about wanting to keep the Tories out, than having any really positive feelings for Labour. I feel positive about the Lab manifesto this time. It's not left wing enough to satisfy me personally, but right now I'll settle for having a government that isn't actively trying to kill all poor and disabled people.

mediadave posted:

Ask me if I disagree with the UVF

Oberleutnant posted:

Andrea Leadsom

Cerv posted:

no idea. it seems so unlikely that we'll be in that position that you might as well pick an outside wildcard.
David Cameron why not

spectralent posted:

forkboy84 posted:

I'll ask you to gently caress off.

Can you gently caress off?

forkboy84 posted:

Coral have her at 100/1 if you actually think that.

Ewan posted:

Home Sec --> PM is a relatively normal progression.

Oberleutnant posted:

I only just realised your username was "spectralent" I've been somehow misreading it as "spectraltaint" since forever.

mediadave posted:

I'm ambivalent about Corbyn, I guess his persistent habit of prevarication (being unable to denounce the IRA without also denouncing loyalist groups, being unable to denounce antisemitism without also denouncing all other racism, etc) hits me the same way the immigration cup hit lots of you. Which I still think is stupid, Ed's immigration policy was more open than Corbyn's is now, but nevermind. I do take the point that Corbyn has enthused and inspired people in a way that most PLP candidates couldn't. We will see if it actually shakes out that way, of course.

At this point in 2015 I was just grateful that Cameron's time was coming to an end, but my main worry was the SNP wave. From a couple of weeks before the 2014 indyref I thought yes was going to win and got very depressed and anxious. Yes lost, but then Scottish Labour dissolved and Cameron seemed to be deliberately obnoxious and antagonistic about it, and it seemed guaranteed that there was going to be another referendum very shortly and that yes would win. I thought a Labour government would put an end to that movement.

Carecat posted:

I think he was way too optimistic about nuanced positions translating across the media but they look to have a better handle on it recently. Being against nuclear weapons is a logical viewpoint as they are impossible to use without armageddon, we have NATO and it's very expensive but to a lot of people that would just translate into being a pussy, even the French have nukes.

Guavanaut posted:

Is it? I can only think of Churchill and Callaghan. I think there was another one but pre-20th century so Lord Aristocratic Cravatlace or something.

Home and Foreign are famous for putting people you don't really want to become future PM.

Carecat posted:

I think he was way too optimistic about nuanced positions translating across the media but they look to have a better handle on it recently. Being against nuclear weapons is a logical viewpoint as they are impossible to use without armageddon, we have NATO and it's very expensive but to a lot of people that would just translate into being a pussy, even the French have nukes.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Obviously shoot to kill is not current policy.

forkboy84 posted:

Well, guess what John Woodcock has been up to? Showing gratitude for Momentum coming to his constituency to campaign on his behalf & just growing the gently caress up?

https://twitter.com/BBC_Cumbria/status/871641385639837696

That'll be no then.

How much longer until he gets the whip removed & punted out of the party?

Halisnacks posted:

Could a sufficiently weak Conservative majority, either reduced or only marginally bigger than pre-election, be enough for May's resignation? Or would she need to lose the majority entirely before her stepping down becomes plausible?

mediadave posted:

I'm ambivalent about Corbyn, I guess his persistent habit of prevarication (being unable to denounce the IRA without also denouncing loyalist groups, being unable to denounce antisemitism without also denouncing all other racism, etc) hits me the same way the immigration cup hit lots of you. Which I still think is stupid, Ed's immigration policy was more open than Corbyn's is now, but nevermind. I do take the point that Corbyn has enthused and inspired people in a way that most PLP candidates couldn't. We will see if it actually shakes out that way, of course.

spectralent posted:

No, I think failing to deliver a crushing victory would be enough given how awful her campaign's been so far. This was meant to be a formality, and they've come out severely bloodied. Unless it turns out the entire time everything was wrong and they were really ahead and had nothing to worry about they'll be out for blood.

Daveman23 posted:

The postal votes that are in at the moment show the Tories with an 11% lead.

Daveman23 posted:

The postal votes that are in at the moment show the Tories with an 11% lead.

Daveman23 posted:

The postal votes that are in at the moment show the Tories with an 11% lead.

spectralent posted:

No, I think failing to deliver a crushing victory would be enough given how awful her campaign's been so far. This was meant to be a formality, and they've come out severely bloodied. Unless it turns out the entire time everything was wrong and they were really ahead and had nothing to worry about they'll be out for blood.

Daveman23 posted:

The postal votes that are in at the moment show the Tories with an 11% lead.

Ewan posted:

Fair enough - seems I'm talking bollocks on that one. Obvs there's May herself to add to that too...

Daveman23 posted:

The postal votes that are in at the moment show the Tories with an 11% lead.

Halisnacks posted:

Could a sufficiently weak Conservative majority, either reduced or only marginally bigger than pre-election, be enough for May's resignation? Or would she need to lose the majority entirely before her stepping down becomes plausible?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Aren't postal votes supposed to remain sealed until the day of the election?

Halisnacks posted:

Could a sufficiently weak Conservative majority, either reduced or only marginally bigger than pre-election, be enough for May's resignation? Or would she need to lose the majority entirely before her stepping down becomes plausible?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

I think anything other than a significant increase in the Tory majority will leave May's position untenable, as the largest unforced error in UK political history.

Daveman23 posted:

The postal votes that are in at the moment show the Tories with an 11% lead.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

I think anything other than a significant increase in the Tory majority will leave May's position untenable, as the largest unforced error in UK political history.

Halisnacks posted:

How would this untenable position be acted on though? I will give the Tories that they seem committed to power above all (see: the swift falling behind May with minimal bickering in the last Tory leadership election). How could they pretend to be the "strong and stable" party with their 3rd leader in less than two years?