[Siderite]

Wait for what? Do you have a crystal ball? I would be more than happy for him to get in with his approval ratings from an electoral prospective for Labour.

I wonder how those who treat him like a hurricane of votes would react and spin if the Tories lose a majority. I am sure there would be no self-reflection for these certain proclamations, even after many did the same with Truss! Loads told us not to underestimate her.

[Siderite]

You keep saying this. Of course he might do well, but he is not some certain power of nature. His approval ratings aren’t good, and approval ratings tend to decline with time.

What’s more, a significant number of MPs aren’t on his side, so expect more instability.

[Siderite]

An MP found unfit for office and is under investigation for breaking parliamentary standards. If he comes back as PM then how do the Tories expect to treat them as a serious party?

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Bigger success rate than Liz!!

Bucks for PM!

[Siderite]

We did do with Laws when Knill was sacked. Does this make Laws Boris in awaywego’s analogy? X-)

[Siderite]

I think I have made my feelings for Corbyn quite clear, and it’s the opposite of support. In fact, I would be willing to bet my feelings are more negative for that anti-Semitic, irascible, Putin apologising crank than Bucks’s.

[Siderite]

It’s all a bit of battling against reality to try and argue for Trussinomics now. The impact was severe from the start and anyone trying to pursue it would not because of this shambles.

Trickle down economics does not work and there is no evidence that we would have seen the growth required from the plan. Growth happens when the middle and lower classes see a rise in wealth. This was a big benefit to the very rich and no-one else, and their wealth does not tend to filter down.

Now I await the disdain and attacks for daring to disagree civilly, while being made out to be a villain out to get the usual suspect.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

I think every leader should be taken seriously as an opponent, but I don’t have as much confidence as those making out he’s some unstoppable behemoth,

[Siderite]

Not really, it’s just my opinion based on my own interpretation of events. It just amuses me that people try and make out Johnson is some unstoppable behemoth, when there are signs he isn’t. It’s like a few months of poor election results and poor approval ratings have been forgotten.

Of course he could win, but we can only base our opinions on signs before an event (like an election) happens. I don’t see him as some unstoppable force or great worry when the Tories are a mess.

[Siderite]

It would me, but I suspect for different reasons.

It’s like the calamitous election results earlier this year have been forgotten, as others pretend he is some guaranteed certainty for success.

[Siderite]

Just me watch what? You do realise that having a discredited leader with poor approval ratings is something Labour would relish?

Boris Johnson had a net approval rating of -33.3% at the end of his premiership.

That compares to Starmer's current rating of +1.0% and Truss' -58.3%.https://t.co/kz25YAmvxC pic.twitter.com/zomUPK6aTk

— Election Maps UK (@ElectionMapsUK) October 20, 2022

[Siderite]

Why? His approval rating nose dived. There is no room for complacency, but there was a reason why Labour were happy to see him stumble on towards the end.

[Siderite]

You’re assuming that voter inclination among the young doesn’t change there, Gurny. Though, I think complacency and assumptions that enough young will go Tory is a problem for the Tories. In short, it is a problem, but I don’t think we can talk of powerlessness for decades with any kind of certainty.

[Siderite]

He needs approval of 100 MPs first, which is a challenge now. Besides, I am not worried in the slightest about a leader who was discredited and in the deep negatives for approval rating. The Tories are probably deluding themselves if he can be their saviour.

It would be quite amusing to see him lose an election and spoil the narrative. My opinion alone, but I don’t think he’d bring any significant recovery.

[Siderite]

Aye, including encouraging all those who resigned and submitted no confidence letters themselves after a short period of time, because of his actions.

[Siderite]

Also, I think it’s a comment about how Brexit has fostered a division within the party. May was ousted over it, Cameron resigned because of it. The sections of the party have been divided since and this has led to instability which may not have been so evident without it, for right or wrong. I think the problems are more an indirect effect of Brexit, exacerbating pre-existing fault lines.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Northumbiron, Gurnelista, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

The comments about wets reminds me a lot of Corbynites deriding moderates as Blairites and impure centrists. The Corbynisation of Tory members continues.

Hardly ridiculous. It even has a Wiki article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism. It is irrelevant finger wagging to deflect from criticism of yourself or a side you support. As for that, I have reservations about Starmer on some things, though I can vote Labour with him (unlike before with Corbyn), but it’s brave to try and claim he’d be anywhere near as bad as this shambles. All he has to do is last greater than 45 days, and he’d be better. He’s been LOTO for much longer, and with greater unity than with Truss (no, this does not mean I am unaware of the idiotic element causing trouble at times, but they are comparatively sparing), so it wouldn’t take much to be less chaotic.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

bpg spotted in Westminster:

[Siderite]

Secular philosophies outlining morality predate Christianity. Are you stealing from them?

Evolution has no morality to it. Your statement is as meaningless as saying “plate tectonics worldview” or “gravity worldview.”

[Siderite]

Yet again the term ‘evolutionist’ is abused. In fact, the term doesn’t really exist.

All this demonstrates is a lack of understanding of secular philosophies. No-one thinks murder is wrong because of ‘personal preference,’ but because we can understand how others feel. Unless you’re a psychopath. If someone needs to consult with God whether an action is moral I am worried; it’s why extremists justify the very worst behaviour through religion.

[Siderite]

That’s just your opinion, but I am sure you’ll try and claim it as a fact. As it’s an opinion, I am allowed to disagree using a different one. As are the many, including Tories, who also found it weak.

Desperate deflection and whataboutery at the end there.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Iron-awe, Heath

[Siderite]

Your last post missed my point. I wasn’t saying the evolutionary development of the brain is the question. It is, however, a means of explaining how we can understand logic without need for a deity. Your statement is that without God there is no accounting for the ability to reason. This explains it perfectly, without the need for a deity. We can justify ‘the laws of logic’ because we can understand how natural and artificial processes can work and lead to certain outcomes. We can understand how processes are universal, because we can understand how the processes are not random, so will be universal (no god needed). There is no need for a god to make the argument work, as there is with oxygen for respiration. You can have faith that God set the conditions for how the Universe came to be, but there isn’t a necessity for logical determination to make sense. There is no stealing from the Bible needed to understand how frictional energy creates heat (with or without knowledge of what that actually is). Humans were using logic before the Bible, and could do so without Christian values.

Also, many physicists, religious or not, would take exception to the idea that the Universe is an accident.

[Siderite]

We can justify our beliefs in logic, because we can see how actions determine an outcome. A deity is not needed for the outcome. We don’t need a deity to explain why such outcomes exist (i.e. why frictional heat from flint generates fire in kindling). It’s superfluous, so your statement is illogical. It’s a non-sequitur.

Quite simply, we can understand that logic exists because we can see and learn how our actions lead to a consequence. This is a truism no matter the existence or non-existence of a god.

[Siderite]

I agree that Suella Braverman and the like signal to that kind of divisive mentality among some Tories, but I don’t want to make broad statements about all Tories. It’s perfectly possible to have good intentions, but be mistaken (from the perspective of someone who disagrees).

2 users thanked author for this post.

Just Iron, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

He has said himself that he wants to be like Peter the Great. He wants the former Russian Empire territory because he doesn’t think they’re legitimate countries.

[Siderite]

The person can deny oxygen exists, but the effect on a human can still be observable. A person can deny the need for a god to have logic, but the same need for a god won’t be observable. There is no world where the There are other, more evidence based, explanations available, unlike with oxygen for respiration. Development of the brain within species through time is perfectly acceptable for a greater ability to reason and no god is required.

We don’t need to invoke deities to explain why humans can use their brains to put two and two together or why we can expect a certain outcome from an action.

[Siderite]

Someone should have told Suella that Truss did so well in PMQs! Why quit now when Starmer doesn’t know what’s hit him*?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/19/suella-braverman-departs-as-uk-home-secretary-liz-truss

*No malice intended, Bucks. We should all laugh at ourselves, including myself.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

The point you miss is that we can see the effects of how oxygen gives life. We don’t see the effect of how God gives logic. We can see how humans, and indeed other animals to lesser extent, can use logic from secular means. There is no need to invoke a god to explain how humans followed trains of thought through history.

We don’t need a god to understand how humans first realised how to make fire from creating sparks with flint. There is no need to invoke a god to understand how crows first realised you could use twigs to hook insects from trees for food. All it required was a greater brain power for some to realise it and others to be taught. There is no god necessary for a step between as there is between the needing of oxygen for respiration.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Good posts IMO Siderite. I have a few friends who are so fiercely anti NATO and anti West it’s a waste of time discussing this matter. No matter what Putin does, or more atrocities he commits, apparently the US, NATO and allies are more to blame. Find it very dismaying that any humanitarian concerns are ignored or dismissed in favour of ideology. ‘Negotiations’?? When has Putin ever indicated he’s really interested in them? See their stance through to it’s logical conclusion and Putin would have taken Ukraine by now and be on to the next former Soviet country he’s embarrassed about losing in the first place (his words). But hey, in the name of ‘peace’ and stopping war, to hell with the Ukrainians (or not ‘but don’t ask troublesome questions please!). This is before we get on to the amount of ‘useful idiots’ out there on social media parroting exactly what Putin wants to hear. I know a few Ukrainians, as I’m sure many of the ‘stop the war’ crowd do. I’d feel pretty ashamed if I adopted the latter’s attitude.

It has also come out that a Russian minister to Ukraine had said they had got assurances Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO, prior to invasion. Yet Putin still sanctioned invasion. The NATO argument is an excuse for useful idiots to parrot.

I doubt StW know many Ukrainians outside of through antagonistic encounters. During the Syrian civil war, when that was at its peak, they actively refused Syrians a platform.

[Siderite]

Then, of course, you will kick up a fuss because I have showed some disdain here. Play stupid games, twisting words, and you will get disdain.

[Author]

Posts