[Siderite]

I refer to my point above. Our choice is most likely to be Sunak, Mordaunt or Johnson. I could have worded it differently, but essentially my point is that Johnson is so bad for the country that these other two, comparatively untarnished, are less of an issue than a guy removed a few months ago for dishonesty coming back again when there is an investigation above his head. The instability would be huge and he could tumble down again rapidly.

[Siderite]

64 wrote:

Mordaunt ? you claim to be a centrist

Where did I say I supported her? I don’t. I just think she is preferable to Johnson, for all his problems with honesty and not being so shady.

[Siderite]

Iron-awe wrote:

I think the majority just want our country run in a more reasoned sensible way with everyone in society get a reasonable chance to live a fair and better life.

For the country’s sake it has to be someone like Mordaunt or Sunak. However, if the Tories want to have a death wish with more instability and division under Johnson, then I can find solace in laughter. After all, Labour really aren’t going to be quivering in their boots at this. The Conservatives needs booting out and replenishing with fresh talent after failing. The situation is not tenable with the clowns in charge and is unlikely to change given they all have their tepid excuses for it.

[Siderite]

Yes, please, go for Boris, Tories. It could be political suicide.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-10-21/damning-partygate-evidence-means-boris-johnson-could-be-gone-by-christmas

[Siderite]

Hmmm. The party who rules us does affect me and all around me.

I am far less bothered than I seem on the debating front. I think a lot, enjoy debate and trying to see how others think and maybe learn a thing or two, while expressing my own opinion in the (probably vain) hope others can understand me better and maybe learn something themselves. Of course I cannot expect people to change opinions because of my arguments for many reasons, including the arrogance it would take for me to assume that I am right on everything and can sway every mind I interact with. Moreover, thinking about hot topics is a way of keeping my mind active and realising what’s needed to change the world for the better, in accordance with my political beliefs and principles.

[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.

[Author]

Posts