pink_triangle

Do you think they would have let a labour MP on in the same situation, I think they probably would.

Agreed he has to sack him or keep him. To let him resign is the worst of both worlds.

I think if you ask that question people will say yes. That’s not however the question Sunak is asking, the question is what is the impact of (those who are paying attention) being bothered. If it impacts on how they vote that’s an issue, if people are bothered for a couple of days and move on to the next story it’s not. As I said before the Patel story kind of fizzled out, will this one be different?

He may be one of his own c**ts. However if you are going to get rid of one of your gang, I think you want to look decisive. While I agree nobody likes a bully, do you think the Patel bullying had any significant impact?

I said people don’t know who the deputy pm is not who Raab is. However I suspect Raab name recognition is far less than you think. I saw some polling once and name recognition for high profile politicians was really low. I think a better comparison would be Patel who was found to be a bully. Lots of anger on twitter, but the story faded away. My guess is the same happens, but will need to see what the report says.

Partygate was different because of the sacrifices everyone made and Boris is way better known than Raab. I think this is a story that probably doesn’t move the electoral needle at all, but need to see what’s in the report to make a better judgement.

The fact he hasn’t got rid of him today suggests to me he thinks it’s not damming enough. He got rid of Zahawi really quickly.

I suspect the vast majority of the country don’t know who the deputy PM is, nor do they know what a civil servant does. Rishi will balance the negativity from getting rid of him with the negativity of keeping him. My guess is he will gamble that the story will blow over and I suspect he will be right.

I think he Rishi can get away with keeping him in post, don’t think this is a story that has really resonated with the public.

If the SNP needed a loan , why didn’t they ask a wealthy donor. To take it from the husband of the first minister just doesn’t pass the smell test.

I think as leader of the opposition he has full control in terms of who is deported.

I can’t see either Milan team winning the champions league. I fancy the winner of City v Madrid to win the final comfortably.

My main issue with the list system is it makes it really hard for voters to kick out a really unpopular incumbent. I almost feel the best system would be one where constituents have a say on the order of the list, but no way parties give up that kind of control. I think the trouble is it’s not a priority for most people, so the demand for change isn’t big enough.

Ask Mickey Thomas!

Unfortunately as a Wrexham fan I’m naturally pessimistic, 6 points in 3 games is definitely “if” and not “when” territory. We have a record of messing up the play offs so would have no confidence if we don’t get the job done. I’m not blind to the fact we are where we are in the league because of money. The fact we haven’t won the league on a points total that would win every season shows there are still no guarantees.

Arsenal are probably 5th biggest wage budget so to come 2nd is a good achievement. Man City have a better squad which really tells in the run in, that’s because they have spent a lot more money.

I feel the SNP supporters need to take some responsibility here. They bought into the philosophy of undivided loyalty to the leadership and not questioning those at the top is not a good thing. The fact we ended up with first minister and chief executive living in the same house was a clear conflict of interest, SNP supporters didn’t question this relationship as they were told it was fine.

Most of those who suggest the no compromise left wing rhetoric and no playing politics, are the ones who will be ok if the tories win. Starmer is trying to win an election not the title of most pure politician in the county. I hope he succeeds as the ones who really need help need a labour government, not people patting themselves on the back saying they fought a fair fight.

Did they have much detail in 1997 or just vague catchphrase like education, education, education. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. I honestly can’t remember.

Starmer is what he is. He isn’t particularly charismatic and is pretty much centre ground labour. I am not comvinced any other leader would be doing better, nor would a more radical platform be more popular. I think the 1997 landslide had labour 12 percent ahead of the torys. I pretty much ignore the polls, there is no way they are doing as well as 1997.

I have had an interest in politics for about 30 years and that time has told me that the public will be taken in by lies. I think the best we can hope for is they are just fed up with Torys in general and want a change. It may not be the radical change you would like, but it’s a pragmatic compromise people can vote for. To think the electorate is suddenly all going to become massively politically engaged, read manifestos and want complex political discussion is in my view setting you up for failure. Your right labour can say how they will make things better, they have to some extent now, but they aren’t going to produce a full policy platform now for the Torys to rip off. However there is a balance with what you can promise and what the electorate will vote for. If you want labour to go into an election talking about reducing sentences, reducing the amount going to prison, more focus instead on rehabilitation. It will be political suicide and quoted on conservative election material throughout the country. If you want action and not words then they need the tough on crime message and work on rehabilitation more in power.

Of course the polls are closing, that was inevitable. Anyone who thought labour would win by 20 points had unrealistic expectations. The worst thing they could do is panic.

Your strategy of being completely honest while conservatives tell the electorate what they want to hear will mean labour never win. They weren’t elected in 1997 with a radical message , they were elected with a pretty safe message. They then got in power and improved things and got voted back in 2 times. You can’t however prove yourself in power if you don’t get it in the first place.

So knowing that the conservatives will say anything to be elected. You want labour to be completely honest even if it costs them votes? What could possibly go wrong with that strategy? The reality is most of the electorate don’t want to know detailed information about policy. They just want to know the basic direction of travel. Labour have a weakness in terms of crime and they need to try and correct that weakness. There is no election win without a tough on crime message. However in power hopefully they will take a wider view of things.

Do you honestly believe that labour don’t know it’s not more complicated than that, unfortunately we have an electorate who doesn’t want complex and to actually do anything about these issues you have to get in power first. I believe that labour will do more than conservatives in power and for that reason I’m willing to accept playing politics. I don’t want to feel morally superior in second place. If you are Corbyn labour, greens, Lib Dem’s and happy to be in opposition you can say whatever you want. If you are Labour you need to try and build a coalition that can win power. I would love an electorate where everyone is like me, but don’t have the magic wand to make it that way.