Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister

[JagLover]

anonymoususer said:

Meanwhile some policies, changes etc are being looked into that IMO do benefit people.
It may seem unimportant and maybe something to sneer at but this kind of stuff is the sort of thing that does benefit folk
I may well be serious

The Environment Department (Defra) announced on Friday that the same materials will be collected from homes, workplaces and schools across the country in order to end the confusion caused by councils operating different systems.

Under the new rules, people will be able to put plastic, metal, glass, paper and card in one bin.

Councils will also be able to co-collect food and garden waste.

Defra said the new measures will mean households no longer have to check which materials their specific council will accept for recycling.

Some genuine good news there

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/simpler-bin-col...

It is what my Mum has already, whereas in Swindon they seem to want an individual container for each item.

Edited by JagLover on Thursday 9th May 05:25

[borcy]

Perhaps i misread but it says councils are 'allowed' not must or will. Along with 'councils are expected '. There's nothing in there to suggest compulsion.

Edited by borcy on Thursday 9th May 05:30

[robemcdonald]

hidetheelephants said:

Pyrrhic might be more appropriate greek than Spartan.

I would suggest yoghurt is a much more appropriate Greek for that comparison.

[Derek Smith]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Most people won't have a clue who Natalie Elphicke is, what she has said, or what her values are. All they will hear is a Conservative MP crossing to join Labour. It's a political gift for Labour - it boosts SKS's credibility and it damages Sunak. She is even standing down, so they don't need to worry about that aspect. Although I strongly wonder what she was promised in return ...no doubt we will see after the election where she pops up again.....

As to your question, any Labour MPs asked this question can hit a home run. They can reiterate Labour's "values", then can say Elphicke presumably must have realised how 'wrong' she was, it must have been a damascene moment, better late than never, 'we're reaching across the aisle', 'we're the party of the centre now' etc etc. And if the person asking the questions pushes further, they just say they really should put those questions to Elphicke directly.

That is the reality I expect.

Very few knew who she was. What fame remains at the election will amount to her being the one who crossed the floor.

[PositronicRay]

I see Nadim Zahawl is not contesting the next election.

Good, all helps with the tiding up once in opposition.

[bitchstewie]

Derek Smith said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Most people won't have a clue who Natalie Elphicke is, what she has said, or what her values are. All they will hear is a Conservative MP crossing to join Labour. It's a political gift for Labour - it boosts SKS's credibility and it damages Sunak. She is even standing down, so they don't need to worry about that aspect. Although I strongly wonder what she was promised in return ...no doubt we will see after the election where she pops up again.....

As to your question, any Labour MPs asked this question can hit a home run. They can reiterate Labour's "values", then can say Elphicke presumably must have realised how 'wrong' she was, it must have been a damascene moment, better late than never, 'we're reaching across the aisle', 'we're the party of the centre now' etc etc. And if the person asking the questions pushes further, they just say they really should put those questions to Elphicke directly.

That is the reality I expect.

Very few knew who she was. What fame remains at the election will amount to her being the one who crossed the floor.

You may both be right and I may be a little blinkered as I (as do many of us) probably pay a lot more attention to this stuff than 95% of the population.

But Elphicke is just nasty and even if the above is true it leaves a bad taste when you'd think they easily have the political capital to tell her to do one.

Between her Rashford comments, the stuff on migrants, and her defence of her husband after his conviction she just isn't very pleasant.

[Gecko1978]

PositronicRay said:

I see Nadim Zahawl is not contesting the next election.

Good, all helps with the tiding up once in opposition.

Has he not already secured a high paying role along side being an MP so frankly he is set for life and doesn't care.

[PositronicRay]

Gecko1978 said:

PositronicRay said:

I see Nadim Zahawl is not contesting the next election.

Good, all helps with the tiding up once in opposition.

Has he not already secured a high paying role along side being an MP so frankly he is set for life and doesn't care.

Oh yes considerably richer than yow.

[S600BSB]

bhstewie said:

Derek Smith said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Most people won't have a clue who Natalie Elphicke is, what she has said, or what her values are. All they will hear is a Conservative MP crossing to join Labour. It's a political gift for Labour - it boosts SKS's credibility and it damages Sunak. She is even standing down, so they don't need to worry about that aspect. Although I strongly wonder what she was promised in return ...no doubt we will see after the election where she pops up again.....

As to your question, any Labour MPs asked this question can hit a home run. They can reiterate Labour's "values", then can say Elphicke presumably must have realised how 'wrong' she was, it must have been a damascene moment, better late than never, 'we're reaching across the aisle', 'we're the party of the centre now' etc etc. And if the person asking the questions pushes further, they just say they really should put those questions to Elphicke directly.

That is the reality I expect.

Very few knew who she was. What fame remains at the election will amount to her being the one who crossed the floor.

You may both be right and I may be a little blinkered as I (as do many of us) probably pay a lot more attention to this stuff than 95% of the population.

But Elphicke is just nasty and even if the above is true it leaves a bad taste when you'd think they easily have the political capital to tell her to do one.

Between her Rashford comments, the stuff on migrants, and her defence of her husband after his conviction she just isn't very pleasant.

Chris Mason on the Beeb saying that some Conservatives assumed she was joining Reform. Sums her up really.

[turbobloke]

bhstewie said:

Derek Smith said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Most people won't have a clue who Natalie Elphicke is, what she has said, or what her values are. All they will hear is a Conservative MP crossing to join Labour. It's a political gift for Labour - it boosts SKS's credibility and it damages Sunak. She is even standing down, so they don't need to worry about that aspect. Although I strongly wonder what she was promised in return ...no doubt we will see after the election where she pops up again.....

As to your question, any Labour MPs asked this question can hit a home run. They can reiterate Labour's "values", then can say Elphicke presumably must have realised how 'wrong' she was, it must have been a damascene moment, better late than never, 'we're reaching across the aisle', 'we're the party of the centre now' etc etc. And if the person asking the questions pushes further, they just say they really should put those questions to Elphicke directly.

That is the reality I expect.

Very few knew who she was. What fame remains at the election will amount to her being the one who crossed the floor.

You may both be right and I may be a little blinkered as I (as do many of us) probably pay a lot more attention to this stuff than 95% of the population.

99% more like.

bhstewie said:

But Elphicke is just nasty...

Nasty. So, you disagree with her on issues. There's that adorable, baseless moral superiority rhetoric poking out again.

As polnted out, the vast majority won't know who she is or which of Santa's lists she's currently on, or have the political mania needed to add a nasty label (nasty refers to the label).

[bitchstewie]

No Turbo there are plenty of people who are good decent people who I simply disagree with on issues.

Elphicke is nasty.

[Blue62]

S600BSB said:

Chris Mason on the Beeb saying that some Conservatives assumed she was joining Reform. Sums her up really.

That would’ve been the obvious destination, her staged meeting with Starmer yesterday was butt clenching. Maybe she is intending to stand again, which may explain her decision, but I thought she’d been offered a seat in the HoL?

[Killboy]

turbobloke said:

Nasty. So, you disagree with her on issues. There's that adorable, baseless moral superiority rhetoric poking out again.

As polnted out, the vast majority won't know who she is or which of Santa's lists she's currently on, or have the political mania needed to add a nasty label (nasty refers to the label).

I had no idea who she is and what she's about. But a few minutes of googling and I must say, she seems nasty. Is that her, or just my baseless moral superiority?

[Mr Penguin]

At the very least she phrases things in a way that makes her sound nasty. Vice signalling.

[768]

bhstewie said:

No Turbo there are plenty of people who are good decent people who I simply disagree with on issues.

Elphicke is nasty.

She represents Labour values now.

Sounds like quite the conundrum.

[Tom8]

Sunak is like a deja vu of Brown. Wanted the top job, got it eventually and then was crap at it. Having said that those around him are no help and politicians are shallow folk far more interested in themselves than party or country and that applies to all parties.

Starmer would have probably prefer she just went indy rather than join labour especially as it is upsetting those in his own party. What next for Rishi? If it was me I would do a Major and call a vote of confidence then call an election on the back of that. Nothing to lose really.

[Gecko1978]

PositronicRay said:

Gecko1978 said:

PositronicRay said:

I see Nadim Zahawl is not contesting the next election.

Good, all helps with the tiding up once in opposition.

Has he not already secured a high paying role along side being an MP so frankly he is set for life and doesn't care.

Oh yes considerably richer than yow.

Haha I would love to reply I had won the lottery an got a newer Mercedes lol....but he is considerable richer than me.

[Derek Smith]

bhstewie said:

Derek Smith said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Most people won't have a clue who Natalie Elphicke is, what she has said, or what her values are. All they will hear is a Conservative MP crossing to join Labour. It's a political gift for Labour - it boosts SKS's credibility and it damages Sunak. She is even standing down, so they don't need to worry about that aspect. Although I strongly wonder what she was promised in return ...no doubt we will see after the election where she pops up again.....

As to your question, any Labour MPs asked this question can hit a home run. They can reiterate Labour's "values", then can say Elphicke presumably must have realised how 'wrong' she was, it must have been a damascene moment, better late than never, 'we're reaching across the aisle', 'we're the party of the centre now' etc etc. And if the person asking the questions pushes further, they just say they really should put those questions to Elphicke directly.

That is the reality I expect.

Very few knew who she was. What fame remains at the election will amount to her being the one who crossed the floor.

You may both be right and I may be a little blinkered as I (as do many of us) probably pay a lot more attention to this stuff than 95% of the population.

But Elphicke is just nasty and even if the above is true it leaves a bad taste when you'd think they easily have the political capital to tell her to do one.

Between her Rashford comments, the stuff on migrants, and her defence of her husband after his conviction she just isn't very pleasant.

She is a nasty bit of work and while I can see the political advantages Starmer might gain from her defection, it's a risk. Is it one he needed to make?

As for the defence of her husband, that's not something I'd criticise anyone for. But for the rest, she's best avoided. I wonder if he's promised her anything post election. That would be a big mistake.

[President Merkin]

Tom8 said:

Starmer would have probably prefer she just went indy rather than join labour especially as it is upsetting those in his own party. What next for Rishi? If it was me I would do a Major and call a vote of confidence then call an election on the back of that. Nothing to lose really.

Eh? It's not a public library, Starmer could have said do one. A moment's thought would have the average keyboard masher wondering why he took her in & the answer is obvious - box in Sunak's Rwanda nonsense & force a GE. Neither is particularly likely but the drip, drip continues. God I thought Labour voters were divas, they've got nothing on the Tory neurotics.

[isaldiri]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Mr Penguin said:

What are the positives? All I see is the papers and Labour MPs saying they are unhappy with it. This is only six or seven hours after being announced and now the press have an obvious set of questions to catch out any Labour MPs and cause mischief.

The positive is that Labour dominate the (political) news headlines for a day or so. It's a positive story for Labour. It's another piece of 'evidence' which supports their narrative about the current government "failing" blah blah. And they don't need to worry about her real views as she is standing down. And it's another set of questions for Sunak, which he would rather not deal with.

Putting it another way, in the political grind you are either applying pressure or taking pressure. This is Labour applying pressure.

The grumblings of a few MPs are irrelevant in the national context, particular at this phase before an election.

While largely true, arguably it also shows Starmer has rather poor political judgement though. And that's something he (just like Sunak amusingly enough) has had fairly constant issues with. Sure he does get some kind of immediate 'win' for making Sunak look bad (which tbh he hardly really needs to be doing anyway given the current government showing) but whether it overall was a good idea longer term is rather a lot less obvious I think.