[The Weeping Angel]

Cheers Clive.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Put him on the other thread. I'll move here.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Clive is channelling his inner John Major era Maastricht bore, I see. Without a plausible replacement, the same from Clive and co will go about as well for the Government as it did then.

I've been getting irritated with him for a while, I can agree or disagree with his view of Starmer's capability but I'm increasingly finding him a bullshitter.

Here's Clive in February, in philosopher king mode. It's basically an excuse to work in everything he believes anyway. Water nationalisation isn't a security issue but he mentions it,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ign-policy

Britain must see being ditched by Donald Trump for what it really is: a great opportunity
Clive Lewis

Opportunity, per Clive's article, seems to involve spending a lot more money on Defence when we're already funding Net Zero and trying to stop public services collapsing. Donald Trump is an immense nuisance, not an opportunity. Run the tax increases past the electorate, see how much of an opportunity they think it is.

Some clever sounding stuff about integrating Defence and industrial strategy. The Government was already doing that when he was writing, and still is. One of my big irritants with the Left is that they purported for years to be interested in this stuff, but mostly ignore it now.

With the US pursuing its self interests without hesitation, does it make sense for the UK to rely on a nuclear capability dependent upon it? What use is a weapon system that could be switched off, repurposed or used as leverage by an American administration with its own agenda?

This is plain wrong. The US can't "switch off Trident".

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-the- ... r-weapons/

[The Weeping Angel]

Thank you, Barry.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

From Twitter:

Neil Coyle MP

A reminder that Clive (Lewis) wanted to keep Corbyn even after 80% of Labour MPs asked him to go.

Asking Clive the mood of the PLP is like asking your toaster the weather forecast.

[mattomac]

Why does it feel that the last one about it taking 6 weeks to get a meeting with the PM probably is his biggest gripe.

[The Weeping Angel]

Why does it feel that the last one about it taking 6 weeks to get a meeting with the PM probably is his biggest gripe.

According to Barry, when Blair was PM, he'd meet you the next day, but it took 6 weeks for him to see Starmer.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Shows Starmer's good sense and Gardiner's utter irrelevance.

[Andy McDandy]

Assuming a meeting with an MP takes an hour, and let's round off the number of Labour MPs at 400, that means 10 weeks to see them all, Assuming nothing else happens at all.

[Youngian]

Why does it feel that the last one about it taking 6 weeks to get a meeting with the PM probably is his biggest gripe.

According to Barry, when Blair was PM, he'd meet you the next day, but it took 6 weeks for him to see Starmer.

How did that work, keep an hour free in the PM's diary every day in case Bazza wants a sit down?
Mr Gardiner's memory is playing tricks.