Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Cheers Clive.

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

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/

Thank you, Barry.

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.

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.

mattomac wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 11:11 pm 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.

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

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.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 11:22 pm

mattomac wrote: ↑Fri Sep 12, 2025 11:11 pm 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.

I'll take a punt that this Jonathan Hinder. Absolute crank stuff.

I see, layabouts in Clitheroe should get on their bikes to plug labour shortages down south

That's actually saner than expecting the wider group of people not in the labour market to report for work at their nearest short staffed care home. I am one of such, though not claiming benefit these days because I've got rental income. What's he suggesting? That I be kidnapped and frogmarched to work?

He thinks economically inactive means on the dole, doesn't he?

I am pretty sure Students are on this list and though many are economically active some don't need to be (lucky for them).

Someone made an interesting comparison with all the new Tory MPs after 2019. Bozo in a decade, get Brexit done, bish bash bosh, leveling up.

Can't restrict the WFA, can't restrict PIP, just abolish the 2 child cap, just fix the NHS and don't put up taxes on people like my constituents. Even without Labour copping it from Trump and the OBR choosing to downgrade productivity (which they could easily have done with the Tories still in power) that was quite a difficult trick to have pulled off.

Clive's trying to get noticed again. Why would Burnham agree to this?

An obvious parachuted candidate in an area they have no connection to, which can make good claim to be overlooked at a national level. Not just the Greens - this would be fried gold for the Tories, LDs, Refukkers...

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 1:15 pm Clive's trying to get noticed again. Why would Burnham agree to this?

Almost as daft as what he said about Tommy's march.

What's the thinking in trying to get rid of Starmer before a difficult budget, when there's not even any obvious replacements?

Lewis is, indeed, flying an attention-grabbing kite. He can’t just hand his seat over to Andy Burnham like a fucking bag of sweeties. If he did stand down and triggered a by-election, Labour’s by-election candidate would be selected by the NEC. And in what alternative dimension would Labour’s NEC select a by-election candidate whose express purpose in standing was to depose the party leadership? Even if he did manage to get selected for the by-election, the prospects of him holding the seat in the current climate are frankly, dubious at best.