|
Post by graham on Jul 21, 2023 21:10:58 GMT
graham “ Do you really find it difficult to imagine Braverman happily working as a staff member to Himmler or Heydrich? *She is widely referred to as 'Cruella.'* “ Ah well, that is obviously convincing proof that she would definitely have worked with the worst of the Nazis 80 to 90 years ago. Even wb61 would surely convict given that nickname. You really do live in the weirdest, most judgmental world I can begin to imagine. It is increasingly bizarre, worrying and ugly to read - very little different in tone to the worst of the mad QAnon, right wing loonies in America. We all have our internal code of ethics and apply judgements to individuals and events as we meet them in life. Terms such as 'Evil' are inherently subjective and the use of them is likely to be closely related to a person's core beliefs. I doubt that Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann perceived their activities - I mean crimes - to have been 'Evil.' I certainly view them as such - as I suspect do well over 99% of those who are aware of them. I do not hesitate to apply the term to those who wilfully seek to inflict pain and suffering on others - and that does sometimes include democratically elected politicians who pay no regard to the plight of those facing dire unfortunate circumstances whilst seeking to appeal to the base instincts of sections of society in the hope of gaining personal advancement. Martin Webster of the National Front I have long associated with the forces of Evil - and whilst he never succeeded in obtaining sufficient electoral support to wield significant political power himself,his views and prejudices are well represented in the ranks of those who sustain the present Government - some of whom are proud to serve as senior Cabinet Ministers.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 21, 2023 21:14:47 GMT
Then there was Ed Miliband beating his brother. And Gordon Brown. All guilty of causing Johnson Truss & Sunak by losing. Yes, they were guilty of causing Tory governments by losing elections, which involves being less popular than the other lot. As I have noted before, I turned 18 in 1979 and there have been 11 General Elections in that period of which Labour has managed to win a frankly pathetic 3 - all by Tony Blair, widely loathed on this site. I can't help feeling that many people in Labour prefer losing - much easier to maintain the purity of one's conscience without the tiresome need to actually exercise power. Meanwhile the Tories loot the country to enrich themselves and their mates. Since we like a sporting reference here, it is a bit like a football team losing every match but congratulating themselves with the thought that they played the more stylish football. Personally, I'd settle for a few dull, defensive 1-0 wins. Many take the view that Labour lost the elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 because the Governments formed were Tory in all but name.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 21, 2023 21:14:48 GMT
In the sense that Corbyn lost the 2019 election to Johnson, yes. Obvioulsy Corbyn wasn't responsible for their personality flaws and ridiculous policies - that was all the Conservatives doing - but Corbyn "boosting" the Labour party to yet two more election defeats plainly did nothing to prevent either of them becoming Prime Minister. Don’t you think it is possible the (former) Uxbridge CLP chair was saying that it was the activities of those who sabotaged Corbyn’s leadership (the factions identified in the Forde report) who were responsible? This is what he said: "Politics needs to have principles or we end up with people like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss running the country, Jeremy Corbyn gave a huge boost to the Labour Party". The "huge boost" ultimately amounted to two lost General Elections, a series of poor local election and by-election results and a stuffing in the Euro elections. Corbyn did indeed suffer from right wing factionalism, but was also hugely flawed himself as a Prime Ministerial candidate. His associations with the IRA and other groups most of the British public have little time for were not forced on him by the right abd nor was his decision to side with Russia over Salisbury. I agreed with 75% of his policy positions and I don't agree with his expulsion from the Party but as a credible PM to the ordinary voter he was an impossible sell.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 21, 2023 21:16:49 GMT
Yes, they were guilty of causing Tory governments by losing elections, which involves being less popular than the other lot. As I have noted before, I turned 18 in 1979 and there have been 11 General Elections in that period of which Labour has managed to win a frankly pathetic 3 - all by Tony Blair, widely loathed on this site. I can't help feeling that many people in Labour prefer losing - much easier to maintain the purity of one's conscience without the tiresome need to actually exercise power. Meanwhile the Tories loot the country to enrich themselves and their mates. Since we like a sporting reference here, it is a bit like a football team losing every match but congratulating themselves with the thought that they played the more stylish football. Personally, I'd settle for a few dull, defensive 1-0 wins. Many take the view that Labour lost the elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 because the Governments formed were Tory in all but name. See NeilJ's list of achievements 1997-2010, none of which would have been done by a Tory government. As a public sector worker I can tell you that the proper funding of public services made a massive difference. P.s. - "many" - got any polling evidence that amounts to more than a few eccentrics and obsessives?
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 21, 2023 21:20:52 GMT
crossbat11“ Or am I being a little unfair to Corbyn and that after 2017 he was making the political weather” Well, yes, I think that may be true. He was advancing the hugely popular idea of stopping austerity policies. But then he faced his own internal embarrassments and Johnson also said he would stop austerity (“pants on fire”). Personally, I think Brexit was a bit peripheral.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 21, 2023 21:25:20 GMT
Many take the view that Labour lost the elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 because the Governments formed were Tory in all but name. See NeilJ's list of achievements 1997-2010, none of which would have been done by a Tory government. As a public sector worker I can tell you that the proper funding of public services made a massive difference. P.s. - "many" - got any polling evidence that amounts to more than a few eccentrics and obsessives? I suspect there are quite a few in the PLP who take that view. The Chairman of Uxbridge ans South Ruislip who resigned today might well be another. The millions who abstained at the 2001 GE also come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 21, 2023 21:28:51 GMT
Ah! It's Friday, so it must be Labour-secures-massive-advances-in-critical-byelections-with-Tories-in-total-electoral-disarray-so-clearly-it's-time-for-Labour-to-argue-amongst-itself-over-who-is-to-blame-for-such-an-abysmal-failure Day!
Even I'm finding the endless wittering on about whether '20% Ahead Starmer' is the devil incarnate just funny now.
If people think I'm a bit dull for banging on about covid, surely in the name of fairness we should put this theme to bed now too?
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jul 21, 2023 21:33:33 GMT
That amounts to surrendering to emotional blackmail on the basis that Starmer's Labour party is not quite as evil as Sunak's Tories.Morally there is a strong argument for not touching either with a bargepole - in the same way that I would decline to vote for Franco even though he was not quite as bad as Hitler. Moreover, currently Labour is not seeking to improve the lives of people - but rather to rekindle the failed policies of Austerity. Starmer is offering no hope at all now - but continued despair, and has now moved well to the right of pre-Thatcher Tory governments. Some commentators now go so far as to suggest he is now to the Right of Sunak. I refer you to my previous post. Nobody is "evil" in current British politics. Why are you attaching these sorts of descriptions to democratically elected politicians? We may strongly disapprove of, and disagree with, politicians whose policies and beliefs differ to ours, but you keep invoking the language of US religious extremists, preachers and demagogues to people and events that don't merit your hyperbolic and morally loaded descriptions. Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are evil, and to describe them as such is to rob the word of its true meaning and application. Underfunding the NHS for a decade was pretty damn evil, how many lives? Austerity killed 330,000. They liked starving kids and more and more are using foodbanks and living on the streets. Tories certainly aren't your cuddly types.
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 21, 2023 21:34:42 GMT
Don’t you think it is possible the (former) Uxbridge CLP chair was saying that it was the activities of those who sabotaged Corbyn’s leadership (the factions identified in the Forde report) who were responsible? This is what he said: "Politics needs to have principles or we end up with people like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss running the country, Jeremy Corbyn gave a huge boost to the Labour Party". The "huge boost" ultimately amounted to two lost General Elections, a series of poor local election and by-election results and a stuffing in the Euro elections. Corbyn did indeed suffer from right wing factionalism, but was also hugely flawed himself as a Prime Ministerial candidate. His associations with the IRA and other groups most of the British public have little time for were not forced on him by the right abd nor was his decision to side with Russia over Salisbury. I agreed with 75% of his policy positions and I don't agree with his expulsion from the Party but as a credible PM to the ordinary voter he was an impossible sell. These are powerful points, but I think they are profoundly wrong. I need to think about them, though (cos it may be me wrong!) so will get back to you in a day or two.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jul 21, 2023 21:35:03 GMT
Yes, they were guilty of causing Tory governments by losing elections, which involves being less popular than the other lot. As I have noted before, I turned 18 in 1979 and there have been 11 General Elections in that period of which Labour has managed to win a frankly pathetic 3 - all by Tony Blair, widely loathed on this site. I can't help feeling that many people in Labour prefer losing - much easier to maintain the purity of one's conscience without the tiresome need to actually exercise power. Meanwhile the Tories loot the country to enrich themselves and their mates. Since we like a sporting reference here, it is a bit like a football team losing every match but congratulating themselves with the thought that they played the more stylish football. Personally, I'd settle for a few dull, defensive 1-0 wins. Many take the view that Labour lost the elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 because the Governments formed were Tory in all but name. Tbf, those many are idiots.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,759
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 21, 2023 21:35:47 GMT
When I recently took a look at the 2017 GE (which some seemed to find a trifle traumatic), I pointed out that Tories changed leader after Corbyn was out-polling May. So they went for Johnson, someone charismatic but flawed, who also tacked left for good measure. Eventually the flaws did for him and Starmer is reaping the reward (and possibly using it to move right again. Unless it’s a bluff. I’m hoping it’s a bluff) Not sure the Tories ditched May because Corbyn was outpolling her. She hadn't long beaten him in a General Election and I don't think the Tories were at all spooked by Corbyn's Labour outpolling them at that early stage in the Parliament. Wasn't May's defenestration much more to do with her Brexit struggles and a very clever coup by Johnson and his army of followers and flatterers? Johnson was on manoeuvres quite soon after May won in 2017. I think it may be a stretch to suggest Corbyn's polling was a factor. Counterintuitively, could it be argued that Corbyn's polling was boosted by May's increasing haplessness in office rather than anything much he was doing himself? I know this argument is applied to Starmer now. That he is an unwitting beneficiary of the Tory Government's woes and deserves little credit for his and his party's advancement in the polls. Or am I being a little unfair to Corbyn and that after 2017 he was making the political weather? Corbyn was on a very steep rising trend in the campaign and it continued for a little while immediately after and he was ahead in the polling for some months. May took the lead for a little while after that, then Corbyn took the lead again and was leading just before the Tories changed leader. May’s struggles over Brexit may have played a part, but so what? Partygate and Trussgate played a part recently for Starmer to benefit. It took someone like Boris to turn things round, and bear in mind even after all the partygate Shenanigans, Johnson was still only about 7 percent or summat behind when Tories binned him and instantly put themselves back in the hole again. I don’t think Corbyn was making all the political weather, but his being ahead likely played a part in Tories changing leader, and the popularity of some left wing policies may have influenced Tories tacking left. (Those who think Corbyn may have played a part in the EU ref outcome also seem to think he made some political weather there, though they may not be very pleased about it). But actually, while some took my exploring of the 2017 GE as bigging up Corbyn, that wasn’t my point. The point was rather that if we go with the idea Corbyn wasn’t much cop, then it suggests in turn that some left wing policies were really quite popular regardless.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,583
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 21, 2023 21:47:45 GMT
This is what he said: "Politics needs to have principles or we end up with people like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss running the country, Jeremy Corbyn gave a huge boost to the Labour Party". The "huge boost" ultimately amounted to two lost General Elections, a series of poor local election and by-election results and a stuffing in the Euro elections. Corbyn did indeed suffer from right wing factionalism, but was also hugely flawed himself as a Prime Ministerial candidate. His associations with the IRA and other groups most of the British public have little time for were not forced on him by the right abd nor was his decision to side with Russia over Salisbury. I agreed with 75% of his policy positions and I don't agree with his expulsion from the Party but as a credible PM to the ordinary voter he was an impossible sell. These are powerful points, but I think they are profoundly wrong. I need to think about them, though (cos it may be me wrong!) so will get back to you in a day or two. The problem with thinking those points are wrong, is that they happen to be true. I am not uniquely dissing Corbyn btw, he is just one is a long line of Labour losers from all wings of the Party. The bottom line is not enough of the British public actually want to vote for what the left (by which I mean everyone left of the Tories) wants them to. You can keep offering the same thing and keep losing or you can try and find out what the public do want. (In Uxbridge they didn't want ULEZ and that was enough for the Tories to use to win again - a salutary lesson IMO).
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 21, 2023 22:03:04 GMT
I'm rather surprised that almost everyone is putting Labour missing out by a mere 500 votes in Uxbridge down solely to the Mayor's ULEZ policy
Yes, the Tory candidate (and now MP) zeroed in on it during the campaign but the voters overall appeared split. If anything, the result showed how ULEZ may be polarising in the outer London boroughs rather than massively unpopular. Otherwise how could Lab achieve a 6% swing against the Tories in a seat they haven't won for over 50 years, and the Greens finish third?
Without ULEZ being in play, would Labour have won? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the whole election was fought on ULEZ, or that the result was exclusively due to it.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 22:13:33 GMT
Interesting from Ruislip Piers Corbyn (LLL) 101 (0.33%) Jeremy 's lunatic brother finishing with less votes than count binface Binface also beat Rejoin EU.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 21, 2023 22:16:40 GMT
I'm rather surprised that almost everyone is putting Labour missing out by a mere 500 votes in Uxbridge down solely to the Mayor's ULEZ policy Yes, the Tory candidate (and now MP) zeroed in on it during the campaign but the voters overall appeared split. If anything, the result showed how ULEZ may be polarising in the outer London boroughs rather than massively unpopular. Otherwise how could Lab achieve a 6% swing against the Tories in a seat they haven't won for over 50 years, and the Greens finish third? Without ULEZ being in play, would Labour have won? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the whole election was fought on ULEZ, or that the result was exclusively due to it. I haven't heard anyone say 'that the whole election was fought on ULEZ" or that the "result was exclusively due to it" either. I suspect that there were indeed other factors in play that caused the swing to Labour in Uxbridge to be below the level required to win the seat, but surely it's not unreasonable to think that a constituency specific issue like ULEZ that formed such a key plank of the Tory candidate's campaign, might have been crucial in Labour losing the seat by the tiny margin of 490 votes? Send a message to Sadiq Khan on ULEZ was what the Tories invited the residents of Uxbridge and Ruislip to do. And enough of them sent a negative one by voting for the Tory candidate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2023 22:18:27 GMT
Anyone else going to see the new Barbie movie? Is that perhaps where auld Nat is?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 22:20:20 GMT
Looking at the results the lib-dems doing well in the South West strongly suggests their continuing resurgence there in addition to other rural seats. Would be surprised on current form for them not to get well over 30 mps at the next election Disappointing for Labour in Uxbridge, but the ULEZ was in the end I think the reason they didn't win. On the other hand Selby was an historic win and bodes well for them in a General Election It also seems there was tactical voting between libdems and Labour. The Labour vote was squeezed in Somerton and the libdems in Selby and Uxbridge. That for me is the take away and lesson to be learned The lowest %ge for the LibDems and predecesors to get more than 30 seats since the war was 1997 when they got 16.8% and 46 seats. As they still seem to be polling the same as at GE 2019 I'd expect their seats to stay about the same in a GE unless they have a polling surge to at least say 15%.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 22:23:06 GMT
You do have a weird take on reality. Labour have not identified as the Remain party. Again you seem to have a revisionist view on this. Labour was definitely the remain option in 2017, whereas by 2019 it was becoming clear to remainers they would not stop brexit. And that is why they did worse in 2019. Sure, labour in 2017 did not campaign on remain, but con campaigned on hard brexit and it was almost by default lab became the remain party. Sure, they may never have been hearty remain supporters, but that is precisely why they didnt win and why remain happened. It never had a committed party pushing it. Conservative remainers didnt see any point switching to lab whose policies they didnt otherwise like if lab wasnt clearly remain. Thank you for agreeing with me.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 22:29:38 GMT
NB2 Please don't overuse the 'tag' feature and tag me into nonsense for whatever reason. Whilst I respect Mark 's rules then it is hopefully clear that I only have one ID and worked out how to use UKPR2 features early on - offering the above 'help' to other users many times already. PS Congrats on your by-election winnings - probably enough for a pint around your way It was a JOKE.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 22:32:36 GMT
I spent today visiting my mother, an incredibly acute political commentator and supporter of the lib dems. Her take on Labour at the moment is that they lack heart and real belief in anything. "Not the tories" cannot be enough to win the next election, they have to offer something positive, a vision for the future, which offers solutions to the major problems viz climate change and inequality. She is ninety with more working synapses than the whole Conservative Party. I think she is missing that con are in power on the support of only about 25% of eligible voters. 29.5%
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 21, 2023 22:34:33 GMT
I'm rather surprised that almost everyone is putting Labour missing out by a mere 500 votes in Uxbridge down solely to the Mayor's ULEZ policy Yes, the Tory candidate (and now MP) zeroed in on it during the campaign but the voters overall appeared split. If anything, the result showed how ULEZ may be polarising in the outer London boroughs rather than massively unpopular. Otherwise how could Lab achieve a 6% swing against the Tories in a seat they haven't won for over 50 years, and the Greens finish third? Without ULEZ being in play, would Labour have won? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the whole election was fought on ULEZ, or that the result was exclusively due to it. I haven't heard anyone say 'that the whole election was fought on ULEZ" or that the "result was exclusively due to it" either. I suspect that there were indeed other factors in play that caused the swing to Labour in Uxbridge to be below the level required to win the seat, but surely it's not unreasonable to think that a constituency specific issue like ULEZ that formed such a key plank of the Tory candidate's campaign, might have been crucial in Labour losing the seat by the tiny margin of 490 votes? Send a message to Sadiq Khan on ULEZ was what the Tories invited the residents of Uxbridge and Ruislip to do. And enough of them sent a negative one by voting for the Tory candidate. I would agree with that but I do believe that most commentators are indeed suggesting that the election was a referendum on ULEZ which is mistaken. It should also be noted that Khan has effectively been forced by the Governmrnt to proceed with the scheme now (rather than less austere times), as it was a condition of the most recent Government finding agreement for TfL.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 22:50:31 GMT
Bascially labour was using carrot and con chose stick. Stick like huge hikes in electricity prices now which simply would have been less had lab been in power, because we would have had more renewables generation in place by now. That ought to be the story labour is telling. Yet instead it is simply going along with con policies of using market forces, ie high costs to consumers, to make the change. On balance, I'm on the side of someone's mum above, who argued labour needs a cause. But they are scared voters hate them too. As so often you seem to live in an alternate universe. The Tories gave huge subsidies to households struggling with electricity and gas prices because of worldwide factors - i.e. a carrot. Meanwhile the London mayor implements ULEZ - a stick.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 23:02:44 GMT
ULEZ extension was a classic example. Without a scrappage scheme, poorer voters faced a hammer blow. I', not blaming Labour so much here - this is an issue where devolved powers grind up against national policy, and central and regional government needed to work together and didn't. With a proper support package, I doubt this would have been such an issue, but the lesson is that environmental gains must be made in the context of wholesale economic and social justice. I think that's a positive lesson to learn. Hi alec , sorry but I tend to disagree with you on this as my children currently are having to put up with an unnecessary level of pollution which is likely to impact their health. And if you think politicians will take the lesson you think they should from this and adopt those policies, I think you will find yourself deeply disappointed. What is much more likely is that environmental issues will again become less of a priority and parties will refrain from taking the action that needs to be done. We are struggling to implement even the most basic of schemes. lululemonmustdobetterI don't know how old you are, but pollution has been drastically reduced since the 1950s at least. There were the Clean Air Acts in that decade, followed by various other developments such as lead being banned in paint and petrol, household coal fires replaced by gas in general, the decline of heavy industry and so on. So whatever pollution your children are facing, it's less than you had, and drastically less than I have had. This is not to say that efforts shouldn't be made to reduce pollution further, but we need to keep things in proportion and appreciate the progress that has been made over the last 70 years at least.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 23:10:12 GMT
The venerable Sir John Curtice has opined. He thinks we're looking in the wrong place for the real lessons from yesterday's by-election results if we allow our gaze to linger on Uxbridge. The ability and willingness of voters to coalesce, as they did in Somerton and Selby, to help the candidate best placed to defeat the Tory, is of far more long term electoral significance. I think he's right. FPTP was royally gamed by non-Tory voters yesterday, in both the South West and North:- www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-labour-byelection-results-uxbridge-selby-b2379395.htmlI'm not sure that it can be extrapolated to a GE because there has been a lot of media focus on these seats and discussion of the likely effects of tactical voting in the media. In a GE, though there may be coverage of the potential for tactical voting in general, a lot of voters won't be aware of the 'best' choice in their own constituency.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jul 21, 2023 23:14:46 GMT
It's interesting how long a vehicle is expected to last has changed. Back in th 1970s, and many cars ........... were not expected to last 10 years. I guess the issue I have is that if these zones are extended more widely across the country my perfectly functional car with many miles ahead of it becomes suddenly becomes effectively worthless. That's a lot of cars in good condition suddenly going to waste and with a lot of emissions caused by new vehicle manufacture produced to replace them. Yes, absolutely true. My first car was bought in 1978, and at that time a 6 year old car was considered pretty old and likely to need treatment for rust. Now....... Many on here have equated Khan's policies with being good for the environment - maybe to an extent in terms of absolute air quality (which is not that bad in outer London anyway), but in terms of greenhouse gas emissions it's exactly the opposite. Carbon emissions from a car are mainly due to fuel burnt during it's lifetime, but a significant amount are down to manufacturing. The latter can be reduced by extending the lifetime as much as possible - exactly the opposite of what the ULEZ expansion is likely to achieve. It would be one thing if all the older cars were to be replaced with electric (no tailpipe emissions and far less CO2 per mile driven) but in fact are simply likely to be replaced with newer petrol/diesel with not much less NOx/particulate emissions, and similar CO2 emissions from fuel burnt. I'd have more sympathy with a far stricter regime (at least environmentally) where all but ZEVs were subject to charging. At least such would have more logic to it. (If hardly practical at the moment.) It's also been said that non-compliant cars may be sold in other parts of the country. To an extent, maybe. But there's a limit to just how many such cars can be sold throughout the rest of the country without severe distortion of the market, likewise how many compliant second hand cars are for sale. Sadiq Khan is effectively robbing the climate change/CO2 side of the environmental argument to pay the NOx pollution side. Don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone who is against ULEZ expansion must therefore be against environmental progress. As far as Uxbridge goes, then the end result will be a mix of various factors. The unpopularity of the Conservatives acting strongly against them - but the unpopularity of ULEZ in Hillingdon making many traditional Labour voters in the area grit their teeth to send a message against Sadiq Khan. Don't imagine the ULEZ effect is limited to the few hundred majority - if ULEZ had not been a factor it's likely the result would have been more in line with the other by-elections and a majority for Labour of thousands.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,130
|
Post by domjg on Jul 21, 2023 23:18:37 GMT
Yes, they were guilty of causing Tory governments by losing elections, which involves being less popular than the other lot. As I have noted before, I turned 18 in 1979 and there have been 11 General Elections in that period of which Labour has managed to win a frankly pathetic 3 - all by Tony Blair, widely loathed on this site. I can't help feeling that many people in Labour prefer losing - much easier to maintain the purity of one's conscience without the tiresome need to actually exercise power. Meanwhile the Tories loot the country to enrich themselves and their mates. Since we like a sporting reference here, it is a bit like a football team losing every match but congratulating themselves with the thought that they played the more stylish football. Personally, I'd settle for a few dull, defensive 1-0 wins. Many take the view that Labour lost the elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005 because the Governments formed were Tory in all but name. Offensive tosh. By many do you mean you? Ask the young adults who have better life chances today because of surestart etc whether they think that? No tory gvt would have done that for them or made alleviating child poverty such an overriding priority. Of course interested as your are only in your own political religion such low key, undramatic, but very effective real world outcomes are apparently of no import to you.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 21, 2023 23:19:29 GMT
Its a balancing act. One I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions on. But, I could see why those (those that actually do vote) who are poor/struggling would vote for anyone non ULEZ. Though not convinced Uxbridge was about ULEZ. Some people are just Tories and don't seem to mind how corrupt and low this present lot are, maybe they've made a mint out of them or like policies that hit the poorest/disabled hardest. I spent the first part of my childhood in this kind of irredeemably tory outer London region (Spelthorne) and still have wider family there. In many ways the culture and attitudes of a lot of people there are, to be blunt, not very nice. Presumably that means they disagree with your views?
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jul 21, 2023 23:21:59 GMT
leftieliberal Andrew Marr spot on with that analysis of the Uxbridge result, I think. Incidentally, for all those, like me, who became disillusioned with Marr over his many years of hosting his increasingly bland Sunday morning show, and his dreadful interviewing style, he is now a man reborn. Free of the BBC, and writing and YouTube blogging for the New Statesman now, he has returned to his centre left journalistic roots. He is, and always was, a fine newspaper journalist and writer. TV wasn't really his natural format, although I guess the money was very seductive. Whilst I'd agree he's much better suited now, I suspect quite a few journalists would bridle at your prior lauding of him given the superinjunction incident. Anyone who uses their wealth and power to try to secretly arrange things so that other journalists could be imprisoned for reporting the truth about them forfeits any claim to being a "fine journalist" themselves IMO.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jul 21, 2023 23:24:47 GMT
You seem to be overlooking another likely group, of people who say they would vote to rejoin if there were such a vote, but who just don't think it's worth going through another n years of paralysis and division to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Jul 21, 2023 23:29:34 GMT
I can assure both of you, because I know lots of them, that committed Tory voters waste very little time agonising over this sort of thing. They just go out and vote Tory whether the candidate is from the left, right or middle of that party and regardless of what policies the party is advocating at the time. That's why they win so often. There are plenty of tribal Tory voters just as there are plenty of tribal Labour voters, but it's hardly unheard of for ROC voters to lend their votes to other parties - UKIP were hugely successful in pressuring the Tories to move rightwards.
|
|