|
Post by jib on Jan 8, 2024 7:50:46 GMT
Don't you threaten me you you jumped up Lib Dem sh**ter. Ed Davey has questions to answer, and I've reposted from other sources on Twitter. If you don't like it - yes, please take up with the site owner and moderator. But don't use it as a threat. Jumped up little s**t calling me a Tory. You got into bed with them in 2010. *** ADMIN *** Firstly, *Leftieliberal : I do not take requests on banning members of this board. It is not your place to threaten another member as such. jib : Despite what Leftieliberal posted, that was not an excuse to flame and diretly abuse another member. If you think another member has behaved inappropraiately, you can alert me to the post in question. Other than that, eithor ignore or respond politely pointing out where you think they are in the wrong. Unless the spat continues, I will draw a line under it, but, I want to see no repeat in the future. Should a repeat occur, I may not be willing to give out a ticking off and leave it at that. I accept a fair summary and verdict of this exchange. I was enraged, I apologise for any personal insult to Leftieliberal.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 7:54:54 GMT
Jib of course describing someone as a liberal democrat is a compliment😁
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 8, 2024 7:55:54 GMT
I don't feign outrage, I am outraged at a party that sold its soul, and has none. I am also outraged by blind loyalty to them because of their opportunism in 2019. You know my views on Brexit, and what I wanted from an "exit". Please, along with steve , stop wilfully misrepresenting those and your snide Tory inferences.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 7:59:31 GMT
Its fascinating listening to the furore at this moment over the horizon system. Its now nearly 30 years since this began, and really only now are revelations becoming visible enough for authorities to admit a terrible wrong was done in the name of orderly management.
I wonder how long it will take for authorities to admit something similar happened over the covid epidemic and unjustifiable imposition of home imprisonment on world populations?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 7:59:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 8, 2024 8:18:24 GMT
Given that I didn't vote for the Executive that decided the terms of leaving in 2019, I can have few complaints. Any hope of a compromise Brexit died somewhere 2017-19. RIP.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,021
|
Post by neilj on Jan 8, 2024 8:18:25 GMT
and in reality it never could People were sold a pipe dream that was always going to end in tears I've said before I have every sympathy for the conned, none at all for those that conned them The good news is that many of the conned have now recognised they were lied to
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 8:21:21 GMT
Vulcan Centaur rocket carrying Nasa moon lander lifts off in Florida We have lift off! The first launch of the United Launch Alliance Vulcan Centaur rocket, carrying a payload including a Nasa moon lander, has taken place in Florida.
If the mission continues to be a success, the Peregrine 1 lunar lander will be the first commercial venture to land on the moon, and the first moon landing by the US for fifty years. The journey isn't exactly an express using current technology the journey could last less than three days if It was just flying past like New Horizons It could take as little as 8 hours, however it's expensive to get there quickly and with no manned crew there's no need .It is expected to reach the moon at the end of February.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 8, 2024 8:24:14 GMT
The traitor is currently appealing to the U.S. Supreme court on the basis of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution as head of state. It's absurd, even the chtistofascist members of the supreme court ( Clarence Thomas excluded as husband to an insurrectionist and bought and paid for corrupt judge) are highly likely to reject this as entirely inappropriate in a democracy. In the UK our head of state is exempt from criminal prosecution, or even investigation, is exempt from laws that relate to such diverse areas as the environment, driving, requirements to hold a passport, pay taxes ( they make a small voluntary contribution estimated at around 5%) Charles Windsor can't be arrested for any crime up to and including murder and can't be charged with a crime Currently, more than 30 different laws bar the police from entering private royal estates without the sovereign’s permission to investigate suspected crimes. So even his flunkies enjoy a degree of criminal immunity. You might imagine that these rights of our unelected hereditary head of state date back centuries. While it's of course true that turning a blind eye to disgusting and criminal behaviour by our royal family has a centuries long tradition these exemptions from laws weren't actually written in hundreds of years ago. They date from 1967 when legislation was written in to exempt Elizabeth Windsor from effectively all criminal laws and criminal or civil liability. These rights have transferred to her son Charles. Rule brexitania! It is a catchy idea. Lukashenko did it only this month. www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/04/belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko-signs-law-granting-him-lifelong-immunity-from-prosecution#:~:text=The%20Belarusian%20president%2C%20Alexander%20Lukashenko,of%20his%20or%20her%20family.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 8:27:06 GMT
jib You've just said you can't complain about the garbage deal negotiated by the Spaffer regime because you didn't vote for them! Surely that position is completely inconsistent with your position regarding the liberal democrats in the coalition. Assuming you didn't actually vote for them in 2010 on your bizarre principle that you can't complain about actions if you didn't vote for those who implemented them ,then why do you spend all your time doing precisely that. It seems totally internally inconsistent and fundamentally undemocratic.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 8, 2024 9:01:21 GMT
Surely the whole problem with Brexit is that many Leavers didn't heed or want to understand the warnings about EU intransigence with regard to third party countries. They truly thought and some still think we could have our cake and eat it. There is often talk that we had a more hard line Brexit than was sensible and it's true that the government accepted more harmful terms than ideal. However whilst many in the country wanted less harmful terms, I don't recall them actually being on offer from the EU, except on terms that would mean the basic objectives of most Brexit voters weren't achieved.In essence, eventually the government followed the line of least EU resistance because they realised they had no bargaining tools and either they didn't leave or they left with dire consequences. So taking their direction from UK voters that they'd personally misled, they had to accept a poor outcome. Once we committed to leave a poor outcome was baked in but a lot of leave voters believed lies that it could be avoided.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 9:56:40 GMT
Sda Norway style single market membership was on the table from day one.
It's the head banger brexitanians who lied about it and the recovery of a sovereignty we'd never lost in the first place who are directly responsible for the shit show we have now.
If Lord Snooty hadn't been such a snivelling little coward and hadn't had it on his trotters to spend more time with his money we probably could have got something which might have satisfied both sides , remain voters would have retained the four freedoms while brexitoids could have still stolen our rights to vote and restored their imaginary sovereignty.
Because he didn't and because despite some efforts from May the zealot brexitoid head bangers took over, aided by overseas owned right wing media and Spaffer who wanted to be world king.
This is a Tory generated and made catastrofuck and putting aside the enabling of the previous Labour leader it's them and the people who voted for Brexit and then supported the Spaffer regime who are culpable. Reversing a situation where we remained in the single market to full membership would have been a walk in the park compared to the ongoing train wreck the Tories have caused.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 8, 2024 9:59:51 GMT
Surely the whole problem with Brexit is that many Leavers didn't heed or want to understand the warnings about EU intransigence with regard to third party countries. They truly thought and some still think we could have our cake and eat it. There is often talk that we had a more hard line Brexit than was sensible and it's true that the government accepted more harmful terms than ideal. However whilst many in the country wanted less harmful terms, I don't recall them actually being on offer from the EU, except on terms that would mean the basic objectives of most Brexit voters weren't achieved.In essence, eventually the government followed the line of least EU resistance because they realised they had no bargaining tools and either they didn't leave or they left with dire consequences. So taking their direction from UK voters that they'd personally misled, they had to accept a poor outcome. Once we committed to leave a poor outcome was baked in but a lot of leave voters believed lies that it could be avoided. I don't see how you can blame the EU for any aspect of Brexit - no one there was calling for it. It is a shit-show entirely made in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 8, 2024 10:14:27 GMT
Surely the whole problem with Brexit is that many Leavers didn't heed or want to understand the warnings about EU intransigence with regard to third party countries. They truly thought and some still think we could have our cake and eat it. There is often talk that we had a more hard line Brexit than was sensible and it's true that the government accepted more harmful terms than ideal. However whilst many in the country wanted less harmful terms, I don't recall them actually being on offer from the EU, except on terms that would mean the basic objectives of most Brexit voters weren't achieved.In essence, eventually the government followed the line of least EU resistance because they realised they had no bargaining tools and either they didn't leave or they left with dire consequences. So taking their direction from UK voters that they'd personally misled, they had to accept a poor outcome. Once we committed to leave a poor outcome was baked in but a lot of leave voters believed lies that it could be avoided. Hi steamdrivenandy , if I recall there were signals early on that the EU were willing to negotiate along a number of lines. On reflection, I think the final outcome of Brexit was just as much a product of the intransigence of the political groupings in the UK as it was of the stance taken by the EU. Comments such as 'Brexit means Brexit' weren't helpful, and the manoeuvrings of different groups in Parliament, with the extreme wings of both sides mixed with parties acting in their own rather than the national interests, made any compromise arrangements with the EU politically un-attainable. The electorate then lost patience and the result was a Johnson administration.
Personally, I think the polarisation caused by the campaign itself and its aftermath, has meant many have become far more pro-EU than they were before 2016. One often forgets that prior to that many were ambiguous in their views towards it and UK membership of it, seeing it as a flawed institution. Large sections of the left, particularly the socialist left had always been suspicious and/or opposed to it, it viewed as a 'capitalists' club. The economic position taken by EU institutions in light of the Financial Crisis, and support for austerity policies, actually supported such an interpretation.
In general, prior to 2016, opinion in the UK wanted the economic benefits of EU membership, but were not sold on the more political/social aspects. Those who sought Brexit fed on nativist tendencies in the electorate, and made good use of the discontent caused by the impact of austerity on certain communities by placing the blame for peoples woes on immigration and EU in general.
There were some legitimate and compelling arguments in favour of Brexit, the relatively undemocratic/unaccountable nature of EU organisations and structures being one of them. Overall, the UK has been let down by incredibly poor leadership (which has been our curse since 2010), perhaps with better ones a more beneficial Brexit deal would have been done - but in all honesty with better (or at least semi-decent leadership) Brexit wouldn't have happened in the first place. Brexit only happened because the Tories were voted back into power, and then subsequently their political opponents made a number of errors which helped them maintain power.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 10:19:12 GMT
lululemonmustdobetterWhile I think you make some valid points the description of "extreme" associated with those who simply wanted to restore the status quo ante of the previous four decades is a label that the most deranged wing of the brexitanian cult wish to attach as a deflection technique. If you can associate common sense with extremism you move the centre ground.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 10:31:36 GMT
You might imagine that these rights of our unelected hereditary head of state date back centuries. While it's of course true that turning a blind eye to disgusting and criminal behaviour by our royal family has a centuries long tradition these exemptions from laws weren't actually written in hundreds of years ago. They date from 1967 when legislation was written in to exempt Elizabeth Windsor from effectively all criminal laws and criminal or civil liability. These rights have transferred to her son Charles. Rule brexitania! Not sure your point, I presume immunity from prosecution was simply part of the royal prerogative previously, like the right to dissolve parliament, which has now been placed on a formal basis. The whole point of a monarch is that they are above the law. History has often been about whittling down these absolute rights, but if a monarch has no powers, then why do they exist at all? Either give them powers, or abolish them. Not this stupid pretence we use where we pretend the monarch has powers, but in reality they are alll exercised by the prime minister, who is chosen by a majority in the house of commons.
There is a very real analogy between the US president being exempt from laws and the monarch being exempt from laws, fundamentally to prevent one or other branch of government seizing absolute power. Either the president or the monarch can be deposed by impeachment by parliament/congress, but not by everyday means.
If you think the US system is doing badly, well what a mess ours is in!
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 10:39:45 GMT
Given that I didn't vote for the Executive that decided the terms of leaving in 2019, I can have few complaints. Any hope of a compromise Brexit died somewhere 2017-19. RIP. I think remainers would and still now will accept a compromise agreement as we rebuild our membership, but this makes the UK a vassal state of the EU even more than it is now. The only way out of this is proper membership. Which was the fundamental sticking point of leavers. We need EU trading relations, and the way to make sure they were designed to suit us was to be a full member. But that was the core belief of leavers, to destroy the power of the Uk to control the EU.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,263
|
Post by steve on Jan 8, 2024 10:42:11 GMT
Danny You might think that and of course with the exception not Charles Stuart no monarch has been convicted of a crime. But you would be wrong.
Sovereign immunity only dates to 1967
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 10:43:24 GMT
Sda Norway style single market membership was on the table from day one. yes but it requires you to follow EU rules you have no power to make. From a brexiteer standpoint it is, or should be according to their beliefs, fundamentally worse than full membership.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 8, 2024 10:52:49 GMT
Wasn't the key mistake amidst the ongoing debate about our membership of the EU, deciding to hold a binding non-threshold based plebiscite as the means of resolving it? This was Cameron's grievous and historic blunder.
Plebiscites invite voters to answer different questions to those on the ballot paper, and the voters often do. Many did in 2016 and the Leave box on the paper mutated into a great big V Sign for many. Kick the status quo and tell the Establishment what for. We natives are not happy bunnies. Are you listening Westminster? The people are calling. We don't get many opportunities to protest and, thanks Dave, you've just given me the mother and father of all opportunities here. Remain says I'm happy, Leave says I'm not.
Plebiscites often generate moronic campaigns too that steer clear of the real issues at stake and focus more on nebulous and vicarious ones. They lend themselves to demagouguery. Prepare for Independence Day cried Johnson. The baying crowd roared as one. Playgrounds for non-serious charlatans and manipulative populists. Some voters were worried that Moseley looked more like Karachi than a suburb of Birmingham too. Farage had their answer and potential cure. Leave the EU and we get our country back. The reclamation starts here. Farewell Johnny Foreigner. The whole scurrilous nonsense played to our national vanity of splendid isolation. Plucky islanders on the cliffs of Dover waving contemptuously across the Channel.
Now, none of this is saying that there weren't some legitimate arguments to be made and debated about our EU membership, but what it is saying is that such an enormously important and complex issue is not one to lay before a largely credulous and uniformed electorate to decide by ticking a box on a ballot paper. Especially when it is preceded by a wholly inadequate and dishonest political campaign that, if we are bring frank, hardly touched at all upon what was really at stake if we left.
It's also worth remembering too that the plebiscite was conceived primarily as a stunt to ease serious Tory electoral and internal party discipline problems posed by the rising force of UKIP. There was no higher mission at stake than that really.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 10:52:51 GMT
Danny You might think that and of course with the exception not Charles Stuart no monarch has been convicted of a crime. But you would be wrong. Sovereign immunity only dates to 1967 wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity The idea seems to be that ordinary courts of law were created merely to administer law amongst subjects of the crown and so have no power against the crown itself, as expressed in the monarch personally or his officials, possessions and properties. That modern laws contain express exclusions for action against the monarch is simply lawerly tidying up, and might in fact have whittled away some of those immunities rather than re-stating them all perfectly. "Sovereign immunity is the original forebear of state immunity based on the classical concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign could not be subjected without his or her approval to the jurisdiction of another. In constitutional monarchies, the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by them as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects.[citation needed] This rule was commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong" Historically, the general rule in the United Kingdom has been that the Crown has never been liable to be prosecuted or proceeded against in either criminal or civil cases.[40] The only means by which civil proceedings could be brought were: by way of petition of right, which was dependent on the grant of the royal fiat (i.e. permission); by suits against the Attorney General for a declaration; or by actions against ministers or government departments where an Act of Parliament had specifically provided that immunity be waived. The position was drastically altered by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which made the Crown (when acting as the government) liable as of right in proceedings where it was previously only liable by virtue of a grant of a fiat.[41] With limited exceptions, this had the effect of allowing proceedings for tort and contract to be brought against the Crown.[41] Proceedings to bring writs of mandamus and prohibition were always available against ministers, because their actions derive from the royal prerogative.[citation needed] Criminal proceedings are still prohibited from being brought against His Majesty's Government unless expressly permitted by the Crown Proceedings Act.[42] As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in respect of acts carried on by or on behalf of the British government, the monarch remains personally immune from criminal and civil actions.[43] However, civil proceedings can, in theory, still be brought using the two original mechanisms outlined above – by petition of right or by suit against the Attorney General for a declaration The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases; members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.[45] No arrest can be made "in the monarch's presence", or within the "verges" of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.[46]
The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another's land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.[47]
As of 2022, there were more than 160 laws granting express immunity to the monarch or their property in some respects.[48] For instance, employees of the monarchy cannot pursue anti-discrimination complaints such as those under the Equality Act 2010.[48] The monarchy is exempt from numerous other workers' rights, health and safety, or pensions laws.[48] Government employees such as environmental inspectors are banned from entering the monarch's property without their permission.[48] The monarch is also exempt from numerous taxes, although Queen Elizabeth II did pay some taxes voluntarily.[48] Some of the odder exceptions for the monarch are included in laws against private persons setting off nuclear explosions, or regulating the sale of alcohol after midnight
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 8, 2024 10:57:23 GMT
Just a quickie, but given the levels of Covid around at present, this thread & guide to mouthcare when infected is excellent - and it's from an NHS trust. It explains why covid isn't a normal respiratory infection, infecting via blood vessels instead, but it gives really useful practical advice about what to do to try to reduce viral load and avoid longer or more serious consequences.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,818
|
Post by Danny on Jan 8, 2024 11:07:41 GMT
Or just catch it and get on with living. Life is too short to waste it in fear of covid.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 8, 2024 11:13:15 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter While I think you make some valid points the description of "extreme" associated with those who simply wanted to restore the status quo ante of the previous four decades is a label that the most deranged wing of the brexitanian cult wish to attach as a deflection technique. If you can associate common sense with extremism you move the centre ground. Hi steve, the point is many who opposed Brexit were prepared to ignore the outcome of the actual vote and adopted a position of seeking to stay 100% within the EU. Attempts to find a compromise position between all in or all out failed, leading us to Johnson as PM. The polarisation and personalisation of the debate help prevent other options - which may have been less damaging/more beneficial - becoming a possibility.
The continued toxic nature of the discourse helps prevent a more mature debate on our future relationship from emerging.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 8, 2024 11:17:40 GMT
An interesting article by YouGov's Director of Political Analytics on the state of play in the Red Wall. Quite upbeat for CON, as he argues that they can still win without the Red Wall, but LAB can't. Maybe, maybe not, but I can't help thinking that he may be underestimating the desire of much of the electorate per most recent polling to summarily dismiss the Tories at the earliest opportunity. ukandeu.ac.uk/the-state-of-public-opinion-the-red-wall/
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 8, 2024 11:25:24 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter While I think you make some valid points the description of "extreme" associated with those who simply wanted to restore the status quo ante of the previous four decades is a label that the most deranged wing of the brexitanian cult wish to attach as a deflection technique. If you can associate common sense with extremism you move the centre ground. Hi steve , the point is many who opposed Brexit were prepared to ignore the outcome of the actual vote and adopted a position of seeking to stay 100% within the EU. Attempts to find a compromise position between all in or all out failed, leading us to Johnson as PM. The polarisation and personalisation of the debate help prevent other options - which may have been less damaging/more beneficial - becoming a possibility.
The continued toxic nature of the discourse helps prevent a more mature debate on our future relationship from emerging.The headbangers would only ever have agreed to the most extreme outcome. That is the sole reason for what happened. Even if May's 'deal' had been passed the right of her party would have continued to attack it and made governing nigh on impossible for her. I'm about as EUphile as you can get but I would have supported any deal whether on the same terms as Norway or that would have kept us in the single market and custom's union as even ukippers we're initially claiming was all they wanted. I also don't see why after such a close, advisory only referendum it would have been so terrible to have followed it up with a far more well-prepared, binding vote. It could easily have been sold as the sensible democratic next step.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 8, 2024 11:29:15 GMT
An interesting article by YouGov's Director of Political Analytics on the state of play in the Red Wall. Quite upbeat for CON, as he argues that they can still win without the Red Wall, but LAB can't. Maybe, maybe not, but I can't help thinking that he may be underestimating the desire of much of the electorate per most recent polling to summarily dismiss the Tories at the earliest opportunity. ukandeu.ac.uk/the-state-of-public-opinion-the-red-wall/It's also ignoring the polling evidence that the Tories are in desperate trouble in what were once their English heartlands. It also points to ongoing problems in Scotland and a retreat in Wales It really is an extraordinarily optimistic take on the Tories electoral prospects, certainly when you look at the polling over the last 18 months. I'm not sure either, and maybe we need our resident psephologists to confirm, that the thesis is arithmetically correct anyway about Labour's need to retake ALL the Red Wall seats if they are to get an overall majority. This can't be true, surely, if they gain ground in Scotland, Wales and the Blue Wall?? And the Lib Dems do too.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 8, 2024 11:50:10 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter While I think you make some valid points the description of "extreme" associated with those who simply wanted to restore the status quo ante of the previous four decades is a label that the most deranged wing of the brexitanian cult wish to attach as a deflection technique. If you can associate common sense with extremism you move the centre ground. The previous long standing status quo only becomes labelled 'extreme' once real extremists have gained control.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,397
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 8, 2024 11:52:13 GMT
An interesting article by YouGov's Director of Political Analytics on the state of play in the Red Wall. Quite upbeat for CON, as he argues that they can still win without the Red Wall, but LAB can't. Maybe, maybe not, but I can't help thinking that he may be underestimating the desire of much of the electorate per most recent polling to summarily dismiss the Tories at the earliest opportunity. ukandeu.ac.uk/the-state-of-public-opinion-the-red-wall/It's also ignoring the polling evidence that the Tories are in desperate trouble in what were once their English heartlands. It also points to ongoing problems in Scotland and a retreat in Wales It really is an extraordinarily optimistic take on the Tories electoral prospects, certainly when you look at the polling over the last 18 months. I'm not sure either, and maybe we need our resident psephologists to confirm, that the thesis is arithmetically correct anyway about Labour's need to retake ALL the Red Wall seats if they are to get an overall majority. This can't be true, surely, if they gain ground in Scotland, Wales and the Blue Wall?? And the Lib Dems do too. The part that I agree with is that the Red Wall seats will not return to being safe Labour. Demographic and cultural changes mean some may become Conservative leaning and others the future classic marginals, swinging back and forth. However, the author may be missing the other demographic and cultural factors at work. In the days when Walsall was regarded as safe Labour, Canterbury was a safe Conservative seat, so things can move in both directions. Saying Labour can't win without the red wall is like saying Labour can't win without Scotland - It can do so, but it is just made more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 8, 2024 11:59:15 GMT
It's also ignoring the polling evidence that the Tories are in desperate trouble in what were once their English heartlands. It also points to ongoing problems in Scotland and a retreat in Wales It really is an extraordinarily optimistic take on the Tories electoral prospects, certainly when you look at the polling over the last 18 months. I'm not sure either, and maybe we need our resident psephologists to confirm, that the thesis is arithmetically correct anyway about Labour's need to retake ALL the Red Wall seats if they are to get an overall majority. This can't be true, surely, if they gain ground in Scotland, Wales and the Blue Wall?? And the Lib Dems do too. The part that I agree with is that the Red Wall seats will not return to being safe Labour. Demographic and cultural changes mean some may become Conservative leaning and others the future classic marginals, swinging back and forth. However, the author may be missing the other demographic and cultural factors at work. In the days when Walsall was regarded as safe Labour, Canterbury was a safe Conservative seat, so things can move in both directions. Saying Labour can't win without the red wall is like saying Labour can't win without Scotland - It can do so, but it is just made more difficult. Amongst one or two other rather doubtful assertions, the thesis does seem to hold rather greater store than I think is justified on David Cameron's electoral appeal. Is his return to front line Tory politics really going to whistle the faithful home??
|
|