steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 22, 2024 23:15:07 GMT
The traitor's senility hasn't actually featured a great deal on the non cable news channels, but this week's gaffs including confusing Nikki Hayley with Nancy Pelosi and lying about both and the inability to string even a basic sentence together appear to have struck a chord . A smelly, incontinent, pathological liar in clear rapid cognitive decline. If it ever gets to presidential debates the slightly bumbling Jo Biden is going to look like Albert Einstein in comparison. youtu.be/itI095oKyMY?si=oFLqCVYFKOH3O41v
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Jan 23, 2024 0:00:51 GMT
I think this is stretching the definition of 'Popular' I'm prompted to assume that those pictured, in the event that the party suffers a Canada in 1993 like collapse, will all attempt to stay back in politics by starting a new "Popular Conservative Party", thus granting them the very same initials as the defunct Progressive Conservative Party.
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Jan 23, 2024 0:29:24 GMT
Quick mental arithmetic shows average of 19.33333 (etc). Did it quickly so might be out. Probably not as I got 100% in my 11 plus. I'm pretty sure I got 106% in my maths exam. I once got 100% in a computing exam at university, despite my paper having loads of red ink on it. It turned out that up to 20 bonus points were available for doing particular techniques, so anyone scoring over 100 (out of 120) was given 100%
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 1:06:08 GMT
The possible Reform candidate for Smethwick will look a little more respectable.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 1:08:26 GMT
Judging by the notional result, a candidate that can take the fight to the Tories and Lib Dems should do well. It reminds me a bit of those tales of Japanese soldiers roaming the jungles of Borneo years after the end of the war. I'll tell you gently.. The coalition ended almost a decade ago.. A bit like those banging on about Brexit all the time then? Equivalent to Japanese soldiers in the jungle in about 1953 (8 years on).
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,898
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 6:45:24 GMT
A bit like those banging on about Brexit all the time then? Equivalent to Japanese soldiers in the jungle in about 1953 (8 years on). Isnt the analogy that the war over Brexit has been lost by leave, and the nation now agrees we should stay in. But the war damage included our leaving, and our membership still has to be rebuilt? The soldiers still fighting that war include the current government who cannot accept the nation chose membership. They need to surrender and move to rejoin.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,898
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 6:54:38 GMT
This morning's stories, more US missiles fired in the gulf in an attempt to destroy local missile stocks. Very positive statements about how effective this will be, but the bottom line is this is the second attempt to do this. Some subtext about whether iran might still be supplying new missiles, and even a local capacity to make them. The world implication of this is disruptions to goods arriving from China will continue with consequences for raised inflation rate and possibly reduced GDP in the runup to the election.
Another vote against the Rwanda bill, which continues to look like government incompetence, never mind whether it could ever work in cutting immigration (almost certainly not because most immigrants are invited here).
A report on the parless state of housing dating back to changes in policy from the Thatcher era. Something of an irony since local authority housing was actually a profitable service for government.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 23, 2024 7:27:18 GMT
Judging by the notional result, a candidate that can take the fight to the Tories and Lib Dems should do well. It reminds me a bit of those tales of Japanese soldiers roaming the jungles of Borneo years after the end of the war. I'll tell you gently.. The coalition ended almost a decade ago.. Hi domjg, I think thats a bit off the mark. Would you have said the same to someone from a mining community in 1995, 'Oh the Tories did that to you a decade ago, you should forget about it'? To many, austerity had just as much damage to communities as Thatcher's policies did and the effects are still being felt. I know for you the big defining issue of the recent past is Brexit (as it impacted you), but for many others it has been austerity (because it impacted them).
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 23, 2024 7:36:06 GMT
"19% might really concentrate some Tory minds." I doubt it. They have much more important things to keep them busy such as whether to get rid of the latest leader and whether to replace him with Mark Francois or Michael Fabricant - after all, he has the hair and the talent. Cameron was a well respected and indeed undefeated leader who as member of the lords could immediately become leader and PM. I mean, any better suggestions? Thatcher's dead. Those who remember UKPR in 2016 they will remember that Cameron was assessed as the worst PM in history. He has had a few successors putting up convincing challenges to his championship.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 7:48:04 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter Domjg Isn't unique Brexit stole all UK citizens rights to vote and freedom to live , work and engage in relationships anywhere in the European union they chose.The economic damage caused by Brexit is on going the policy of austerity was a political choice only now accepted as valid by the Tories, the theft of our rights and the continued economic sanctions on ourselves seems to be something that the Labour leadership regrettably are supporting. It's pretty obvious to even an objective observer ( I appreciate neither of us are) that the liberal democrat party now differs fundamentally from that in the coalition, all bar three of the current 15 mps were first elected after 2015, my local parliamentary candidate was 14 at the time of the 2010 election, thousands of lib dems councillors were first elected after 2015 and the current leader has made it abundantly clear that the party would never enter into any agreement that would support a Tory government. I left the Labour party in 2017 in part because of the ineptitude of the then leader , but the Labour party has moved on from the electoral disaster of Corbyn and I can accept that. Why won't you show my party the same courtesy?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 7:59:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 23, 2024 8:14:43 GMT
A few us had a mini-debate yesterday about the tendency for fairly mediocre Tory politicians to have their qualities and abilities grossly inflated by a client media, Cheerleading, adulation and sycophancy where objective scrutiny and proper journalism should be. News organisations so dedicated to either the election or continuation of a Tory Government that all critical faculties are sacrificed for this greater good. This extends to constant defamation, misrepresentation and demonisation of opposition politicians. No matter how mediocre or incompetent a Tory politician may be, we're often told instead that we're in the company of greatness. Only time and retrospective scrutiny reveals the truth. By which time, of course, the damage is often done.
Thinking about this more, I wonder if it actually does the Tory Party any good? I'm fairly sure it doesn't do the country any good in terms of how it eases into power, unscrutinised, politicians manifestly unsuited to their roles, but is this helping the Tory Party in the long run? Has the litany of failed PMs and useless Ministers so damaged the Tory brand now that the party's association with misgovernance has become damagingly ingrained in the public mind?
Put another way, wouldn't it be better for the Tories if their politicians found it more difficult to climb the greasy pole and they instead had to prove their mettle in the crucible of balanced public scrutiny?
Sycophancy and adoration is often the pathway to corruption and misuse of power in politics. History tells us that. It's difficult to imagine, for example, that someone like Johnson, with his known personal vices and record of incompetence in public office, ever getting anywhere near being Prime Minister in a political culture where proper scrutiny was applied. He was lionised not just by his party but by most of our media too. Mis-sold to the public knowingly by a client and supine media. We then all reaped what this tiny and over powerful cadre sowed.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,898
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 8:24:46 GMT
Those who remember UKPR in 2016 they will remember that Cameron was assessed as the worst PM in history. He has had a few successors putting up convincing challenges to his championship. And what were the reasons? His principle claim to infamy is allowing the manifesto commitment to brexit, but I am not convinced he could ever have prevented it, even if his strategy to remain was mostly to hope for the best. Tactically, he tied the libs in knots to the great advantage of con, and not at all clear that hurt him amongst con voters or maybe voters. Sure he implemented austerity, but that was core con policy again, and it had more credibility in ther first 6 years of con rule than in the last 6. Most of all he was charismatic, and frankly a lot more sensible with an impression of conviction than Johnson. What did he do wrong? (I mean, that would be seen as pluses from a con or even centre right perspective)
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,898
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 8:26:39 GMT
Why won't you show my party the same courtesy? Because the extreme edge of worst case conservative performance at the next election places libs as official opposition?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 8:28:43 GMT
It reminds me a bit of those tales of Japanese soldiers roaming the jungles of Borneo years after the end of the war. I'll tell you gently.. The coalition ended almost a decade ago.. A bit like those banging on about Brexit all the time then? Equivalent to Japanese soldiers in the jungle in about 1953 (8 years on). Three years on actually, (Jan 1st 2021 end of transition period). And a battle still very much alive.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 23, 2024 8:31:48 GMT
One wonders what young JIB would do if his Labour Party had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems to get a majority government?
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Jan 23, 2024 8:32:56 GMT
A few us had a mini-debate yesterday about the tendency for fairly mediocre Tory politicians to have their qualities and abilities grossly inflated by a client media, Cheerleading, adulation and sycophancy where objective scrutiny and proper journalism should be. News organisations so dedicated to either the election or continuation of a Tory Government that all critical faculties are sacrificed for this greater good. This extends to constant defamation, misrepresentation and demonisation of opposition politicians. No matter how mediocre or incompetent a Tory politician may be, we're often told instead that we're in the company of greatness. Only time and retrospective scrutiny reveals the truth. By which time, of course, the damage is often done. Thinking about this more, I wonder if it actually does the Tory Party any good? I'm fairly sure it doesn't do the country any good in terms of how it eases into power, unscrutinised, politicians manifestly unsuited to their roles, but is this helping the Tory Party in the long run? Has the litany of failed PMs and useless Ministers so damaged the Tory brand now that the party's association with misgovernance has become damagingly ingrained in the public mind? Put another way, wouldn't it be better for the Tories if their politicians found it more difficult to climb the greasy pole and they instead had to prove their mettle in the crucible of balanced public scrutiny? Sycophancy and adoration is often the pathway to corruption and misuse of power in politics. History tells us that. It's difficult to imagine, for example, that someone like Johnson, with his known personal vices and record of incompetence in public office, ever getting anywhere near being Prime Minister in a political culture where proper scrutiny was applied. He was lionised not just by his party but by most of our media too. Mis-sold to the public knowingly by a client and supine media. We then all reaped what this tiny and over powerful cadre sowed. It is quite possible that some of the current party already know this. With the link to the RefUK councillor promoting "common sense", combined with the so-called "Common Sense Group" of MPs, and my (slightly flippant) guess that some would jump ship might not be so wide of the mark after all. If some of the MPs already think that "Brand Tory" is damaged beyond repair (even though they were instrumental in causing that damage), then they will cast it adrift, jump to the "new and improved" party and (they hope) continue their political careers. Many people, in all ways of life are attracted by the "ooh, shiny!" (That, after all is what advertisers are relying on - the desire for something new even if not strictly necessary). Hence, a new political party, but populated by individuals who are already known names, may have a short term vote boost that will see the candidates (just) make it over the line, whereas staying with the old party would not. It worked for the SDP, after all.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 8:40:08 GMT
It reminds me a bit of those tales of Japanese soldiers roaming the jungles of Borneo years after the end of the war. I'll tell you gently.. The coalition ended almost a decade ago.. Hi domjg , I think thats a bit off the mark. Would you have said the same to someone from a mining community in 1995, 'Oh the Tories did that to you a decade ago, you should forget about it'? To many, austerity had just as much damage to communities as Thatcher's policies did and the effects are still being felt. I know for you the big defining issue of the recent past is Brexit (as it impacted you), but for many others it has been austerity (because it impacted them).In 1995 the tories would have defended what they did in the eighties. I'm no LD and yes they betrayed many of their supporters but they just allowed themselves to be carried along by the tide and are hardly cheerleaders for austerity now. The blame for it falls squarely at the tories door and continues to do so for the parlous state of our country now. Jib may hate the LDs for helping to enable tory austerity in the first tory parliament but he's always strangely silent when you point out that his vote for brexit enabled continued tory government and continued austerity to the point we've got to now with schools and hospitals literally ceasing to function. Thanks jib . It seems more like his agenda is actually to help diminish today's LDs as a threat to the tories. He was a huge supporter of brexit which the tories gave him. As he was one of our most enthusiastic cheerleaders for brexit I suspect that the real reason he so thoroughly dislikes them is simply because they so vociferously opposed it.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,070
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 23, 2024 8:53:50 GMT
UK Treasury own analysis says that tax cuts would have only a “low impact” on economic growth at medium cost
increasing high-skilled immigration and planning reform are “high impact” and “low cost” For political reasons we know Sunak rejected the latter
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 9:04:51 GMT
"As he was one of our most enthusiastic cheerleaders for brexit I suspect that the real reason he so thoroughly dislikes them is simply because they so vociferously opposed it. "
Indeed 2019 wasn't exactly a high point for the Lib dems☺ but if asked now the large majority of the electorate wouldn't have been remotely disappointed to have a party with a policy of bollocks to Brexit holding the balance of power.
We'd as a nation be far better off and jib could rant on about his beloved Brexit being stolen, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of European union membership.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,070
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jan 23, 2024 9:28:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 23, 2024 9:42:29 GMT
This plays into the theme of my earlier post. We will undoubtedly be told by the Evening Standard, Mail, Telegraph etc, maybe even Nick Ferrari himself, nearer the time of the London Mayoral election that Sarah Hill will make a far better Mayor than Sadiq Khan and that she will bring, integrity, intelligence, acumen, efficiency, local expertise blah de blah de blah to the role. No evidence required. Party label the key attribute.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 10:18:04 GMT
Just as a reminder of the " brains" behind brexit. How's that one working out?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 10:19:04 GMT
Oh and while we're at it this from the " common sense " tories.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 23, 2024 10:37:11 GMT
Yet another poll with LAB holding fairly steady and CON possibly weakening a tad further. Down to just 22% in this example. I wonder if we might see a poll with CON VI dropping below 20%. I think there have been a couple showing bang on 20%, but a 19% might really concentrate some Tory minds. Per Electoral Calculus - on that poll 72 Conservatives, 41 Lib Dems, 487 Labour. Labour overall majority of 324. They have plenty to be sleepless about already. We're getting close to Canadian Conservative territory here. They were polling 15% when they were reduced to 2 seats (-154). Their leader Kim Campbell lost her seat in the rout, which does not augur well for Sunak if the Tory support continues to decline.
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 23, 2024 10:38:15 GMT
Those who remember UKPR in 2016 they will remember that Cameron was assessed as the worst PM in history. He has had a few successors putting up convincing challenges to his championship. And what were the reasons? His principle claim to infamy is allowing the manifesto commitment to brexit, but I am not convinced he could ever have prevented it, even if his strategy to remain was mostly to hope for the best. Tactically, he tied the libs in knots to the great advantage of con, and not at all clear that hurt him amongst con voters or maybe voters. Sure he implemented austerity, but that was core con policy again, and it had more credibility in ther first 6 years of con rule than in the last 6. Most of all he was charismatic, and frankly a lot more sensible with an impression of conviction than Johnson. What did he do wrong? (I mean, that would be seen as pluses from a con or even centre right perspective) Not really my view, but it was the consensus on UKPR (1)
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 23, 2024 11:09:45 GMT
This is about public opinion, but not necessarily opinion polls. This is a fascinating 2021 paper which analyses the methods used by a selection of interest groups from different sectors (tobacco, coal, sugar industries etc) and finds a number of patterns of activity that such groups use to sow doubt and manipulate public opinion that and activity or enterprise that harms public health is, in fact, benign. ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0They identified 28 strategies common across the examples they studied, which I have copied here - "Strategies: #1, Attack Study Design; #2, Gain Support from Reputable Individuals; #3, Misrepresent Data; #4, Suppress Incriminating Information; #5, Contribute Misleading Literature; #6, Host Conferences or Seminars; #7, Avoid/Abuse Peer-Review; #8, Employ Hyperbolic or Absolutist Language; #9, Blame Other Causes; #10, Invoke Liberties/Censorship/Overregulation; #11, Define How to Measure Outcome/Exposure; #12, Take Advantage of Scientific Illiteracy; #13, Pose as a Defender of Health or Truth; #14, Obscure involvement; #15, Develop a PR Strategy; #16, Appeal to Mass Media; #17, Take Advantage of Victim’s Lack of Money/Influence; #18, Normalize Negative Outcomes; #19, Impede Government Regulation; #20, Alter Product to Seem Healthier; #21, Influence Government/Laws; #22, Attack Opponents; #23, Appeal to Emotion; #24, Inappropriately Question Causality; #25, Make Straw Man Arguments; #26, Abuse Credentials; #27, Abuse Data Access Requests; #28, Claim Slippery Slope" In this study, all of the 5 issues studies were related to environmental or public health issues, but I think we can all recognise these strategies in other areas of opinion manipulation, such as Brexit, maintaining the wealth of the rich, government tax and spend policy etc etc. And of course, I have to say this, but I instantly recognise 25 of the 28 strategies as being applied to Covid denialism by the Brownstone Institute, the Koch Brothers, and their paid acolytes in the scientific community. It's been brilliantly successful, time and time again. That's why we have Brexit, it's why we're 40 years late in dealing with climate change, and it's why people with not a lot of money think that we shouldn't tax billionaires a little more, even as those same billionaires are asking to be taxed a little more. What I find thoroughly depressing, on here as elsewhere, is that facts are irrelevant. Only narrative matters, and given the education and media systems we have in place, that narrative is extremely easy for a minority vested interest to manipulate, to everyone's disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 23, 2024 11:15:36 GMT
"What did he (Cameron) do wrong?"
Well apart from promising "the greenest government ever" and then degrading all our environmental protections, apart from promising "the big society" and then overseeing the destruction of huge swathes of the social welfare support system, apart from promising the "share the proceeds of growth" and then presiding over an unprecedented rise in poverty, apart from promising to "stop banging on about Europe" and then delivering years of tortured debate leading to a disastrous Brexit (and then buggering off the leave someone else to sort out the mess), apart from promising to "fix the roof while the sun was shining" and then leaving us with far higher deficits and creaking public services,....absolutely - what ever did he do wrong?
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 23, 2024 11:24:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jan 23, 2024 11:27:07 GMT
A few us had a mini-debate yesterday about the tendency for fairly mediocre Tory politicians to have their qualities and abilities grossly inflated by a client media, Cheerleading, adulation and sycophancy where objective scrutiny and proper journalism should be. News organisations so dedicated to either the election or continuation of a Tory Government that all critical faculties are sacrificed for this greater good. This extends to constant defamation, misrepresentation and demonisation of opposition politicians. No matter how mediocre or incompetent a Tory politician may be, we're often told instead that we're in the company of greatness. Only time and retrospective scrutiny reveals the truth. By which time, of course, the damage is often done. Thinking about this more, I wonder if it actually does the Tory Party any good? I'm fairly sure it doesn't do the country any good in terms of how it eases into power, unscrutinised, politicians manifestly unsuited to their roles, but is this helping the Tory Party in the long run? Has the litany of failed PMs and useless Ministers so damaged the Tory brand now that the party's association with misgovernance has become damagingly ingrained in the public mind? Put another way, wouldn't it be better for the Tories if their politicians found it more difficult to climb the greasy pole and they instead had to prove their mettle in the crucible of balanced public scrutiny? Sycophancy and adoration is often the pathway to corruption and misuse of power in politics. History tells us that. It's difficult to imagine, for example, that someone like Johnson, with his known personal vices and record of incompetence in public office, ever getting anywhere near being Prime Minister in a political culture where proper scrutiny was applied. He was lionised not just by his party but by most of our media too. Mis-sold to the public knowingly by a client and supine media. We then all reaped what this tiny and over powerful cadre sowed. Talking about mediocre politicians. Here's our Culture Secretary failing to understand the difference between proven bias and perception of bias:- news.sky.com/video/bbc-culture-secretary-lucy-frazer-tells-kay-burley-on-occasion-the-bbc-has-been-biased-13053822
|
|