|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 21:53:54 GMT
mercian "For reference, the lowest percentage the Tories have ever had since universal suffrage came in was 30.7% in 1997. I find it hard to imagine that they're going to do massively worse than that."Anything is possible I suppose but, for what it's worth, I tend to agree with you on this. Voting patterns and behaviours can change, and we're now almost thirty years away from 1997, and with a much changed electorate now in place since then, but it does appear from electoral history to be somewhat of a constant that the Tories vote share "floor" is about 30% and Labour's about 28%. Put another way, that's the percentage of the electorate who seem to vote that way come what may and however bad it gets for the party.. Some of the motivation is visceral. I met a Labour voter in Tamworth during the recent by election there, an 83 year old woman, who told me that her long gone parents would never forgive her if she voted any other way, and, in another election, I spoke to a Tory voter who said she always voted "Conversative or whatever they were called." That's just what she did. Always had and always would. You'd be surprised how many such voters exist. It's who they are and what they do. Almost part of their identity. A bit like some posters on here. Actually, it might be an interesting exercise to see what parties posters have ever voted for. I'll start (as far as I can remember) UKIP Brexit Conservative Liberal LibDem Natural Law Referendum Party There might well have been others
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 23, 2024 22:02:00 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
I think Keir Starmer can tell his scriptwriters to go on holiday for a bit, can't he? I mean, Clarke has just written the first three questions for him at PMQs tomorrow, hasn't he? The death spiral gathers pace.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 22:02:27 GMT
I agree with that except for one quibble. In this country at least the winning party has always been opposed by more people than supported it. The highest percentage any party has got (since 1945 anyway) was Labour in 1951 who got just over 40% of the electorate and still lost! I don't think it follows that those who abstain are necessarily 'opposed' to a particular party . Failing to support is not to be equated with opposition - it might simply mean indifferent or undecided. Ok then, the highest percentage of the vote that anyone got in GEs since 1945 was 49.7% by Labour in 1945 and Tory in 1955. Still not a majority.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 22:07:41 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
Uncomfortable as it might be, I think the Tory VI would go up if they were led by a white person.
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Jan 23, 2024 22:11:57 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
Uncomfortable as it might be, I think the Tory VI would go up if they were led by a white person. Liz Truss for instance ?
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 23, 2024 22:17:33 GMT
Funny how journalists routinely fail to join up the dots -
Here we have a very good news story about how a teenage vaccination campaign against HPV, a virus that is usually completely symptomless, has effectively eradicated cervical cancer in those women who have had the vaccine. Yet despite there being a rising level of evidence that Covid may well prove to be cancer inducing, the same journalists go along with the daft idea that repeat infection is actually good for us.
We already know an awful lot about the long term effects of 'harmless' viruses, but we seem strangely keen to forget all that knowledge.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 23, 2024 22:42:38 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
Uncomfortable as it might be, I think the Tory VI would go up if they were led by a white person. The most likely candidates in the next Tory leadership election are Badenoch and Braverman fighting it out for the right-wing loony vote and Cleverly as the token so-called 'moderate'. None of them meet your criterion.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 22:55:17 GMT
Then the Tories definitely have a death wish.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 23, 2024 23:22:45 GMT
I don't think it follows that those who abstain are necessarily 'opposed' to a particular party . Failing to support is not to be equated with opposition - it might simply mean indifferent or undecided. Ok then, the highest percentage of the vote that anyone got in GEs since 1945 was 49.7% by Labour in 1945 and Tory in 1955. Still not a majority. Labour's vote share in 1945 was lower than 49.7%. Whilst the Tories did poll close to 50% in 1955 - and 1959- their vote share was artificially inflated by the lack of candidates from other parties. Over 450 seats had but two candidates to choose between - Tory or labour.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Jan 23, 2024 23:35:21 GMT
Apparently Simon Clarke is calling for a new Leader.
Simon Clarke writes in the Telegraph:
“We have a clear choice. Stick with Rishi Sunak, take the inevitable electoral consequences, and give the Left a blank cheque to change Britain as they see fit. Or we can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance.”
I think Keir Starmer can tell his scriptwriters to go on holiday for a bit, can't he? I mean, Clarke has just written the first three questions for him at PMQs tomorrow, hasn't he? The death spiral gathers pace. John Craig, Sky News politics guru, reporting a bit of a deafening silence of support for Clarke's outburst among his colleagues. He is looking 'exposed' as the likes of Patel and Fox round on him. He's either being very shrewd, and the spearhead of a highly organised coup to fatally undermine Sunak, or is a complete wally who has shot his mouth off prematurely to little effect, expect possibly to shave a little more off CON VI. Clarke apparently called Sunak an anchor, although he may conceivably have been misquoted.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jan 24, 2024 0:08:02 GMT
crossbat11 - interesting indeed. Perhaps worth noting that in 2016, Trump won 45,427 votes in the Iowa caucus, and he got 56,260 this year. But in 2016 186,832 voted, and last week only 110,298 turned out, a fall of 41%. If that's a measure of interest, then Reich is correct. It could indeed be reflecting something like that. But the fact that Iowa was highly competitive in 2016 and a foregone conclusion for who would win this time, in tandem with pretty hostile weather this time (the caucus format requiring people to commit to spending a big chunk of their evening in school gyms, church halls etc rather than just popping out to vote during the day) will likely have played a major part in depressing turnout too.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 24, 2024 0:28:11 GMT
Ok then, the highest percentage of the vote that anyone got in GEs since 1945 was 49.7% by Labour in 1945 and Tory in 1955. Still not a majority. Labour's vote share in 1945 was lower than 49.7%. Whilst the Tories did poll close to 50% in 1955 - and 1959- their vote share was artificially inflated by the lack of candidates from other parties. Over 450 seats had but two candidates to choose between - Tory or labour. So it proves the original quibble even more - if more candidates had stood the percentage by the winning party would be even lower and so the idea that the government is always opposed by more people than support it is even truer.
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 24, 2024 0:38:10 GMT
Uncomfortable as it might be, I think the Tory VI would go up if they were led by a white person. Liz Truss for instance ? Of course, Mercian is thinking of Michael Fabricant
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jan 24, 2024 1:37:43 GMT
New Hampshire has been called by the networks;
Trump will win the Republican primary, and Biden will win the Democratic primary in a landslide (despite not even being on the ballot!)
For a call this early on the Republican side, despite potentially record turnout overall and record participation of independents, it suggests the margin is unlikely to be close enough to give Haley a chance of continuing in the race.
So from here it seems there are only two obstacles to a Biden v Trump general election in November, the Supreme Court and the Grim Reaper. Who have very similar dress-sense, come to think about it.
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jan 24, 2024 5:31:37 GMT
The Manager of FC Freiberg, Christian Stretch is able to speak out about the far right in Germany and gets lauded, whereas Gary Lineker and Gary Neville get told to know their place and 'stick to football'.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 6:17:56 GMT
Uncomfortable as it might be, I think the Tory VI would go up if they were led by a white person. Liz Truss for instance ? Not just ANY white person. Johnson would be better than Truss, and Cameron not only better than Johnson, especially on a rejoin ticket, but also in line with following the US in having leaders ressurected. Do people think the time has come that con would do better on a rejoin ticket, or do they believe the problem would still be support would be poisoned by the track record of most of the candidates?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,323
|
Post by steve on Jan 24, 2024 6:21:18 GMT
eorMSNBC very unusually covered a traitor speech live, his victory speech at the new Hampshire primary was of course stacked full of lies, Rachel Maddow duly called out the repeated and proven lies and pointed out the truth of the MAGA cult. It's worshippers are required to abandon reality and accept blindly the word of their cult leader. This has nothing to do with democracy it's to do with the selection of an absolute ruler. Very dark days for the USA. While of course the sands of time could claim either candidate for president only one of them faces 91 criminal charges any one of which could see them incarcerated. The massive traitor size elephant in the room or cell however is the inevitable fact that when he loses, which I still think highly likely, he will claim victory and call for an insurrection in a scale far worse than January 6th and where the courage of those republicans prepared to call a traitor a traitor has in nearly every incident been replaced by unctious supplication to the dear leader. What happens in November could reshape the world. youtu.be/xzQptsGUo3c?si=Bfjbj5YYNl4quRIG
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 24, 2024 6:42:06 GMT
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. Hi domjg . Well the LDs stick by their record in the coalition and make no apology for it. So it's perfectly reasonable for voters who were impacted by austerity to continue to hold the LD's accountable for their role in it. It wasn't that long ago.
Now tactically I think its of little value, and probably counterproductive, for Labour to directly attack the LD's atm, but as soon as Labour is in power and subject to attack from the LD's, it would equally be folly for them not to attack the LDs on this issue.
Personally I think austerity was more damaging to this country than Brexit, with the former playing a major role in why the latter occurred. Someone is ignoring the elephant. Labour were complicit in austerity (see various statements by Balls), and unwilling to defend Labour's record in government in the late 2000s
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 6:48:13 GMT
Funny how journalists routinely fail to join up the dots - Here we have a very good news story about how a teenage vaccination campaign against HPV, a virus that is usually completely symptomless, has effectively eradicated cervical cancer in those women who have had the vaccine. Yet despite there being a rising level of evidence that Covid may well prove to be cancer inducing, the same journalists go along with the daft idea that repeat infection is actually good for us. We already know an awful lot about the long term effects of 'harmless' viruses, but we seem strangely keen to forget all that knowledge. And welcome to the champion of closing down the economy to prevent deaths from covid but encouraging them to die from other things. Or if I am wrong on that, please explain your current thinking on whether lockdown was a good or bad idea? Just to be clear, because this was the primary weapon used by governments to prevent repeat covid infections. I remind you, 'More or Less' estimated 2000 extra people died in december because of delays getting treatment in A&E, which is because of inadequate funding, which in part is a consequence of lockdown. (in part, of course, government policy to let people die untreated because its not worth treating the old)
Some vaccines are better than others. It was said that hopefully the covid vaccines would eradicate covid. Current thinking is they do reduce severity (if vaccinated before you catch it for the first time) but do not prevent spread. Do you actually accept that? Just to be clear, because the implications of what you say is that covid vaccinations do prevent new infections? The evidence seems to be they really dont, because most people have been vaccinated repeatedly to the limit of what is safe, and yet the result has been permanent all year round repeat covid infections.
I mentioned lockdown, because thats the only way covid was suspended around the world. Not even ended, just slowed so that its effects took place over longer. There seems unanimous agreement it simply cannot be repeated because the cost was far far too great for the benefits (and would have killed us all in a bankrupt disfunctional state if continued), plus vaccines do not work to prevent infections. So between them the two big weapons against covid have been proven not to work.
Nice to know an actually effective vaccine is being used for HPV, but they do not work against colds like covid. Nor does anything else. Repeat infection has the same merits as repeat vaccination, but whereas we can choose not to have another vaccination, we cannot choose not to have another infection. In fact, whereas every new infection always updates your immunity against the latest strain, as far as I know, no covid vaccine has been properly updated to the latest strain and it isnt even possible because covid hasnt settled down enough. That may also be because it just isnt commercially profitable to do so, the only reason vaccines for covid were developed as fast as they were was again because of MASSIVE government funding which has now disappeared. Some experts suggested ten years to produce one commercially was more likely than the one year it actually took.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 24, 2024 6:52:39 GMT
Danny - I've counted twelve errors of fact this time. Please don't this as a sign you're improving. You're not. It's still drivel.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 24, 2024 6:53:02 GMT
What I find so dispiriting at this time is the clear lack of any intent on Labour's part to commit to any policies which begin to reverse the Thatcher settlement and the accumulated human wickedness which went with it. If Labour has no interest in moving in that direction now - when it enjoys big poll leads and with every sign of continuing Tory disarray - I am inclined to believe it will never do so.Starmer and Reeves appear determined to continue singing from the Thatcheite Tory hymn sheet - far too timid to even consider taking the initiative by declaring that any tax cuts announced by Hunt in March are unaffordable and have to be reversed to provide support to our public services - including those provided by Local Government.It is such a deptressing outlook - and a wasted opportunity. I think the problem is that though voters in polls may say that they want better public services, most would prefer to just have more money in their pockets when it comes to the crunch. I saw a stat recently that about a third of people in this country have no savings at all! Obviously most of those would rather have more cash in their pockets than more money being thrown at say the NHS which they probably wouldn't notice even if they have to go to hospital. It's a bit like concern for the environment and climate change. I think I've seen polls that say that a majority or at least a significant minority are concerned about it. However not too many will give up their cars (or private jets!) because of it. They'd rather have cheaper petrol. The Conservatives have always argued this, and it is clearly partially true. But there are real swings, not just in sentiment, but also in behaviour from time to time, and the strength of feelings one way or the other varies, and therefore its salience in the greater scheme of things. It is grasping at straws to think that 'reducing taxes' will have any major effect at the moment (even if they were reducing, which they aren't). One reason why not is the huge amount of money poured in to keep people going during the coronavirus epidemic, which weirdly no-one talks about.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 7:00:56 GMT
Then the Tories definitely have a death wish. There may be strategy here. The aim of the far right is to enact as much far right legislation as they can before the party loses office. The body of the party doesnt want to, indeed probably feels they should move more left to try to keep centre voters. So now the right threatens a leadership election that is likely if anything to reduce the chances for curent MPs to be re-elected. So the threat is either vote for a far right program, or we will make you unelectable. Its not that tories have a death wish, its that the party is split with different aims. leaving the EU is over as an election winning issue, though it may resurface as rejoining as an election winning issue. The right used this to impose more right leaning policies at the same time. This is their last chance to use this brexit majority to impose legislation on a nation which doesnt want it.
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jan 24, 2024 7:04:01 GMT
" many people " ? Which people ? People with problems you will never have ,with opinions you don't share . People failed by governments you ( or i ! ) approve of ? Of course there will be people you dont like who will offer to sort it all out for them. Thats democracy No Colin that's not Democracy, thats Populism. Democracy requires much more than that. Things like .. Respect for the rule of law, Accountablility and constraint of power, Losers consent , Respect for and inclusion of minorites. What you describe is little more than demagoguery.
People who voted for Boris Johnson are probably quite happy to blur those lines though. Thankfully Johnson's corruption became too visible and not even our resident 'populist' forumites found It tenable to hide behind him anymore. Now their populism doesn't have a suitable channel, Rishi and Cameron are clearly 'not one of us', Rees Mogg lacks an appeal outside his Somerset lair and Suella is clearly toxic to the vast majority. They have therefore shifted back to a more generalist narrative....the comments that give them away are things like 'Governments in the West are failing the people'......, 'things will go bad unless we get a grip of immigration'...... 'of course I hate Trump but he is a friend of the UK and may give us a trade deal' etc etc. The populism is hidden by the thin veneer of 'speaking for the voiceless and disadvantaged'. Fact is though doing the real things that support people such as promoting and properly financing functioning institutions and services is often difficult. For instance there are few votes in promoting a well functioning Criminal Justice system; clearly not enough people care that rape trials are now being delayed for month after month by swingeing cutbacks, however money will now suddenly be found to pay for an extra 150 Judges to enable the Rwanda policy in the pursuit of populist votes. Hopefully those living in the 'red wall' seats have now seen through the empty 'levelling up' rhetoric of the Johnsonian charlatans and the country can return to focusing on what really matters.....the cost of living crisis, NHS, properly functioning services etc.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 7:08:14 GMT
Someone is ignoring the elephant. Labour were complicit in austerity (see various statements by Balls), and unwilling to defend Labour's record in government in the late 2000s Something I thought stupid at the time of the election, and now in retrospect the last labour government was a golden age for Britain, even including the 2008 crash, compared to what has happened under con. It was truly out of the frying pan into the fire. although its also true the first 5 years under Cameron was arguably the best part of their period in office. The cracks, mistakes, and bad policies became steadily more obvious as time went on. It was argued thatcher would never have got a second term expect for the falklands. And con would not have got a second term except for brexit. It wasnt because people liked their core policies on how to govern.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,323
|
Post by steve on Jan 24, 2024 7:08:42 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter You make these absolutist statements about the liberal democrats time in the coalition which simply aren't true. Nick Clegg, no longer a mp and as far as I am aware no longer even a member defends his time in the coalition but since 2015 there have been a plethora of liberal democrats who have apologised.For example Jo Swinson in 2018 called on the party to "own the failures" of the party's time in government, while Clegg the former deputy prime minister said he "emphatically" believed he made the right decisions in office. In her address to the party delegates gathered in Brighton for that autumn conference, the then deputy leader said the party should have done more to stop Theresa May's hostile approach to immigration, the Lib dems did oppose the send them home can campaign at the time incidentally and to prevent the introduction of the "punishing" bedroom tax. The party had been "too nice", she said, and had agreed to compromises in its power-sharing agreement with David Cameron that "sucked". The parties focus now is on getting rid of the Tories our current party leader has made it abundantly clear that if parliamentary mathematics permit we would work with a minority Labour government but never the Tories. If the mayhem of a total disaster amongst Tories transpired and the outside possibility of the Lib dems being the second largest parliamentary party occurred , of course we would hold a majority Labour government to account , that's the job of the opposition, who ever they are. While you don't share jibs visceral infantile hatred of the Lib dems I do feel you show a tendency to want to dwell on past misdeeds.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 24, 2024 7:09:02 GMT
eor - yes, the Iowa weather could have played a role. New Hampshire turnout looks just a little down on 2016. Much closer result than some predicted though.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 7:12:28 GMT
Danny - I've counted twelve errors of fact this time. Please don't this as a sign you're improving. You're not. It's still drivel. glad to see you are readinn my post. Trouble is...you never say what those twelve errors are!
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 24, 2024 7:16:32 GMT
It is grasping at straws to think that 'reducing taxes' will have any major effect at the moment (even if they were reducing, which they aren't). One reason why not is the huge amount of money poured in to keep people going during the coronavirus epidemic, which weirdly no-one talks about. well i do, even back in 2020 there was a paper published by an NHS satistician that the covid lockdown policy was simply not cost effective health care. However con promulgated this policy and labour supported it. So neither is very keen to admit it was a massive waste of public funds, possibly the greatest waste of public money in British history.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 24, 2024 7:21:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 24, 2024 7:23:24 GMT
"Trouble is...you never say what those twelve errors are!" Oh Danny - I've spent four years trying to get you to learn something, but you resolutely refuse to take off your blinkers and actually read the evidence. You can take a horse to water and all that. It's up to you whether you want to grow up or not - no one else can do it for you.
|
|