|
|
Post by barbara on May 26, 2024 15:57:16 GMT
I have to say that I find the conduct of election campaigns to be very uninspiring nowadays indeed - it comes across as thoroughly contrived and banal and probably fails to engage most of the electorate.I accept that this has been the case for thirty years or so now. It would be so much better to return to the era of mass public meetings addressed by the party leaders and senior figures. I fondly recall the 1964 and 1966 election campaigns with Harold Wilson being so effective when dealing with the hecklers seeking to interrupt him. George Brown was also good - as on the Tory side were Ted Heath and Quintin Hogg. Those meetings appeared so much more meaningful than the rubbish we are now presented with.I do wonder whether the fall in turnout at GEs owes somethng to the switch to reliance on pure marketing /advertising techniques rather than having public debate and argument directly with the voters. You said a few weeks ago you are 70. If you were born in 1953/54 then either you were a child prodigy or you have false recoil engendered by excessive nostalgia. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 26, 2024 16:11:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2024 16:11:35 GMT
The very fact that seats like Chelmsford and Chichester are even being discussed as possible CON losses shows what potentially remarkable electoral times we are living in. True, but don't forget that Colchester was Lib Dem from 1997-2015. It is a university town (Essex University) among other things. Chelmsford is also a Uni town these days (Angiia Ruskin) and is full of middle class London commuter types who are not as Tory as they once were, suffering badly from higher mortgage rates and rail fares. If Labour win Colchester, it is the first time since 1945 and for Chelmsford, technically the first time ever (Ernest Millington won it for Commonweath in a 1945 by-election and was not opposed by Labour in the 1945 GE, subsequently joining the Labour party. My maternal grandfather, who was a Labour councillor in Chelmsford for many years, knew him well). Possibly some slight confusion about 'chesters' here. I referenced Chichester rather than Colchester (where I lived briefly in the mid '80s). I knew 'Col' had a LAB MP in the Attlee landslide, (although I wasn't aware of Millington's back story). But 'Chi' is even more embedded, having been CON for an unbroken 100 years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichester_(UK_Parliament_constituency) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2024 16:14:33 GMT
National Service for babies! Lazy little buggers. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 26, 2024 16:17:09 GMT
True, but don't forget that Colchester was Lib Dem from 1997-2015. It is a university town (Essex University) among other things. Chelmsford is also a Uni town these days (Angiia Ruskin) and is full of middle class London commuter types who are not as Tory as they once were, suffering badly from higher mortgage rates and rail fares. If Labour win Colchester, it is the first time since 1945 and for Chelmsford, technically the first time ever (Ernest Millington won it for Commonweath in a 1945 by-election and was not opposed by Labour in the 1945 GE, subsequently joining the Labour party. My maternal grandfather, who was a Labour councillor in Chelmsford for many years, knew him well). Possibly some slight confusion about 'chesters' here. I referenced Chichester rather than Colchester (where I lived briefly in the mid '80s). I knew 'Col' had a LAB MP in the Attlee landslide, (although I wasn't aware of Millington's back story). But 'Chi' is even more embedded, having been CON for an unbroken 100 years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichester_(UK_Parliament_constituency)Yes my bad - I had Chelmsford and Colchester in my head having just asked JamesE about them. As the Chichester, it is hard to think of anywhere that is more true blue. |
|
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: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 26, 2024 16:18:28 GMT
What are the non-voting abstainistas making of the policies being advocated by the parties during this election? On a non-voting basis, which are the ones they are most likely least not to vote for? Don’t know about others but I don’t exactly make a secret of which policies I like or don’t. It’s thin gruel from the campaign thus far though. Quite like the state bank idea I was just chatting about but depends how they do it. Not so keen on conscription. It’s also no secret that Voting on them could get you something very different from what they say however. Maybe even the opposite of the policy you hoped for. (If you happened to have the casting vote) |
|
|
|
Post by xanadan on May 26, 2024 16:19:52 GMT
Oh, that would be tragic, tears like rain! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2024 16:25:51 GMT
If you want to engage in a reasoned discussion fine if you just want to whinge about your pet dislikes of other progressive parties maybe you could share it at The Canary you'll find plenty who agree with you No need to discuss it at all, matey. Just shut the fuck up. There you are, solved. You’re seriously weird. Other parties don’t exist in order to make way for the Labour Party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2024 16:27:22 GMT
What are the non-voting abstainistas making of the policies being advocated by the parties during this election? On a non-voting basis, which are the ones they are most likely least not to vote for? Who on earth are you thinking of Batty? (A great theoretical question by the way.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2024 16:30:09 GMT
I have to say that I find the conduct of election campaigns to be very uninspiring nowadays indeed - it comes across as thoroughly contrived and banal and probably fails to engage most of the electorate.I accept that this has been the case for thirty years or so now. It would be so much better to return to the era of mass public meetings addressed by the party leaders and senior figures. I fondly recall the 1964 and 1966 election campaigns with Harold Wilson being so effective when dealing with the hecklers seeking to interrupt him. George Brown was also good - as on the Tory side were Ted Heath and Quintin Hogg. Those meetings appeared so much more meaningful than the rubbish we are now presented with.I do wonder whether the fall in turnout at GEs owes somethng to the switch to reliance on pure marketing /advertising techniques rather than having public debate and argument directly with the voters. You said a few weeks ago you are 70. If you were born in 1953/54 then either you were a child prodigy or you have false recoil engendered by excessive nostalgia.False recoil can be quite dangerous - whatever it’s engendered by. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 26, 2024 16:30:56 GMT
Oh, that would be tragic, tears like rain! |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 26, 2024 16:31:47 GMT
I have to say that I find the conduct of election campaigns to be very uninspiring nowadays indeed - it comes across as thoroughly contrived and banal and probably fails to engage most of the electorate.I accept that this has been the case for thirty years or so now. It would be so much better to return to the era of mass public meetings addressed by the party leaders and senior figures. I fondly recall the 1964 and 1966 election campaigns with Harold Wilson being so effective when dealing with the hecklers seeking to interrupt him. George Brown was also good - as on the Tory side were Ted Heath and Quintin Hogg. Those meetings appeared so much more meaningful than the rubbish we are now presented with.I do wonder whether the fall in turnout at GEs owes somethng to the switch to reliance on pure marketing /advertising techniques rather than having public debate and argument directly with the voters. You said a few weeks ago you are 70. If you were born in 1953/54 then either you were a child prodigy or you have false recoil engendered by excessive nostalgia.I will be 70 a few days after the election. I have some memory of the Berlin Wall being built in Summer 1961. The last year of Gaitskell's life I do recall and broadcasts by both him and Macmillan in Autumn 1962 on the Common Market issue. Gaitskell's death in January 1963 I do remember vividly - and the leadership election which then followed. The Profumo Affair and Macmillan's rresignation in October 1963 are very clear - and the widespread expectation that R A Butler would succeed him. A few weeks later Kennedy was assasinated.
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 26, 2024 16:32:45 GMT
James E - putting aside all my reservations for a moment, what are the polling implications for Braintree and Witham constituencies at present? They are both among the safest Conservative seats, but also located in a part of the country seeing the largest collapse in Tory VI. I would also be interested in Colchester, although I assume this will show as an easy Labour gain. Interestingly, at local level Labour progress in councillors has been static for several cycles in Colchester, with the Lib Dems holding their territory easily, while we have been gaining ground in Braintree and Witham (albeit from a low base). All three of the sources I have checked show the Tories holding Witham. EC show Con 38% , Lab 32%, LD 5%, Grn 8%, Ref 14% - so a 22% Con to Lab swing Survation show Con 36%, Lab 34%, LD 7%, Green 5%, ref 15% - 24% Con to Lab swing YouGov show Con 37%, Lab 28%, LD 11%, green 7%, Ref 16% - a 20.5% Con to Lab swing But for Braintree, we have Survation showing a Lab gain, while the other two show Con Hold. EC show Con 39%, Lab 33%, LD 5%, Green 5%, Ref 16% - a 22.5% Con to Lab swing Survation show Con 36%, Lab 37%, LD 6%, Green 3%, Ref 16% - a 25% Con to Lab swing YouGov show Con 38%, Lab 32%, LD 7%, Grn 6%, ref 18% - a 21.5% Con to Lab swing. All three show Labour taking Colchester, though the swings are generally lower. EC show 50/29/14 - so a 23% Con to Lab swing Survation show 43/30/10 - a 16% Con to Lab swing YG show 37/29/14 - a 13.5% Con to Lab swing (but this has been reduced by their 'unwinding' adjustment) The Witham and Braintree figures are fairly consistent across all three sources. The differences between them arise in seats where the tactical position may be unclear - for example, EC have the LDs winning Chelmsford on 30%, while Survation show them in 3rd place with 14%. |
|
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: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 26, 2024 16:34:55 GMT
Well just because the EU makes exceptions in some cases doesn’t mean you can rely on them to do so in other cases. It doesn’t say when the banks were founded in the couple I looked at, and maybe they were ok if set up before ‘92. Thirdly, even if they allow it, they might insist on concessions we might not want to do, as when we had to get their permission to act in the banking crisis. And fourthly, maybe there is something extra Corbyn wanted to be able to do (that maybe the Scot’s banks also now do?), that wasn’t possible when we were in the EU. They did, as I say, set it up in Scotland right as we left the EU. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,637
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 16:36:51 GMT
Rafwan Have to politely disagree with that the problem was that any cross party coalition would have required an acceptable leader. Given that a number of Labour lexiteers didn't want it anyway it would be dependent primarily on whom the ex Tory remainers and the SNP as the two largest groups would have accepted and of course my party all 7 of them at the time, for all they might have considered anyone but Corbyn, but for Corbyn he wouldn't consider anyone but himself. It's a reasonable position that the Labour leader might want to lead such a coalition and if the Labour leader had been for example Yvette Cooper it wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem but those Tories weren't ever going to accept Corbyn and the SNP had their own agenda to remain / rejoin as an independent Scotland.There were also plenty of Labour mps who would have preferred someone else.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,637
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 16:46:07 GMT
Only in Norfolk.
"They’re out of control’: flock of 100 feral chickens torments village"
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 26, 2024 16:54:13 GMT
If you want to engage in a reasoned discussion fine if you just want to whinge about your pet dislikes of other progressive parties maybe you could share it at The Canary you'll find plenty who agree with you No need to discuss it at all, matey. Just shut the fuck up. There you are, solved. Dick. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,637
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 16:58:00 GMT
domjgHe becomes the first and I very much expect the last contributor I've blocked there's only room for so much shite!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2024 17:01:45 GMT
John Crace on Nigel Farage: “An unpleasant gobshite.”
Nicely succinct and accurate.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,637
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 17:02:55 GMT
You just have to love John Crace
"When the BBC announced its line-up for the Laura Kuenssberg Sunday politics show, there was a large blank beside the Tory part. To be confirmed, it said ominously. Hardly a surprise these days. At the current acceleration rate of attrition, it must be increasingly hard to find a cabinet minister or Conservative backbencher who has definitely decided to stand for election again.
On Wednesday, Michael Gove had declared his wholehearted support for Rishi Sunak’s surprise election announcement: two days later he had decided to spend more time with his crack den. That’s our Mikey. On brand to the very last. Saying one thing, doing another. Treachery runs in his veins. Even the prime minister looks as if he isn’t sure whether to fight this election. His body language during the first three days of the campaign has suggested a man yearning for Santa Monica. He only gets out of bed through a misplaced sense of duty.
So there was an air of excitement on Sunday morning to see who was going to turn up for the Tories. Come 8.25am, the home secretary walked into the Sky studio. James Cleverly had decided – for now at any rate – that he was still onboard for this week of the campaign. He might as well get his futile gesture in early on. Plenty of time to quietly drop out later.
Still. Call it a win for the Tories. Hard to believe, but Jimmy Dimly is something of a catch for the government these days. Obviously he’s not very bright – which of them is? – but he’s tenacious and has an air of confidence that can only come from someone unaware of just how desperate the situation is. He’s also incredibly loyal. A natural born follower. A slightly more charismatic Tom Pursglove. Someone who treats his synaptic disorders with homeopathy. It’s the closest to memory he gets. "
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,637
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 17:03:34 GMT
Paul
Our minds have become linked🤔
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,637
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 17:06:23 GMT
"John Crace on Nigel Farage: “An unpleasant gobshite.”
Personally I still prefer "frog faced hate gimp."courtesy of News Thump and Alistair Campbell
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 26, 2024 17:12:37 GMT
Rafwan Have to politely disagree with that the problem was that any cross party coalition would have required an acceptable leader. Given that a number of Labour lexiteers didn't want it anyway it would be dependent primarily on whom the ex Tory remainers and the SNP as the two largest groups would have accepted and of course my party all 7 of them at the time, for all they might have considered anyone but Corbyn, but for Corbyn he wouldn't consider anyone but himself. It's a reasonable position that the Labour leader might want to lead such a coalition and if the Labour leader had been for example Yvette Cooper it wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem but those Tories weren't ever going to accept Corbyn and the SNP had their own agenda to remain / rejoin as an independent Scotland.There were also plenty of Labour mps who would have preferred someone else. Hmmm, ye-e-e-es, well .. . If you can see inside the heads of all that lot, you are a better man than I am. But it was this bit I was raisIng my eyebrows over - " Primarily because he had zero interest in doing so." |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 26, 2024 17:18:33 GMT
You said a few weeks ago you are 70. If you were born in 1953/54 then either you were a child prodigy or you have false recoil engendered by excessive nostalgia.False recoil can be quite dangerous - whatever it’s engendered by. Barbara is probably thinking about people who pretend to dislike something intensely. A false recoil describes that fakery quite well. Take the people on here who pretended to dislike Boris Johnson but secretly loved every bone in the old Bullingdon bounder's body. The Boris Brigade. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 26, 2024 17:18:46 GMT
domjgHe becomes the first and I very much expect the last contributor I've blocked there's only room for so much shite! You'd have also thought it would be fairly obvious to him hat when the LDs are doing well it benefits Labour and a Lab gvt is more likely, as there are many seats in the south that they can deprive the tories of where Labour has little history or organisation such as Wokingham, Newbury, Winchester etc. This tends to happen when voters in those seats are not scared of Labour and know what they are doing. My first GE vote was for the LDs in 1997, in Newbury, a constituency where Labour organisation and grassroots barely existed. I was however voting for a Labour govt and Blair as PM as were many others who did the same thing. Tactical voting has seemed completely natural to me ever since. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2024 17:21:35 GMT
Paul Our minds have become linked🤔 Fuck. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 26, 2024 17:21:56 GMT
Well just because the EU makes exceptions in some cases doesn’t mean you can rely on them to do so in other cases. It doesn’t say when the banks were founded in the couple I looked at, and maybe they were ok if set up before ‘92. Thirdly, even if they allow it, they might insist on concessions we might not want to do, as when we had to get their permission to act in the banking crisis. And fourthly, maybe there is something extra Corbyn wanted to be able to do (that maybe the Scot’s banks also now do), that wasn’t possible when we were in the EU. 
If you want to be in a political and economic union, your institutions have to follow that union's rules. If you are telling me that Corbyn wanted a state investment bank that broke EU rules (eg by giving an uncompetitive subsidy to firms in the UK), then he clearly wasn't in favour of the UK being an EU (or even a Single Market) member, but envisaged some socialist version of the sunlit uplands.
The Scottish National Investment bank (singular btw) operates within the EU Single Market rules because, to do otherwise, would lead to EU sanctions against such firms and, thus, would be a net negative for the Scottish economy. Just because the UK electorate was stupid enough to elect a government which took us out of the EU in a rather extreme fashion, doesn't mean that the UK can simply go its own way, and still trade meaningfully.
Unless Starmer/Reeves are lying through their proverbial teeth about securing closer arrangements with the EU, then their pretendy "Sovereign Wealth Fund" (actually the very common institution of a state investment bank) will also comply with Single Market rules. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 26, 2024 17:29:35 GMT
All three of the sources I have checked show the Tories holding Witham. EC show Con 38% , Lab 32%, LD 5%, Grn 8%, Ref 14% - so a 22% Con to Lab swing Survation show Con 36%, Lab 34%, LD 7%, Green 5%, ref 15% - 24% Con to Lab swing YouGov show Con 37%, Lab 28%, LD 11%, green 7%, Ref 16% - a 20.5% Con to Lab swing But for Braintree, we have Survation showing a Lab gain, while the other two show Con Hold. EC show Con 39%, Lab 33%, LD 5%, Green 5%, Ref 16% - a 22.5% Con to Lab swing Survation show Con 36%, Lab 37%, LD 6%, Green 3%, Ref 16% - a 25% Con to Lab swing YouGov show Con 38%, Lab 32%, LD 7%, Grn 6%, ref 18% - a 21.5% Con to Lab swing. Those Reform numbers in Braintree and Witham are very high and I have my doubts - not heard they even have candidates yet*. However, even if lower, not sure those votes are automatically Tory - they might just stay home instead. *Googled it - Braintree: Richard Thompson, Witham Timothy Blaxill. Both invisible so far. Edit: Mr Blaxill stood in the council election last year for Witham North for RefUK and polled 67 votes, coming 7th and last with 4.4% of the vote. Richard Thomson stood for RefUK in Witham Central and finished 8th and last with 107 votes (6.7%) |
|
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: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 26, 2024 17:31:36 GMT
Well just because the EU makes exceptions in some cases doesn’t mean you can rely on them to do so in other cases. It doesn’t say when the banks were founded in the couple I looked at, and maybe they were ok if set up before ‘92. Thirdly, even if they allow it, they might insist on concessions we might not want to do, as when we had to get their permission to act in the banking crisis. And fourthly, maybe there is something extra Corbyn wanted to be able to do (that maybe the Scot’s banks also now do), that wasn’t possible when we were in the EU.
If you want to be in a political and economic union, your institutions have to follow that union's rules. If you are telling me that Corbyn wanted a state investment bank that broke EU rules (eg by giving an uncompetitive subsidy to firms in the UK), then he clearly wasn't in favour of the UK being an EU (or even a Single Market) member, but envisaged some socialist version of the sunlit uplands.
The Scottish National Investment bank (singular btw) operates within the EU Single Market rules because, to do otherwise, would lead to EU sanctions against such firms and, thus, would be a net negative for the Scottish economy. Just because the UK electorate was stupid enough to elect a government which took us out of the EU in a rather extreme fashion, doesn't mean that the UK can simply go its own way, and still trade meaningfully.
Unless Starmer/Reeves are lying through their proverbial teeth about securing closer arrangements with the EU, then their pretendy "Sovereign Wealth Fund" (actually the very common institution of a state investment bank) will also comply with Single Market rules.Within the EU, you don’t necessarily know you are within the (often right-wing, pro-capital, investment-limiting) rules until the EU has made a decision. We had to wait on the EU decision regarding saving the banks, and they decided to add in that we should split some up. Now we are out the EU it is easier, but indeed there is the threat of them going to court if we push it with subsidy etc. but that’s not the same and there may be more leeway. They may instead simply match us for example, which can be a win-win. (The actions of the Americans may be shifting things our way in this regard. The EU are allowing more investment now and matching the Americans with subsidy rather than suing them. But they still get to decide which countries within the EU can do what). |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 26, 2024 17:42:38 GMT
From the Grunge - "Grindr accused of treating gay man’s medical data like ‘piece of meat’"
I thought that was rather the point of Grindr.
Can I say that?
|
|
