Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...



jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
12,915
No point saying anything until he's in a position to act. He's not going to attract floating voters by announcing he will repeal laws that lots of floating voters like. Announce decisions that will restore some freedoms when the benefits can immediately be seen, not when they are simply promises that unsettle the naturally Labour-skeptic
Like usual I agree with you, because you’re looking at it rationally as in what will happen rather than Nicko’s view of what should happen from his perspective. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve been called a Tory on here (despite repeatedly saying I can’t stand the Tory administration) for being contrary to the status quo by dealing in realities not absolute and crazy partisan views that half the country will disregard.
 
Last edited:




jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
12,915
Countries rarely become more free, apart from the USA (still reeling from 4 years with a fascist in charge)no other country is losing freedoms faster than the UK.

To me Starmer needs to be bolder in call this stuff out. Call the f**kers out as authoritian and anti democratic, he's being too nice
In my view it’s not about being nice, it’s about managing expectations. Win hearts and minds. Attack when the time is right. Why bother now? We are so far from a GE most people forget what they had for breakfast never mind the party political scandal du jour.

Labour need to win the middle. The sooner their stalwarts realise this the better, especially those in charge of policy.
 




Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
13,449
Cumbria
Yep.

Our right to peaceful protest ended last Saturday.

Once rights are removed they tend not to come back .

A dark day for Britain.

Plough the f***ing lot of them into a ditch.
The chap I heard on the news (police presumably) basically blamed the protestors. He said something along the lines of 'the protestors should consider that their actions will also have an impact on other people'.

That is 'if you peacefully protest, it's not our fault if innocent people get locked up for 13 hours - but yours'.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
25,560
West is BEST
The chap I heard on the news (police presumably) basically blamed the protestors. He said something along the lines of 'the protestors should consider that their actions will also have an impact on other people'.

That is 'if you peacefully protest, it's not our fault if innocent people get locked up for 13 hours - but yours'.
What depths this country has sunk to.


Thought police, arresting people for what they could potentially do. That’s fine for terrorism. It’s not for protest.

They said it couldn’t happen here.
 




A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
19,956
Deepest, darkest Sussex
“ Chambers was told she was being arrested on suspicion of “potential to cause a breach of peace”.

This is VERY scary.
People will use this no doubt as an excuse to attack Just Stop Oil and their ilk, but it's worth bearing one important thing in mind;

This could happen to any of us at any time.

This lady committed the "crime" of standing next to someone in a crowd. Think about the number of times you've done that recently. At any moment you could now be arrested for that. You won't even be asked if you vote Tory before they arrest you, stand next to the wrong person entirely innocently and within minutes you could be handcuffed in a police van having done nothing wrong.
 


Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
3,208
Uckfield
Labour need to win the middle.
Yup, so true. In a two party system (let's ignore the Lib Dems for now...) the party that wins elections will normally do it by winning the swinging voters in the middle ground. The party that leans left won't win an election by going further left, and the party on the right won't win by going further right - except where special circumstances apply (eg as we had here pre-Brexit, where the Tory's went further right because UKIP etc were doing more damage than Labour were, because Labour had vacated the middle ground to head left under Corbyn and winning the middle ground was dead simple by just saying "... but Corbyn").

Coming back to the Lib Dems ... a resurgent Lib Dems only makes it even more true. Where the middle-ground battlefield is a three-way fight, it becomes even more important to fight for and win that middle ground. And where you can't, act in a way that bolsters the chances of the third player and harms your main opponent.

If I was Labour, I'd be looking very hard at which seats they should just quietly not bother standing a candidate in so as to avoid splitting the vote between themselves and the Lib Dems. Seats like Wealden: if both Lib Dem and Lab stand a candidate at a GE, Nus Ghani wins at a canter (even if, as predicted, her 60% vote share from 2019 collapses to nearer 40%). Give the anti-Tory voters a straight choice between Tory and Lib Dem, there's a small chance of a major upset - and, IMO, that chance is lower if it's a straight Lab-vs-Tory vote. Lab don't have the on-the-ground resources to fight in Wealden. Lib Dems do, especially following May 4 local elections.
 
Last edited:


jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
12,915
Yep.

Our right to peaceful protest ended last Saturday.

Once rights are removed they tend not to come back .

A dark day for Britain.

Plough the f***ing lot of them into a ditch.
Yup, so true. In a two party system (let's ignore the Lib Dems for now...) the party that wins elections will normally do it by winning the swinging voters in the middle ground. The party that leans left won't win an election by going further left, and the party on the right won't win by going further right - except where special circumstances apply (eg as we had here pre-Brexit, where the Tory's went further right because UKIP etc were doing more damage than Labour were, because Labour had vacated the middle ground to head left under Corbyn and winning the middle ground was dead simple by just saying "... but Corbyn").

Coming back to the Lib Dems ... a resurgent Lib Dems only makes it even more true. Where the middle-ground battlefield is a three-way fight, it becomes even more important to fight for and win that middle ground. And where you can't, act in a way that bolsters the chances of third player and harms your main opponent.

If I was Labour, I'd be looking very hard at which seats they should they just quietly not bother standing a candidate in so as to avoid splitting the vote between themselves and the Tories. Seats like Wealden: if both Lib Dem and Lab stand a candidate at a GE, Nus Ghani wins at a canter (even if, as predicted, her 60% vote share from 2019 collapses to nearer 40%). Give the anti-Tory voters a straight choice between Tory and Lib Dem, there's a small chance of a major upset - and, IMO, that chance is lower if it's a straight Lab-vs-Tory vote. Lab don't have the on-the-ground resources to fight in Wealden. Lib Dems do, especially following May 4 local elections.
Excellent post
 








Boys 9d

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2012
1,837
Lancing
With reference to the Australian lady arrested, I see the Met are passing the buck as the arresting officer was from Lincolnshire. It begs the questions 1) was he officer acting under the instructions of the Met or the Lincolnshire Police? and 2) was she locked up in a Met Police Station or transported to Lincolnshire for the 13 hour detention?
 




nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
18,197
Gods country fortnightly
Yup, so true. In a two party system (let's ignore the Lib Dems for now...) the party that wins elections will normally do it by winning the swinging voters in the middle ground. The party that leans left won't win an election by going further left, and the party on the right won't win by going further right - except where special circumstances apply (eg as we had here pre-Brexit, where the Tory's went further right because UKIP etc were doing more damage than Labour were, because Labour had vacated the middle ground to head left under Corbyn and winning the middle ground was dead simple by just saying "... but Corbyn").

Coming back to the Lib Dems ... a resurgent Lib Dems only makes it even more true. Where the middle-ground battlefield is a three-way fight, it becomes even more important to fight for and win that middle ground. And where you can't, act in a way that bolsters the chances of the third player and harms your main opponent.

If I was Labour, I'd be looking very hard at which seats they should just quietly not bother standing a candidate in so as to avoid splitting the vote between themselves and the Lib Dems. Seats like Wealden: if both Lib Dem and Lab stand a candidate at a GE, Nus Ghani wins at a canter (even if, as predicted, her 60% vote share from 2019 collapses to nearer 40%). Give the anti-Tory voters a straight choice between Tory and Lib Dem, there's a small chance of a major upset - and, IMO, that chance is lower if it's a straight Lab-vs-Tory vote. Lab don't have the on-the-ground resources to fight in Wealden. Lib Dems do, especially following May 4 local elections.
There are very few seats where there's a LAB / LD close fight, maybe Clegg's old seat Sheffield Hallam. If tactical voting really takes hold the Tories are toast.

I also wonder whether Reform could still cause the Tories damage, especially if Farage gets involved. Immigration numbers will soon soar further, he may well return for his next grift...
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
19,956
Deepest, darkest Sussex
With reference to the Australian lady arrested, I see the Met are passing the buck as the arresting officer was from Lincolnshire. It begs the questions 1) was he officer acting under the instructions of the Met or the Lincolnshire Police? and 2) was she locked up in a Met Police Station or transported to Lincolnshire for the 13 hour detention?
Plenty of plausible deniability for both to be able to say "nothing to do with us, guv" and hope it all goes away. The copper himself will be sent packing as a sacrificial lamb but nothing more will happen.
 












A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
19,956
Deepest, darkest Sussex
 




happypig

Staring at the rude boys
May 23, 2009
8,114
Eastbourne
If I was Labour, I'd be looking very hard at which seats they should just quietly not bother standing a candidate in so as to avoid splitting the vote between themselves and the Lib Dems. Seats like Wealden: if both Lib Dem and Lab stand a candidate at a GE, Nus Ghani wins at a canter (even if, as predicted, her 60% vote share from 2019 collapses to nearer 40%). Give the anti-Tory voters a straight choice between Tory and Lib Dem, there's a small chance of a major upset - and, IMO, that chance is lower if it's a straight Lab-vs-Tory vote. Lab don't have the on-the-ground resources to fight in Wealden. Lib Dems do, especially following May 4 local elections.
That makes perfect sense. In 1992 some members of Brighton Labour Party (myself included) suggested standing down candidates in Lewes and Eastbourne if the Lib Dems would stand down in Kemp Town and Pavilion. It was rejected by both parties and the Tories won all four.
We don't help ourselves sometimes....
 


Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
17,458
Fiveways
There are very few seats where there's a LAB / LD close fight, maybe Clegg's old seat Sheffield Hallam. If tactical voting really takes hold the Tories are toast.

I also wonder whether Reform could still cause the Tories damage, especially if Farage gets involved. Immigration numbers will soon soar further, he may well return for his next grift...
Mooted that immigration numbers will get close to a million. Farage is primed: we're one year before an election, and he'll give the "I'm here to save the country from unlimited immigration, and only I can do it" shtick.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here