[Politics] General Election 2024 - 4th July

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







Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,240
Absolutely, I think Sunak has to hold the general election before the local elections.

If results are bad in the local elections, Sunak will certainly be challenged for the leadership by one of the far right frothers currently infesting the Conservative Party, so I don’t think he can afford to wait.

His only chance of retaining power and keeping the Conservatives at least partially out of the far-right’s grip is to call the election and rely on the general public having really short memories. (Spoiler: they do)

I don’t currently see a path for the Conservative Party to win the next election, but they have a united and organised network of client journalists across the Mail, Express, Sun, Times and Telegraph, plus I suspect @Is it PotG? still watches GBeebies, so there’s at least one vote won for them there.

The attack dogs are going to be relentlessly focused on Starmer/Labour from the New Year onward, Starmer is going to have to continue his policy of making himself and Labour as small a target as possible right up to election day.

None of the media outlets listed above have enough clout to swing an election individually, but cumulatively they have the effect on people’s minds that “if they’re all saying it, it must be true.”
This won’t happen. I mean, yes, results almost certainly WILL be bad but there won’t be any rebellion so close to a general election. For one thing, the Tory ‘frothers' may do the usual briefings but there are nowhere near enough of them to force a leadership election. Second, the frequency of changing PMs in recent years has been so ridiculed that there’s no way they’d want to force yet another. The best hope the Tories have now is to present a united front to the electorate.

Yes, Starmer will come under attack of course, just as Sunak is under attack from the left-leaning press. It’s what they do. All of them.
 


jackalbion

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2011
4,913
This won’t happen. I mean, yes, results almost certainly WILL be bad but there won’t be any rebellion so close to a general election. For one thing, the Tory ‘frothers' may do the usual briefings but there are nowhere near enough of them to force a leadership election. Second, the frequency of changing PMs in recent years has been so ridiculed that there’s no way they’d want to force yet another. The best hope the Tories have now is to present a united front to the electorate.

Yes, Starmer will come under attack of course, just as Sunak is under attack from the left-leaning press. It’s what they do. All of them.
I'm not sure how the tories will think having another PM will be good for their image, unless they have some sort of nosediving death cult idea, that sees reform take their place.
 








Surrey Phil

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2010
1,531
FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!
 


Is it PotG?

Thrifty non-licker
Feb 20, 2017
25,453
Sussex by the Sea
FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!
He'll sort the immigration issue when he's at the helm, I have no doubt.

Starmer QC
 


Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,240
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you. There are newspapers to the left of the titles I mentioned above, but there’s little to no coordination in their output. The Mirror’s a joke, the Independent will criticize everybody, and the Guardian is an oddball as it doesn’t have an owner in the traditional sense, which can be both a blessing and a curse. It seems to have become increasingly confused and woolly as time has gone on, with the exception of some genuine investigative reporting which none of the other papers touch and doesn’t get the kudos it deserves from across the political spectrum.

The right-leaning titles have (and I would say this is quite a recent phenomenon) organized to a hitherto unknown degree. They take the same cues, parrot the same information and toe the same lines between them. However, I would agree that you can find dissenting opinions/voices in the Times, far more than you can in the Telegraph for example. And I agree people should read what they want to read.

My question for you is: does the revolving door between the current cabinet and the Daily Mail/GBeebies not give you any cause for concern?

Added there’s a genuine game of “capture the flag” going on for the Telegraph right now, and most of those bidding want to increase the amount of US style “divide and conquer” politics that we import.

Look at America, currently tearing itself apart in almost every regard, and tell me that this style of politics is something we should be encouraging.

The reason it’s so important to fire the Conservatives so far from power that they leave earth’s atmosphere at the upcoming elections, is to send a clear signal to the US Conservatives bankrolling this that we won’t stick it at any price.
No, I don’t see any evidence of editorial coordination but there again, I admit I almost never read these papers except in the supermarket when I can’t help scanning across the front pages. People firmly defend the line that the other side of the line from them, politically speaking, are the devil while here on my side they’re just telling it how it is. The number of people scoffing at 'Guardian reader types' is not much different from those denouncing 'Daily Mail types'.

I honestly don’t know why it bothers people so much. I used to have a devoutly Catholic aunt who thought that Gay News, when appeared sometime in the 70s, shouldn’t be on open sale in newsagents because some innocent youngster might see it by accident and be corrupted and somehow turned gay. Seems to be the same fear of the Daily Mail. A belief that adults are totally politically neutral until they come across a copy of the DM and are instantly corrupted. You should give people a bit more credit for making up their own minds. Even if someone’s a dyed-in-the-wool Guardian or Mail reader, they do still get exposure to alternative opinions through workmates, the BBC, radio phone-ins, and multiple other sources. Personally, I think most people’s attitudes are formed quite young, in their teens, and that they gravitate towards news sources and friends who broadly share these attitudes. As they get older, these attitudes are refined a bit.

Yes, the US is dangerously polarised. Far more so than in Europe. Brexit caused a massive amount of aggro obviously, and social media has made political discourse very toxic — but at least we don’t have guns. UK politics has always been highly confrontational. I remember Heath v Wilson, Thatcher v the miners and trade unions. We forget how divided the country has always been. If you read Trollope, you’ll get a very vivid picture of the Whigs/Liberals v Tories conflict in the Victorian era. Re the US, there are some middle-of-the-road commentators and academics who seriously believe that the US is heading for another armed civil war of sorts. Not like the last one, with massed armies facing off. But a guerilla war with armed attacks on democratic institutions, as we saw at the Capitol.
 




stewart12

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2019
1,920
FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!
Hi

"Illegal migrants" don't receive benefits
 


jackalbion

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2011
4,913
FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!
Episode 2 Whatever GIF
 
Last edited:


aolstudios

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2011
5,276
brighton
That would be nice if I could afford to use the heating constantly but better insulation, (like the guy coming round shortly to sort out the large gap under my front door when he installed it ) and more clothes usually works for me.

Tbh - Most people I know on low (and some middle incomes) use their heating as little as they can and are used to economising - even if I could afford to put the heating on all the time, I wouldn’t for environmental reasons - the average daily in my home was 12 degrees last winter because of rising fuel costs and it was impactful on my health - but there are other ways to keep warm than running the central heating all day.

Have we become soft? - I grew up in a house where we were told to wear bed hats and extra layers to keep warm - my student days were in an attic bedsit where there was frost on the bed in the morning 😂

Diet cokes for me (can’t drink because of liver and kidney damage from Covid) but plenty of pringly things/cheddars/crips and I will make sure there will be a few bacon sandwiches as the first counts start coming in!

Before that, the ex-mayor no doubt will be dragging me out to do doorstep leafleting and telephone canvassing for the Labour Party (which hopefully will be met with a better reception by the public than when I did it in 2019 😕
David Lepper?
Lovely bloke, used to teach me at Falmer
 




Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,240
Were his notes not included, or is that separate?
They were mentioned, yes. I think it was Vallance who said that DC had used these words. Cummings was by this time quite anti-Johnson/Sunak so I’m presuming he’s describing the attitude rather than verbatim. But TBH, I’ve not followed the enquiry closely. I’ll wait till the report.
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,263
Oh I completely agree, but the Tories will still pick up the vast majority of the pensioner vote though, more for cultural reasons rather than financial thought. Any votes the tories can claw back from gullible workers could make the difference between a wipeout and a more manageable defeat.

If the Tories start to lose the over 60 vote then they will disappear.
At what point do those over-60s look at the disintegrating NHS they will come to rely on, the record levels of immigration putting further strain on the NHS, reflect on the "they've had a good innings / let the bodies pile high" Boris comments emerging from the Covid enquiry and then change their voting behaviour?

Already, those of a more racist persuasion will look at Rishi in charge, Patel, Braverman and now Cleverly in charge of the Home Office and immediately find Reform UK a more attractive proposition. I'm not surprised they are polling at 8% and it could easily go double digit within the next few months.
 


Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
9,120
At what point do those over-60s look at the disintegrating NHS they will come to rely on, the record levels of immigration putting further strain on the NHS, reflect on the "they've had a good innings / let the bodies pile high" Boris comments emerging from the Covid enquiry and then change their voting behaviour?

Already, those of a more racist persuasion will look at Rishi in charge, Patel, Braverman and now Cleverly in charge of the Home Office and immediately find Reform UK a more attractive proposition. I'm not surprised they are polling at 8% and it could easily go double digit within the next few months.
Well I'll be over 60 in a few years time so I shall be doing my bit to change the voting habits of that demographic
 










Questions

Habitual User
Oct 18, 2006
25,504
Worthing
FACT - Did you know in 2003, the Labour party was taken to Court by six asylum seekers who demanded benefits. Five of them were defended by a QC who won their case. That QC was Keir Starmer. This laid the ground for todays scandal of hotel and benefits for illegal migrants!!

I will definitely not be voting Labour at the next GE!
So these bloody invaders had the right to benefits under International Law and Agreements ? Bloody Starmer.
 






chickens

Have you considered masterly inactivity?
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
2,689
No, I don’t see any evidence of editorial coordination but there again, I admit I almost never read these papers except in the supermarket when I can’t help scanning across the front pages. People firmly defend the line that the other side of the line from them, politically speaking, are the devil while here on my side they’re just telling it how it is. The number of people scoffing at 'Guardian reader types' is not much different from those denouncing 'Daily Mail types'.

I honestly don’t know why it bothers people so much. I used to have a devoutly Catholic aunt who thought that Gay News, when appeared sometime in the 70s, shouldn’t be on open sale in newsagents because some innocent youngster might see it by accident and be corrupted and somehow turned gay. Seems to be the same fear of the Daily Mail. A belief that adults are totally politically neutral until they come across a copy of the DM and are instantly corrupted. You should give people a bit more credit for making up their own minds. Even if someone’s a dyed-in-the-wool Guardian or Mail reader, they do still get exposure to alternative opinions through workmates, the BBC, radio phone-ins, and multiple other sources. Personally, I think most people’s attitudes are formed quite young, in their teens, and that they gravitate towards news sources and friends who broadly share these attitudes. As they get older, these attitudes are refined a bit.

Yes, the US is dangerously polarised. Far more so than in Europe. Brexit caused a massive amount of aggro obviously, and social media has made political discourse very toxic — but at least we don’t have guns. UK politics has always been highly confrontational. I remember Heath v Wilson, Thatcher v the miners and trade unions. We forget how divided the country has always been. If you read Trollope, you’ll get a very vivid picture of the Whigs/Liberals v Tories conflict in the Victorian era. Re the US, there are some middle-of-the-road commentators and academics who seriously believe that the US is heading for another armed civil war of sorts. Not like the last one, with massed armies facing off. But a guerilla war with armed attacks on democratic institutions, as we saw at the Capitol.

I would rather not have these US origin battles being replayed in the U.K. for the benefit of wealthy Americans with more money than sense.

I accept what you say regarding conflict in U.K. politics, it has always been there, but I am firmly of the belief that if we don’t reverse our direction of travel with a political result that renders these projects null and void, we will effectively be circling the plughole of US style politics and just awaiting the inevitable internal conflict ourselves.

In this instance I would like to see these Conservatives being non-entities in terms of votes cast for them. I doubt it’s achievable, but the alternative feels utterly bleak to me. We are making incredible technological advances, yet at the same time moving backward with regard to being a civilization.

I don’t want our political differences leading to mass brawls, insults and gangs (armed or otherwise) - this lot want us polarised and angry. That seems to me to be exactly what the future holds if we reward this and allow it to take root and flourish.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top