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

[Bob!]

I'm dumbfounded by this.

Having just made his 'apology' to the House of Commons, Boris tells friends in the tea room, that he hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Isn't that being disingenuous? Misleading the House, even in his apology?

The 'apology' seems to be for not realising it was a party, and therefore not breaking it up.

https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-john...mqs-prime-minister-apology-full-video-1396434

 

[zefarelly]

BJ is excelling even by his own subterranially low standards, it's like he got hold of a Trump Operations manual.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

thats been talked about as long as i remember, doesnt happen outside a few by elections. what proponents always ignore is the local constituency members, the activists. will they be happy sitting out an election campaign as their seat was chosen as sacrifice? why run a candidate at all? now your risking spliting local parties. a national party putting forward a candidate in every seat cant endorse tactical voting in some seats without consequences to their support in others. a national party no putting forawrd candidates in every seat risks an alternative emerging.

What is a general election but 650ish by elections run at the same time?

If you can get local parties to agree to being low key in a by election, you can also do so in a general election.

And in those by elections every party ran candidates. Nobody is talking about Labour or Lib Dems, not running someone. But they deployed financial and human resources on the basis of the likelihood of winning them, which happens significantly already of course. What happened at the recent by elections is that targeting on non targeting of resources was even more extreme, overt and coordinated.

That's what's being discussed

 

[rippleman]

You're right, of course, but I'd wager most people have zero clue what kind of platform their local candidate runs on and are precisely voting for Johnson. Or Starmer. Or whoever runs the Lib Dems these days.

But the platform your local Tory/Labour/LibDem candidate stands on is of no relevance or import once the elected MP gets to Parliament because of the whipping system whereby a MP must obey a 3 line whip and vote as instructed by their party leader. So yes, in effect, you are voting for whoever leads the party as they have the power to dictate how your MP votes.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Won't happen when it gets to a GE. Labour and LibDems won't be able agree on where to stand aside.

In addition, the LibDems would want some form of assurance that there would be a referendum with regards to PR - something the Labour Party will never agree to - why would they when they believe they can (and have) won overall majorities before?

What nobody has mentioned is money. Whereas the Tory coffers are full the same cannot be said for Labour and the Lib Dems. The costs for both of those parties for putting up a candidate in c. 650 seats is huge, particularly where Labour's best result is probably 380 seats and the Lib Dems is 150. By my crude maths that's 270 seats for Labour and 500 for the Lib Dems they would contest without having a hope in hell of winning.

It would be a FAR better use of scarce resources for Labour and Lib Dems to agree a list of seats where only 1 candidate will be put forward between them.

Clearly, that policy would be a lot more acceptable and robust if it was backed by a commitment to change the electoral system, especially to the Green Party who have c. 6% of the national vote but just 1 seat. They would have nothing to lose by standing their candidates down either.

People may say it shows weakness if you can't field a candidate in every seat, that you are not a proper national party, but these are exceptional times when politicians and the electorate need to reset and re-engage with one another. FPTP may have worked in a 2-party system under the Whigs and Tories but it is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century.

 

[Machiavelli]

Johnson won't be seen for a week, because an unspecified member of his close family has tested positive. Although the current regulations don't require him to do this, he thinks it's the best approach in the circumstances.

The problem is: what proportion of the electorate will think that this is true, or a story concocted to take him out of the limelight for a week?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

What nobody has mentioned is money. Whereas the Tory coffers are full the same cannot be said for Labour and the Lib Dems. The costs for both of those parties for putting up a candidate in c. 650 seats is huge, particularly where Labour's best result is probably 380 seats and the Lib Dems is 150. By my crude maths that's 270 seats for Labour and 500 for the Lib Dems they would contest without having a hope in hell of winning.

It would be a FAR better use of scarce resources for Labour and Lib Dems to agree a list of seats where only 1 candidate will be put forward between them.

Clearly, that policy would be a lot more acceptable and robust if it was backed by a commitment to change the electoral system, especially to the Green Party who have c. 6% of the national vote but just 1 seat. They would have nothing to lose by standing their candidates down either.

People may say it shows weakness if you can't field a candidate in every seat, that you are not a proper national party, but these are exceptional times when politicians and the electorate need to reset and re-engage with one another. FPTP may have worked in a 2-party system under the Whigs and Tories but it is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Putting a candidate forward in a seat isn't expensive (as long as they don't all lose their deposit). It's more the campaigning apparatus of expenses, leafleting etc that really costs the money. Just like Lab put someone up in north Shropshire and didn't give them any money or time, that should be the model.

 

[pb21]

Johnson won't be seen for a week, because an unspecified member of his close family has tested positive. Although the current regulations don't require him to do this, he thinks it's the best approach in the circumstances.

The problem is: what proportion of the electorate will think that this is true, or a story concocted to take him out of the limelight for a week?

That is convenient. Bit like Novax picking up covid in December and Prince Andrew not sweating. I preferred it when he hid in a fridge to avoid scrutiny.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Johnson won't be seen for a week, because an unspecified member of his close family has tested positive. Although the current regulations don't require him to do this, he thinks it's the best approach in the circumstances.

The problem is: what proportion of the electorate will think that this is true, or a story concocted to take him out of the limelight for a week?

And is his internet down so can't be interviewed by video call?

 

[Bob!]

What nobody has mentioned is money. Whereas the Tory coffers are full the same cannot be said for Labour and the Lib Dems. The costs for both of those parties for putting up a candidate in c. 650 seats is huge, particularly where Labour's best result is probably 380 seats and the Lib Dems is 150. By my crude maths that's 270 seats for Labour and 500 for the Lib Dems they would contest without having a hope in hell of winning.

It would be a FAR better use of scarce resources for Labour and Lib Dems to agree a list of seats where only 1 candidate will be put forward between them.

Clearly, that policy would be a lot more acceptable and robust if it was backed by a commitment to change the electoral system, especially to the Green Party who have c. 6% of the national vote but just 1 seat. They would have nothing to lose by standing their candidates down either.

People may say it shows weakness if you can't field a candidate in every seat, that you are not a proper national party, but these are exceptional times when politicians and the electorate need to reset and re-engage with one another. FPTP may have worked in a 2-party system under the Whigs and Tories but it is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century.

The problem of course is where those 380 and 150 overlap.

Both parties think they can win those seats, so neither stands down, and then the Tories get in in with less votes than those two together.

 

[Audax]

Yes, he may be winning some back but I don't think winning much of it means very much. According to the latest census, there are about 240,000 Jews in the UK - fewer than 400 per constituency (and that's assuming they all vote and are over 18 - which they won't be). It may make a difference in Finchley and Golders Green but won't have much impact elsewhere.

But what was the wider impact of the ongoing controversy around antisemitism that dogged Corbyn's Labour and that Corbyn never managed to put to sleep? The whole "but look, they're antisemites!" attack line is now gone.

 

[zefarelly]

The problem of course is where those 380 and 150 overlap.

Both parties think they can win those seats, so neither stands down, and then the Tories get in in with less votes than those two together.

Which is why our whole political process and subsequent management of the nation is so bad . . .

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The problem of course is where those 380 and 150 overlap.

Both parties think they can win those seats, so neither stands down, and then the Tories get in in with less votes than those two together.

They all have detailed stats on targets and the chances they have of overturning a lead.

There will be a few seats where Lab and Lib (or green) are close, but many more where there is one who is clearly best placed to take out the tories

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Which is why our whole political process and subsequent management of the nation is so bad . . .

Only if Labour and the Libs have a broadly similar platform and attitude to governance. When both parties are centrist then some sort of alliance makes sense. It did not make any sense in 2019 with Corbyn the leader and Momentum holding sway over a bunch of true believer members. Circumstances have changed since Starmer became leader and turfed out the left and an anti Tory coalition alongside the similarly centrist SNP might work.

 

[vegster]

Downing St reporting that the Prime Minister " Unlikely to be seen in public for a week"....... How fortuitous?

 

[Audax]

The idea (much touted on here) that having Starmer in his place would have ensured instant victory has hardly played out in the polls. They have moved hard against Johnson but even with such extreme levels of demonstrated awfulness there is stll stubborn levels of support for the Tories and the lost votes mainly do not seem to be going to Labour. What is missing in my view is any real vision or alternative from Labour which can excite and motivate. Instead they are relying on saying very little, playing safe and waiting for the Tories to self-destruct. I think that is very dangerous. Johnson will self destruct, but most of the sh*t will stick to him and the Tories will still be strong. In the meantime Labour will have done nothing to pursuade people to vote for them rather than Sunak when the time comes.

The push for dopping VAT and imposing a windfall tax on energy companies was good as a policy, but is not presented as part of a coherent vision. Just a single one-off which makes it feel almost apologetic.

I live in hope that this is a deliberate ploy to "keep their powder dry" until closer to an election. Generally speaking, as an opposition, you want to attack the government, undermine them, etc. There's very little benefit in announcing in detail your own policies early on as it gives the government plenty of time to pick those policies apart and figure out the best way to attack them. Instead, many opposition parties prefer to hold their policies back and then bring them out, well developed, in time for campaigning.

There's a great example of this from Australia. Back in 1990 the Liberal/National Coalition lost to Labor (again). By 1993 when the next election would take place, Labor had been in power for 10 years. Australia struggled through the early 90's in a recession. So anyway, in 1990 a new leader of the Coaltion was elected by the party - John Hewson. In 1991 he launched a *massive* policy document (called "Fightback!", running to 650 pages), outlining in full detail his plans should they win the next election. In 1992, the Labor leadership changed hands - and the new Labor leader (Keating) *immediately* set about ripping into the Fightback! policies. In the end, Hewson lost the 1993 election - despite most describing it as the "unloseable" election. Not only did he lose it, Keating took a bigger majority out of it.

The thing is: the Fightback! policies weren't bad. In fact, a lot of those policies were subsequently put in place when the Liberals finally did win an election. What was bad is that they gave all the detail to Keating, and gave Keating (an astute politician) plenty of time to figure out how to attack it in a way that would resonate on voting day. If they'd held back those policies by 12-18 months and launched them as part of a concerted election campaign instead, they probably would have won that 1993 election.

 

[Machiavelli]

But what was the wider impact of the ongoing controversy around antisemitism that dogged Corbyn's Labour and that Corbyn never managed to put to sleep? The whole "but look, they're antisemites!" attack line is now gone.

There was a lot more evidence behind the claim that Johnson is a racist and an Islamophobe than there was behind the one that Corbyn is an antisemite. That was in part because Johnson is far more effective in playing the media game, in part because the Tories were much better organised, and in part because the media are what they are in this country.

 

[Stat Brother]

Johnson is totally deluded.

I'm dumbfounded by this.

Having just made his 'apology' to the House of Commons, Boris tells friends in the tea room, that he hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Isn't that being disingenuous? Misleading the House, even in his apology?

Im more dumbfounded by your dumbfoundedness.

Of course he's deluded, the man has never ever taken responsibility for any of his previous acts.
He's wafted through life on a wave of money, connections and pseudo intellect.

Hes just the fall guy for all his 'friends' who have bled the country dry.

 

[Gwylan]

There's a great example of this from Australia. Back in 1990 the Liberal/National Coalition lost to Labor (again). By 1993 when the next election would take place, Labor had been in power for 10 years. Australia struggled through the early 90's in a recession. So anyway, in 1990 a new leader of the Coaltion was elected by the party - John Hewson. In 1991 he launched a *massive* policy document (called "Fightback!", running to 650 pages), outlining in full detail his plans should they win the next election. In 1992, the Labor leadership changed hands - and the new Labor leader (Keating) *immediately* set about ripping into the Fightback! policies. In the end, Hewson lost the 1993 election - despite most describing it as the "unloseable" election. Not only did he lose it, Keating took a bigger majority out of it.

The thing is: the Fightback! policies weren't bad. In fact, a lot of those policies were subsequently put in place when the Liberals finally did win an election. What was bad is that they gave all the detail to Keating, and gave Keating (an astute politician) plenty of time to figure out how to attack it in a way that would resonate on voting day. If they'd held back those policies by 12-18 months and launched them as part of a concerted election campaign instead, they probably would have won that 1993 election.

Good points. I get exasperated when people say "What are Labour's policies?" as the party needs to keep its powder dry. There's no need to reveal plans two years before an election.

Your example does remind me that Labor had some smart politicians back in the day. The Silver Bodgie was pretty astute and Keating, despite his smarmy appearance, was bit of a brawler in parliament - and smart with it. I bet the Labour party over here wish they had people who could combine political nous with debating skills AND the common touch.

 

[Monkey Man]

Only if Labour and the Libs have a broadly similar platform and attitude to governance. When both parties are centrist then some sort of alliance makes sense. It did not make any sense in 2019 with Corbyn the leader and Momentum holding sway over a bunch of true believer members. Circumstances have changed since Starmer became leader and turfed out the left and an anti Tory coalition alongside the similarly centrist SNP might work.

It does seem at the moment that Labour, Lib Dems, the SNP, Greens and Plaid might have enough in common to work together in government.

The conundrum is how to approach a general election, with that objective in mind, without giving the Tories and their media cheerleaders enough material to run with a "coalition of chaos" or "electoral stitch-up" narrative. So I'm not surprised that opposition politicians are extremely wary of discussing any of this, even though I can't really see how Labour can win by itself, unless there was an unprecedented change in the polling.

That's why I think we might see some more organised non-party campaigning, perhaps involving fundraising, that focuses on the most vulnerable Tory seats and encourages tactical voting.