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

[hart's shirt]

It all sounds great, just getting rid of this cabal, but the Tories will have won in some respects. That is, that they have dragged politics, including the labour party enough to the right to enable the status quo in this country whereby we would still have an unfair / undemocratic voting system, a plutocratic state and a failed Brexit well and truly safe and plough on down that same ridiculous road. Their greatest fear was in 2017 where Corbyn was inches away from winning and he would have brought in radical change, radical policies and shifted power back into the hands of people. Instead we will get a Tory lite government with a red rosette which is even to the right of Cameron. Nothing will change

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which."

 

[nicko31]

It all sounds great, just getting rid of this cabal, but the Tories will have won in some respects. That is, that they have dragged politics, including the labour party enough to the right to enable the status quo in this country whereby we would still have an unfair / undemocratic voting system, a plutocratic state and a failed Brexit well and truly safe and plough on down that same ridiculous road. Their greatest fear was in 2017 where Corbyn was inches away from winning and he would have brought in radical change, radical policies and shifted power back into the hands of people. Instead we will get a Tory lite government with a red rosette which is even to the right of Cameron. Nothing will change

The only way we will get real change is a Lib Lab coalition and will it hopefully the end of FPTP and f&&k this creeping round Murdoch

For too long a 40 percent vote gives absolute power

 

[A1X]

As expected in Uxbridge.

However they spin it, they used their own policy against Labour and lied.

Very much a local issue, they won't get away with it nationally.

Woah woah, are you saying a constituency which voted for Boris Johnson to be their MP are susceptible to elect politicians who lie?

 

[Stato]

Uxbridge raises an interesting challenge for Starmer. His approach has been likened to Blair's pre 97 Ming Vase caution. However, Blair's caution was coupled with some positive incentives to support him, not solely a 'we're not the Tories' approach. Getting out an additional 500 people in Uxbridge yesterday would have won the seat despite the unpopularity of ULEZ.

To me, the answer is a low or zero cost policy promise that will encourage those who don't usually bother to vote. Starmer will see at too risky an approach, but I don't think it is. Promise to legalize or decriminalize cannabis Kier and you'll be guaranteed your majority. It's an, at worst, cost neutral policy at a time when you cannot promise to spend and it would get young people behind you like you were Corbyn at Glastonbury. Few, if any of the people who would be disinclined to vote for you by the promise, were ever going to vote Labour anyway.

Regardless of the pros and cons of the policy outcomes, in Realpolitik terms, it seems to be an open goal and its odd that nobody in charge of the major parties has realised this. The world is in a vastly different place than it was in the eighties or nineties when there would have been a valid worry about the damage that opponents could do to you if you tried to make a common sense drug policy. People are no longer terrified of changes in approach and, from the evidence of the US, it could even be spun as providing economic opportunities.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

The only way we will get real change is a Lib Lab coalition and will it hopefully the end of FPTP and f&&k this creeping round Murdoch

For too long a 40 percent vote gives absolute power

Blair had the chance change the system - I wonder why he didn't - Oh.

 

[Stato]

It all sounds great, just getting rid of this cabal, but the Tories will have won in some respects. That is, that they have dragged politics, including the labour party enough to the right to enable the status quo in this country whereby we would still have an unfair / undemocratic voting system, a plutocratic state and a failed Brexit well and truly safe and plough on down that same ridiculous road. Their greatest fear was in 2017 where Corbyn was inches away from winning and he would have brought in radical change, radical policies and shifted power back into the hands of people. Instead we will get a Tory lite government with a red rosette which is even to the right of Cameron. Nothing will change

Whilst I share your concerns about how much a Starmer led government would do to promote radical change, Corbyn was not 'inches away' in 2017. He was nearly 100 seats behind May. Had he got the few extra seats needed to prevent her from forming a government, he would have still needed a coaltion or deal with everyone else to govern. It's likely much of his radicalism wouldn't have survived this need.

 

[Peteinblack]

Uxbridge raises an interesting challenge for Starmer. His approach has been likened to Blair's pre 97 Ming Vase caution. However, Blair's caution was coupled with some positive incentives to support him, not solely a 'we're not the Tories' approach. Getting out an additional 500 people in Uxbridge yesterday would have won the seat despite the unpopularity of ULEZ.

To me, the answer is a low or zero cost policy promise that will encourage those who don't usually bother to vote. Starmer will see at too risky an approach, but I don't think it is. Promise to legalize or decriminalize cannabis Kier and you'll be guaranteed your majority. It's an, at worst, cost neutral policy at a time when you cannot promise to spend and it would get young people behind you like you were Corbyn at Glastonbury. Few, if any of the people who would be disinclined to vote for you by the promise, were ever going to vote Labour anyway.

Regardless of the pros and cons of the policy outcomes, in Realpolitik terms, it seems to be an open goal and its odd that nobody in charge of the major parties has realised this. The world is in a vastly different place than it was in the eighties or nineties when there would have been a valid worry about the damage that opponents could do to you if you tried to make a common sense drug policy. People are no longer terrified of changes in approach and, from the evidence of the US, it could even be spun as providing economic opportunities.

I wish I could agree, but we can easily imagine the hysterical scare-mongering headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Torygraph of such a policy pledge: "Labour's plans to turn your kids into junkies", "Starmer plans to make Britain a nation of stoned potheads", "Woke Loony Left to legalize waccy baccy" (this last one would be a dead cert Sun headline), etc.

Besides, while I don't necessarily disagree with such a policy (thus freeing up resources to tackle serious drug problems and hard-drug pushers), I doubt if it is a priority for people relying on food banks, paying 50% of their salary to a slum landlord, or struggling with increasing mortgage payments.

I entirely agree, though, that Starmer is being over-cautious, and risks being seen (and acting) as Tory-lite.

 

[Bodian]

The big swings seem to be more of the Tory voters not coming out rather than switching. The two winners didn't pick up huge numbers. Whether that will happen again at a general election 'when it matters' is the unknown factor.

Guardian - Selby and Somerton were lost not so much because of thousands of Tory voters switching parties but because so many stayed at home. In Selby, the Conservatives dropped 21,000 votes, but Labour gained fewer than 3,000. In Somerton, the Tories lost 26,000 votes but the Lib Dems picked up just over 4,000.

 

[Randy McNob]

Whilst I share your concerns about how much a Starmer led government would do to promote radical change, Corbyn was not 'inches away' in 2017. He was nearly 100 seats behind May. Had he got the few extra seats needed to prevent her from forming a government, he would have still needed a coaltion or deal with everyone else to govern. It's unlikely much of his radicalism wouldn't have survived this need.

it just further demonstrates how rigged the system is. just a few thousand votes in it. You can argue either way but it does firmly disproves one thing and that is the idea that Corbynism and true left or socialist policies are unpopular with the electorate. far from it you take actual votes counted alone. The truth is the electorate are crying out for change, in the same way after the 2nd world war. Under PR Corbyn would win a landslide. The system won't allow it, it is rigged in favour of the plutocrats

The 2017 general election: not that close after all - UK in a changing Europe

Anthony B. Masters examines the claim that in the 2017 general election, the Labour Party were just 2,227 votes away from the chance of government.

ukandeu.ac.uk

 

[mwrpoole]

One thing is very noticeable in these results and that’s tactical voting.

If this can be maintained the Tories will get absolutely smashed in the next GE, it’s the only to deal with our broken democratic system

Yes they will. It will be interesting to see if Labour don't really fight for certain seats and let LibDems win them. With this outcome a hung parliament seems certain and let's see how hard the LibDems push on Europe before they agree to join Labour in Govt. I can't see Labour joining forces with the SNP and they might not do as well next time out anyway.

 

[BrightonCottager]

The only way we will get real change is a Lib Lab coalition and will it hopefully the end of FPTP and f&&k this creeping round Murdoch

For too long a 40 percent vote gives absolute power

Except Labour won't agree to ditching FPTP. They even ban local parties going into electoral pacts (not to stand) or formal coalition.

 

[clapham_gull]

Except Labour won't agree to ditching FPTP. They even ban local parties going into electoral pacts (not to stand) or formal coalition.

Or throw people out of the party who entertain the idea.

 

[Bodian]

Is @AmexRuislip in the cafe?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Is @AmexRuislip in the cafe?

View attachment 163878

Shouldn't we have a poll to decide which 'supporting artiste' most closely resembles the NSC legend

 

[AmexRuislip]

Is @AmexRuislip in the cafe?

Shouldn't we have a poll to decide which 'supporting artiste' most closely resembles the NSC legend

Evening heroes, unfortunately @AmexSouthRuislip stood in for me at the Rumbling Tum Cafe, as I couldn't make it.
Completely different ward to Ruislip, more grease in the South Ruislip Ward.
I wouldn't say legend, more of something witty @swindonseagull might come up with.

 

[swindonseagull]

Is @AmexRuislip in the cafe?

View attachment 163878

He would be under the table on his knees.......Looking at the face on the guy with the blue shirt I can guess which table.!!

 

[Hugo Rune]

The Mail have done a story on some of the PPE grifters. A story to make their readers outraged but how do they make it appear it wasn’t the Tories fault?

Couple-run company owe £5.5million in taxes - but insist they will pay

Steve and Kate Dechan (pictured), who own Platform-14 Medical, were told to pay back the money following claims that many of their masks were unusable.

www.dailymail.co.uk

They almost pulled it off but did mention ‘Tory’ once. I don’t know how that got past the editor?

 

[WATFORD zero]

The Mail have done a story on some of the PPE grifters. A story to make their readers outraged but how do they make it appear it wasn’t the Tories fault?

Couple-run company owe £5.5million in taxes - but insist they will pay

Steve and Kate Dechan (pictured), who own Platform-14 Medical, were told to pay back the money following claims that many of their masks were unusable.

www.dailymail.co.uk

They almost pulled it off but did mention ‘Tory’ once. I don’t know how that got past the editor?

I'm wondering when the Covid independent enquiry is due to get onto the awarding of PPE contracts and the 'fast path' program (which, let's not forget, has already been found to be illegal by the courts).

Government fast track for ‘VIP’ PPE suppliers ruled unlawful by court​

The government’s use of a VIP fast lane for suppliers of Covid personal protective equipment (PPE) with connections to ministers and officials has been ruled unlawful by the High Court. Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner called for a full independent inquiry into the VIP fast-lane system.

“A judge has now ruled the VIP lane unlawful but that may be just the tip of the iceberg. Even now ministers are covering up key documents while critical messages and minutes have gone missing. Only a fully independent investigation will get to the bottom of how £3.5bn of taxpayers’ cash were handed out in crony contracts and ensure it can never happen again.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-ppe-court-vip-suppliers-b1991440.html

 

[nicko31]

The Tories, you really have got to love them.

Lord Frost claims rising temperatures will help Britain

Rising temperatures are “likely to be beneficial” for Britain as more people die from the cold than the heat, Lord Frost has told peers. The right-wing former B

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[raymondo]

The Tories, you really have got to love them.

Lord Frost claims rising temperatures will help Britain

Rising temperatures are “likely to be beneficial” for Britain as more people die from the cold than the heat, Lord Frost has told peers. The right-wing former B

www.thetimes.co.uk

So f*ck the rest of the world where temperature becomes unbearably hot then...
How do people like him still have any say over our lives