The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[blandy]

57 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

Ah fair enough, thought it was an independent one so that isn't great. Shame but presume there are others out there. 

It might be, it's just my impression, I have no evidence, other than the wording and the result it gave in my one tiny area. It said "Fylde has a big Tory majority - we need everyone to vote tactically to win back this council!"

The "win back" is the clue, too, because if Independents win, then the Council hasn't been "won back" it's N.O.C. So the win back suggests it's talking from a Labour perspective. Labour can't win back as it's fielding one candidate for two available seats. I'll be voting for two Independents, one of whom I know a bit - anything to get rid of tories.

[cyrusr]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

It might be, it's just my impression, I have no evidence, other than the wording and the result it gave in my one tiny area. It said "Fylde has a big Tory majority - we need everyone to vote tactically to win back this council!"

The "win back" is the clue, too, because if Independents win, then the Council hasn't been "won back" it's N.O.C. So the win back suggests it's talking from a Labour perspective. Labour can't win back as it's fielding one candidate for two available seats. I'll be voting for two Independents, one of whom I know a bit - anything to get rid of tories.

Ah OK. Yeah wording could be construed that way but think they might mean “take away from” given the context. 

As Brum isn’t having elections this year could really tell for local seat. I know we have Tory local (Erdington) and 2nd place is Labour and with a Labour MP suspect they will be the obvious candidate. 

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

I don't think it's clear at all. What I have heard is the usual words, we will do this better, that better, but nothing to say how.

Starmers got a personality of a stone too, he's not a very relatable person, an this is not saying Sunak is better, cause he is just to far away from real life. Someone with a bit of natural ability would get overwhelming votes.

I don't actually vote anyway, it's so hard being spoilt for choice what bunch of numpties to vote for.

I suppose it comes down to whether you simply vote for leader or party doesn't it. Personally I look beyond the leader and given how many leaders the Tories have had over the last couple of years that is probably not a bad strategy.

Regardless of what you think of Labour the Tories are just a cesspit of MP's who are liars, who have zero empathy, who have far right views, who have used, and continue to use, being in government as a cash cow to push money into the pockets of their family, friends and donors. Who have spent the last 13 years creating division, destroying our public services and presiding over the biggest drop in living standards in generations. 

They are not all the same. I think the right wing rags and even the Tories themselves would love you to believe that but Keir Starmer is not Rishi Sunak and his background will tell you that he has completely different values born out from his upbringing and career before he became an MP. Yvette Cooper is not Suella Braverman and her views on the world are about as far removed from that vile, hate filled bitch as anyone's could be. Angela Raynor is not Dominic Raab (or whoever the deputy PM is now) and has come from a background where she'll be able to relate to the pain felt by those with the least and is full of empathy. I could go on.

Due to the last 13 years the country is in a real mess and it is going to take a long time to fix. That will never be under the Tories though but under Labour we will at least have those with the will to want to fix it and give a better life to the masses, which is a huge step forward from the alternative and continuing as we are. I seriously can't get my head around anyone thinking I'll take more of the same under the Tories, which is as bad as it gets, rather than chance my arm with the alternative. I mean get real ffs. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by markavfc40

[bickster]

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

better, that better, but nothing to say how

Have you read their website?

Its literally front and centre, it says what they plan to do and how they'll achieve it. It says pretty much what they've been saying in public, on crime, on the NHS and on the cost of living. I presume other policies are there somewhere or will be announced further down the line but they've already told us those and very early in the election cycle tbh.

The idea that they are he same as the Tories is actually the same bollocks that the far left come out with. It isn’t true

There are things to criticise Labour for and as I live in one of the safest Labour seats in the country, I won’t be voting for them. The only way I’d vote for them is if I lived in a marginal seat and they were the 1st or 2nd placed party with the Tories. Voting tactically to get the Tories out. But as that isn’t the case, I'll be voting for a party that is the right side of my two red lines, Labour isn’t and this week Starmer reiterated that he's on the wrong side of one of them, possibly the most important one. Electoral reform and PR, so I won’t vote for them

 

[bobzy]

4 hours ago, bickster said:

Have you read their website?

As if you need to ask that  

[mrchnry]

Rumours on twitter today from multiple sources that Johnson is close to declaring bankruptcy. 

[bickster]

6 hours ago, mrchnry said:

Rumours on twitter today from multiple sources that Johnson is close to declaring bankruptcy. 

Doubt it, he's pulled in millions since leaving office is speeches etc.

[ml1dch]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Doubt it, he's pulled in millions since leaving office is speeches etc.

And given this well-known parody / fantasist appears to be the original source, I think we can safely call bullshit.

 

[Genie]

8 hours ago, mrchnry said:

Rumours on twitter today from multiple sources that Johnson is close to declaring bankruptcy. 

He recorded about £4.5m of earnings in the first 3 months of this year.

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

He recorded about £4.5m of earnings in the first 3 months of this year.

And he probably spent it all on magic beans.

[Genie]

23 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

And he probably spent it all on magic beans.

Maybe paying off loans

[mjmooney]

Honestly, my mother was a bloody disgrace: 

[Stevo985]

On 28/04/2023 at 15:24, Genie said:

This answer in todays yougov survey is quite telling.

According to a recent YouGov/The Times survey of UK adults, 28% said they think Keir Starmer would make the best PM, while 26% said Rishi Sunak. 41% said they are not sure.

Despite the general national feeling the Tories are an absolute disgrace Starmer only narrowly seen as a better PM than Sunak.

This is a huge issue, imo.

I listen to "The News Agents" podcast and they had a polling expert on a couple of weeks ago and basically said what's implied above.

Despite the massive gap in the polling for parties, the polling for leaders is actually far far closer. And that who people prefer as leader is actually a very good indicator of who will win an election. I think he said only once in the last 30 odd years had the leader polls not matched the eventual winner of the election.

 

People, rightly or wrongly, offer vote for who they want as PM, rather than who they want in power overall (or in their constituency)

[Genie]

46 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

This is a huge issue, imo.

I listen to "The News Agents" podcast and they had a polling expert on a couple of weeks ago and basically said what's implied above.

Despite the massive gap in the polling for parties, the polling for leaders is actually far far closer. And that who people prefer as leader is actually a very good indicator of who will win an election. I think he said only once in the last 30 odd years had the leader polls not matched the eventual winner of the election.

 

People, rightly or wrongly, offer vote for who they want as PM, rather than who they want in power overall (or in their constituency)

The other issue I see a lot on local social media is an acceptance that the Tories are a shit show, but then followed up with “I think it would be just as bad whoever was in charge”.

I think a lot of that is also down to how luke warm Starmer and Labour are. They are only promising to tweak a few bits and bobs rather than a major overhaul of everything the Tories have destroyed.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Genie

[mjmooney]

Good article in The Guardian about Anthony Seldon's new book on Boris Johnson, in which he makes the pertinent observation: 

Quote

"If Johnson understood more about classical philosophy, he’d have recognised that an antithesis – being against something – isn’t enough. The country now needs a synthesis from whichever party. The great prime ministers are healers and teachers. They need to be able to tell a story of where they have come from and to where they will lead us.”

Is that leader evident to him?

“Well,” he says, “this is the reason why for the moment Starmer is disappointing, because there is this enormous desire for renewal. But Starmer seems micro when he could be macro, cautious when he could be passionate, dull where he could be inspirational.”

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

The other issue I see a lot on local social media is an acceptance that the Tories are a shit show, but then followed up with “I think it would be just as bad whoever was in charge”.

I think a lot of that is also down to how luke warm Starmer and Labour are. They are only promising to tweak a few bits and bobs rather than a major overhaul of everything the Tories have destroyed.

So you clearly still haven't read the policies on their webiste then

If you have I don't see how you reach that conclusion

[mjmooney]

Actually, I wonder how much a genuine Alec Douglas-Home signature might be worth... 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Actually, I wonder how much a genuine Alec Douglas-Home signature might be worth... 

I'd guess not much. I was listening to something a while ago with someone who collects political signatures (might have been Matt Forde) talking about them, and that's the sort of era that is actually really common - precisely because everything was written down back then, so he probably signed tens of thousands of things over his life. Whereas post internet, so much is now electronic. So the current / future political era are going to be rarer.

Edit - I've remembered, it was Daniel Finkelstein.

Edited May 1, 2023 by ml1dch

[mjmooney]

5 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'd guess not much. I was listening to something a while ago with someone who collects political signatures (might have been Matt Forde) talking about them, and that's the sort of era that is actually really common - precisely because everything was written down back then, so he probably signed tens of thousands of things over his life. Whereas post internet, so much is now electronic. So the current / future political era are going to be rarer.

Edit - I've remembered, it was Daniel Finkelstein.

Yeah, I think I'll just keep it as a curio. 

[Genie]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

So you clearly still haven't read the policies on their webiste then

If you have I don't see how you reach that conclusion

I actually have and there is nothing to suggest the major step change which is needed. 

They’re basically saying they’ll tax oil and gas companies more to pay for all our issues.

More police on the streets (the Tories are saying that).

Cut NHS waiting lists (the Tories are saying that too).

Breakfast clubs yay! (funded by… taxing energy suppliers). 

It’s basically more of what we have but about 5% less shit. And that’s if they deliver.