***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 4 *****
=============================================================
Continuing Discussion.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 22 Aug 22 at 10:24
|
So Boris Johnson is a lying, cheating, incompetent, corrupt, conniving, philandering politician of the worst sort. But apart from that.
If we accept those character defects, why aren't Labour doing better in the polls?
Because Labour insist on emphasising the negative!
Don't keep telling us how bad the Tories are! Tell us how good Labour is!
|
>>
>> If we accept those character defects, why aren't Labour doing better in the polls?
>>
...because, even in those that recognise all those character defects, you still get attitudes along the lines of:
"I am a died (dyed?) in the wool Tory (Surprise!) I am never going to vote for anyone else."
;-)
|
>> "I am a died (dyed?) in the wool Tory (Surprise!) I am never going to
>> vote for anyone else."
>>
>> ;-)
>>
Furry muff, but I am not, never was, never will be a floating voter. There are - should be - more than enough floating voters out there to change the result of each and every election.
So, why aren't more floating voters pledging their support for Labour?
|
> If we accept those character defects, why aren't Labour doing better in the polls?
>>
How much better do you think they should be doing at the moment?
|
>> How much better do you think they should be doing at the moment?
Is the wrong question.
Why are potential Labour voters not embracing Keir Starmer? Why do so many of them still support Jeremy Corbyn?
That is the question that should be asked. Why do Labour insist on living in the past?
|
>> Why are potential Labour voters not embracing Keir Starmer? Why do so many of them
>> still support Jeremy Corbyn?
Where do you get "labour voters support Corbyn" from? Thats not backed up by any quantitive facts.
Perhaps you meant "Labour party members"? Who like "Tory party members" are a small percentage and not representative of the general voting population.
|
It serves no useful purpose trying to score minor debating points off me.
The simple question you should be asking is, why hasn't the Labour party got more support?
|
>> It serves no useful purpose trying to score minor debating points off me.
>>
Claiming Corbyn has wider public support than Starmer is NOT a minor debating point, merely an example of the way political parties are misunderstood by the general populace.
Party members, who are very few in number and not at all representative of the public, force unsuitable (and sometimes unsavoury) candidates and potential policy on the general voting population. Its little wonder election turnout is so low.
>> The simple question you should be asking is, why hasn't the Labour party got more
>> support?
Because of the Corbyn legacy
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 15 Jul 22 at 09:03
|
>> Claiming Corbyn has wider public support than Starmer is NOT a minor debating point, merely
>> an example of the way political parties are misunderstood by the general populace.
I didn't say that. I said :-
Why are potential Labour voters not embracing Keir Starmer? Why do so many of them still support Jeremy Corbyn?
>> Because of the Corbyn legacy
And you have supplied the answer. Which we all knew.
But WHY??
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Jul 22 at 11:19
|
>> I didn't say that. I said :-
>> Why are potential Labour voters not embracing Keir Starmer? Why do so many of them
>> still support Jeremy Corbyn?
And I said you are wrong. They dont.
>> And you have supplied the answer. Which we all knew.
Only you got it the wrong way round. Because of the NEGATIVE legacy of Corbyn.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Jul 22 at 11:19
|
O.K. So, on the presumption that those picking holes in my presentation are Labour party supporters?
What are you suggesting should happen to increase support for the Labour party to ensure that Labour win the next general Election?
A new leader? Bring back Tony Blair? What?
|
Starmer could be just the fella, if someone gave him a charisma transfusion.
We are in a world of trouble if that awful Truss gets in.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 15 Jul 22 at 11:22
|
>>The simple question you should be asking is, why hasn't the Labour party got more support?
Cos policy wise it’s so hard to differentiate them from the Tories?
|
>> Is the wrong question.
It's fairly central to understand what you want to know the answer to.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Jul 22 at 11:17
|
>>Why are potential Labour voters not embracing Keir Starmer?
I believe SKS is intelligent, capable and decent - all very good qualities for a leader. But there is no doubt that there is something lacking in his communication.
It's possible that he is just too scripted. If you watch MPs speak in the chamber, the best, to my mind, are very well prepared, and likely to have notes or cue cards, but not reading a text. Even in interview, he tends to trot out a prepared phrase which I and I am sure others find irritating.
Watching this speech by SKS, actually one of his better ones reading the dispatch box, it sounds to me like an article - it would be great in print, but it doesn't sound like natural speech.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWzLZ-UZ4AY
Of course appearance, voice, emphasis etc all play a part but if he is going to read - which is fine - the final edit should be translated into oratory. He sounds like what he is - a lawyer setting out a case, in which what matters most is the content. When Johnson is at his most engaging, there is often no relevant content at all!
My very right wing neighbour thinks SKS is an upper class twit and that Johnson is a man of the people. That can only be about manner and style. There's very little wrong with Starmer, and I think he has almost all of what it takes, but he has to get elected...
Nobody likes the idea of being schooled into an unnatural style that is not their own, but I think he could be sorted out a bit.
|
I agree Starmer appears to be intelligent, capable and decent.
An election is a party promotional and marketing exercise - it is perceptions which influence votes not reality.. Parties and leaders need to inspire - demonstrating vision, aspiration, ambition, clarity, success etc. Thus far, in this, Sir Kier has failed.
Boris succeeded in 2019 because he did inspire, and was subsequently brought down by equally (or greater) character flaws.
Despite the current Tory mess, were an election held today based on current opinion polls there would likely be a hung parliament. Starmer would probably be PM, but would lead a compromised government.
The class divide ..... there are 177 billionaires in the UK with a combined wealth of £640bn. If their entire wealth was shared across the UK in a one off redistribution of wealth, everyone would get ~£10k. Enough to buy a five year old Ford Focus - nice for some but hardly life changing.
|
The last election was saw massive gains for the Tories because of 'Red Wall' voters looking to 'Get Brexit done' and 'Take back control'.
Now Brexit has been done (after a fashion) will they gravitate back to traditional voting allegiances?
|
>> The last election was saw massive gains for the Tories because of 'Red Wall' voters
>> looking to 'Get Brexit done' and 'Take back control'.
>> Now Brexit has been done (after a fashion) will they gravitate back to traditional voting
>> allegiances?
Yes Yes and Thrice Yes.
|
>> The last election was saw massive gains for the Tories because of 'Red Wall' voters
>> looking to 'Get Brexit done' and 'Take back control'.
>> Now Brexit has been done (after a fashion) will they gravitate back to traditional voting
>> allegiances?
This is a brilliant question.
The negative Corbyn factor I believe has worn out - my hard right neighbour says Corbyn is a reason he will never vote Labour but that's just his excuse - interesting that he needs one I thought - because he will never vote Labour.
IMO it's all about Brexit. SKS thinks that which is why he says Labour won't lobby to to back in, or join the customs union or single market.
The Labour party membership are generally pro remain, some like me would rejoin the EU if it were in any way practical. But 70% of Labour constituencies at the referendum were Leave, and that includes the Red Wall ones. Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" did it for enough voters to swing the seats.
Johnson is now revealed as a liar and a cheat, even if a large minority still prefer to think he's been badly done to. SKS has now 'accepted' Brexit. Those factors alone should make a big difference.
One of the Tories' supposed strengths is fiscal probity. They've blown that one if there's any justice. The NHS is near collapse. The Tories think their trump (Trump?) card is being the party of Brexit. So far, Brexit has brought only disappointment, that USP has been diluted and Labour is also trying to shoot their fox.
I tend to think elections are lost, not won. The Tories have lost it, provided that Labour passes on the hygiene factors and campaigns competently. If Labour doesn't get back the Red Wall and at least deny the Tories a majority, they should pack up and go home.
|
Despite what I regard as aa piece of total daftness, Brexit is done.
We will never know whether it was a success - we failed to define success/failure criteria before we left, Covid would inevitably be used as a reason for failure (if indeed it has failed), it was inevitable some issues would be left unresolved, and that unforeseen issues would emerge.
Tories cannot admit failure - electoral suicide, an admission of gross misjudgement.
Labour have the red wall and some elements of the party equally split. Labour lost the last election in part because they had no coherent Brexit policy.
If we did try to re-join in the next 5-10 years there is no certainty of re-admission, any deal struck would almost certainly be worse than the deal we had, and the UK would have a further 5 years of destructive EU distraction.
|
Why is the unedifying spectacle of choosing the next Tory party deserving of dedicated prime time TV slot?
1/ Its nothing to do with us (the genpop) we only need to decide on who they HAVE chosen not who they ARE choosing.
2/ The party is mad, do they seriously think that putting their best on display to be spiteful and petty to each other like feral dingos fighting over a bone, is going to make us love them at the next election? NFC.
|
|
Fascinating TV though. Politics used to be boring. It’s now a non-stop drama, far better than anything Netflix can come up with.
|
|
Well love them or loath them, it might have been the last one. Truss and sunak have pulled out of the next tv debate.
|
>> Well love them or loath them, it might have been the last one. Truss and
>> sunak have pulled out of the next tv debate.
Sky have cancelled it.
Meanwhile the Guardian's running commentary reports that Penny Mordaunt's boss, the Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, has publicly rebuked Mordaunt for neglecting her ministerial duties to focus on getting her leadership run going.
|
That seems a bit harsh though as a minister she needs to be able to manage her time well.
That'll likely now be a difficult working relationship if she doesn't get the PMship!
|
|
...equally so if she does!
|
>> That'll likely now be a difficult working relationship if she doesn't get the PMship!
I think that, whoever the new leader is, there will be a wholesale reset of the Cabinet.
I've no specific knowledge of Ms Trevelyan but far too many of the current incumbents were appointed for their loyalty to Johnson rather than their actual ability.
|
|
I tuned in for about 3 minutes of last nights debate and was amused (but not really surprised) to see none of them would offer BoJo a place in their cabinet.
|
>> >> Well love them or loath them, it might have been the last one. Truss
>> and
>> >> sunak have pulled out of the next tv debate.
>>
>> Sky have cancelled it.
>>
>
Did we have them last time? I can't remember.
At this stage the only people with any role in this are the MPs. I sort of see why they wanted a TV debate to influence the MPs with their favourability and likelyhood of winning an election. But it's turned into* a mudslinging fest.
*From what I've read I've not seen one yet.
|
>> Did we have them last time? I can't remember.
I think we did but Johnson, with a lead to lose, absented himself.
|
>> I think we did but Johnson, with a lead to lose, absented himself.
>>
Wasn't that for a GE though?
|
|
Seems the favourite has now switched from Penny M to Kemi B, at least with Con party members.
|
A perception is taking root that Mordaunt could be a bit too Bunterish, and they don't want another one of those.
It's looking as if it will be Sunak and Truss. The membership could yet save us from Truss, but if they don't it will probably help to ensure these idiots don't have a majority after the next GE.
I see Badenoch has promised to deliver on the Brexit hopes of those who voted Tory in 2019. Not very Prime Ministerly and also very foolish as it's pretty clear that Brexit is far worse than Bremain would have been and it will take a miracle to reverse that. And there's no flannelling round it while UK growth outlook is the worst in the G7.
|
Latest betting
Sunak 10/11
Truss 2/1
Mordaunt 18/5
Badenoch 17/1
|
>> Latest betting
>>
>> Sunak 10/11
>> Truss 2/1
>> Mordaunt 18/5
>> Badenoch 17/1
I can never get my head around odds, what do those numbers mean in English.
|
It means Sunak is very much the favourite.
Take the last one, put a pound on get 17 pounds back if Badenoch becomes PM.
Some betting is now decimal so easier to understand.
|
Take the last one, put a pound on get 17 pounds back if Badenoch becomes PM.
Plus of course your stake money is returned so 18 pounds back all together
|
The Theory -
Betting odds represent the probability of an event to happen and therefore enable you to work out how much money you will win if your bet wins. As an example, with odds of 4/1, for every £1 you bet, you will win £4. There is a 20% chance of this happening, calculated by 1 / (4 + 1) = 0.20.
Reality
Sunak at 10/11 however would be described by bookies as 11 to 10 on. You have to bear in mind however that odds are set by bookmakers not by the maths above, but by how much popularity has loaded the chances of them taking a bath, so odds are set to make the runner less attractive to punters.
|
I always assumed that bookies set the odds such that they will nearly always win.
For every winning bet they pay out on they retain the bets laid on all the runners who did not win.
Sometimes they lose big time - eg: Grand National where a 100:1 outsider triumphs - this is the exception rather than the rule. Poverty in the betting world tends to follow the punters, not the bookmakers!
|
>>
>>
>> Sometimes they lose big time - eg: Grand National where a 100:1 outsider triumphs -
>> this is the exception rather than the rule. Poverty in the betting world tends to
>> follow the punters, not the bookmakers!
>>
On the contrary, the bookies clean up when an outsider wins. The 100/1 shot will have a few 50p bets from once a year punters who like the horses name or the colour of it's eyes. When the 4/5 favourite romps home they will be crying, because that is where most punters (And the big money gamblers) have staked their cash. That's why the odds are so short, to put people off.
|
I recall many many years ago reading about making a betting market, and the key thing to look for to see if you were getting value for money as a punter was the overround (I think!).
Essentially the bookies margin (profit), and it (in theory) means that whichever runner wins the bookies make that much profit (and never take a bath, if they get it right). It should be based on how much money is being staked on each runner rather than on who the bookies think is going to win.
So some little race at Fakenham might have an total of 112% which would be 12% profit for the bookies, whereas something big like the National might have 140% where their 40% margin would hoover up the once a year punters money.
|
Someone I know of, is reputed to have purchased his very expensive house on the back of arbitrage betting, which has something to do with odds on a game with only one result (win) and spreading bets around mismatched odds at different bookies.
I have no idea how it works though.
|
Tom T is eliminated with gains from Braverman's withdrawal distributed.
I guess his votes will go to either Rishi or Penny.
Unless there's an earthquake Kimi B will be next out.
|
Shamelessly plagiarised from elsewhere:
Truss in third place showing that Conservative MPs have a sense of humour, or will accept her as a Thatcher sex doll substitute
|
Tobias Ellwood loses Conservative whip
Boris Johnson has stripped the Tory party whip from senior MP Tobias Ellwood after he didn't return from a foreign trip to vote in support of the government in the vote of confidence last night.
As a result, the long-time Johnson critic will no longer be able to vote alongside fellow MPs in the Conservative leadership election, where he is supporting Penny Mordaunt.
The former minister, who chairs the Commons Defence Committee, argued he was unable to travel back from a meeting with the president of Moldova because of "unprecedented disruption".
But a Tory source said: "Other Conservative MPs cancelled foreign trips, left poorly relatives and one MP's mother died on the morning of the vote and [they] still attended and voted."
MPs voted to say the Commons still supports the government. The victory means that Johnson is expected to continue in Downing Street until September.
Ellwood said was "very sorry to lose the whip" but will continue meetings related to the war in Ukraine.
|
I've only ever placed a bet once. Drew Red Rum in the work sweepstake for the National and someone told me to put a bet on it. Never been in a bookies, got someon else to place the bet. Paid for my first caravan.
Still never been in a bookies.
|
Best visit one before they go the way of pubs. Like most shops these day these the competition from online is driving them out of business.
I always enjoy the slightly seedy atmosphere of a betting shop!
|
|
Back in the day, I never worked how how they kept the business on track using grubby slips of paper and just a time stamp machine.
|
|
Don't gamble unless at a race track where it feels obligatory to have an interest. I usually do an each way lucky 15. It has never failed to pay something out. Only once has that exceeded the amount invested!
|
Never had the gambling vice, but did regularly enjoy a night at the dogs. Quite civilised with food, drink and a girl comes round to take your bet from the tote. If you want seedy you pop down to the terrace and lay one on with 'Onest 'Arry 'Odges (it had aitches on his bag) just to watch his tic tac man.
Only tip at the dogs? Bet on the dog from Ireland with no previous history or form. Always one or two at the race night. Never came out of a night with more than I went in, but nearly always covered the cost of food and drink
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 19 Jul 22 at 08:38
|
|
What has all this got to do with "Who will be the next Prime Minister?"
|
>> What has all this got to do with "Who will be the next Prime Minister?"
Started with betting on the new PM. I've checked to see if there's an unknown one from Ireland. Mordaunt has Irish roots and nobody has ever heard of her so that's my tip.
|
>> What has all this got to do with "Who will be the next Prime Minister?"
Betting on dogs, its a clear link
|
And then there was 3.
Polls suggest its now truss that would beat the other 2 in any run off.
Although the leader in the polls have changed about 4 times already.
|
Truss and Sunak now evens with Mordaunt at 7/2
Next General Election looks like Truss v Starmer.
. Mrs Starmer best start looking at wallpaper for the number 10 flat.
|
I read there's all manner of tactical voting, with sunak supporters voting for truss to ensure bardnoch got knocked out.
He might do the same and get some to vote for Mordaunt to knock truss out.
|
|
The Tory Party members will vote for Sunak - won't they?
|
There a lot of “Anyone but a Sunak” Tories.
The hand that wields the knife shall never wear the crown.
|
>> The Tory Party members will vote for Sunak - won't they?
A few days ago a poll put Mordaunt at 27%, Badenoch 15% , and Sunak/Truss level at 13%.
Mordaunt has had a bit of flak since then and Truss has found £20 billion hanging off the magic money tree, so it could be Truss and Sunak.
Johnson has been rubbishing Sunak - will the members take any notice of that?
|
>> >> The Tory Party members will vote for Sunak - won't they?
>>
>>
>> A few days ago a poll put Mordaunt at 27%, Badenoch 15% , and Sunak/Truss
>> level at 13%.
>>
>>
Sky news has badenoch beating the rest comfortably, but obviously not that popular with MPs.
|
Badenoch wouldn't commit to the 2050 net zero target, then the heatwave and now she does.
This is not a mark of intelligence.
|
|
I honestly don't know much about her, but seemed very popular with party members.
|
>> I honestly don't know much about her, but seemed very popular with party members.
Badenoch is hard right so makes sense.
Truss is throwing everything at it and has been ever since she hired a snapper to take her picture in Red Square wearing the fur bonnet. She's also going full out to please the nutters.
|
What is dominates the voting intentions of MPs:
- fundamental policy and strategy espoused by individual candidates
- friend, enemy, repay debts, or "tribe"
- potential for personal advancement
Possibly all of these at different stages of the contest. It seem likely Sunak will be one of the final two, but it is unclear what games are being played to promote either Morduant or Truss.
58% of party members are over 50, and 40% over 65. 56% live in London and the south east. If one were describe them (possibly unfairly) as a load of reactionary old f*rts, will they elect someone who:
- has the ability to play the media effectively and (possibly) win the next election
- seems most like Margaret Thatcher re-incarnated (but she was a one off)
Personally I would vote (if I had one) for Sunak. I could accept Morduant. Truss is a disgrace who thinks a Maggie twin set and handbag will win the day - I hope she is proved wrong.
|
Truss is going to win it isn’t she.
She’s the choice of the Daily Mail.
Don’t kid yourself on that it’s the members who choose the leader. It’s the right wing press who decide.
|
Every time I hear Truss mentioned I see.... cheese! Heaven help us!
|
>> Every time I hear Truss mentioned I see.... cheese! Heaven help us!
>>
>>
Don't forget the pork markets.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z7PoJv-NNw
|
I'd not previously come across this Truss gem from 2018
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr04x_z26Is
|
She's nuts. Brexit obsessed. A nightmare combo of Johnson and Thatcher, with the worst of both.
Sunak's priorities seem reasonable - sort out the fiscal mess, and have a major focus on the NHS. At least he is offering to fix something that's broke.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/23/rishi-sunak-vows-uk-crisis-footing-becomes-pm
Truss on the other hand just wants to get on with breaking more stuff, declaring herself “Brexit-delivery prime minister”. Anybody who blethers on about delivery should be ignored anyway, unless they are a post(wo)man.
This is the Guardian front page story today
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/22/bonfire-of-rights-truss-vows-to-scrap-remaining-eu-laws-by-end-2023
And she wants a new Royal Yacht. Presumably this is what she thinks 100,000 odd old reactionaries in the shires will vote for. She might well be right. Given the likelihood that this massively unrepresentative group could easily latch onto and vote into power any kind of dangerous buffoon, it was up to the parliamentary party to find two half sensible people with decent judgement for them to choose from. And they picked Truss, presumably to serve their own selfish interests.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/23/even-the-monarchy-doesnt-want-a-new-royal-yacht-but-liz-truss-does
I am now pinning my hopes on getting rid of these self-serving creeps in 2024, and hoping they haven't completely destroyed the UK by then.
|
The brexit thing is a bit odd since she campaigned to remain in the EU? Perhaps party members aren't bothered by it.
Sunak seems to not say much about it, mind you he'll have to change something, he's 20 points behind in the polling I've seen.
|
>> The brexit thing is a bit odd since she campaigned to remain in the EU?
>> Perhaps party members aren't bothered by it.
>> Sunak seems to not say much about it, mind you he'll have to change something,
>> he's 20 points behind in the polling I've seen.
Sunak stuck the stiletto in during the TV debate asking her about her past as a Liberal Democrat and a Remainer.
One has to hope that he can prevail at the hustings as the voice of sense and reason. Truss is a hopeless speaker and her Ministerial record, other than saying the right stuff about Ukraine, is abysmal.
The Lord Chief Justice's criticism of her as Lord Chancellor in front of the Justice Select Committee was unprecedented although the current incumbent (Raab) might get the same.
The pale/male/stale electorate in the Tory Party may still prefer the drumbeat of abolishing all EU based legislation, even if it's good, and a shiny new Royal Yacht.
|
One has to hope that he can prevail at the hustings as the voice of
>> sense and reason. Truss is a hopeless speaker and her Ministerial record, other than saying
>> the right stuff about Ukraine, is abysmal.
>
It may well change, there's been several leaders in this race that have fallen behind or out in a very short space of time.
I wonder if party members actually like truss or just dislike sunak?
|
>> >> The brexit thing is a bit odd since she campaigned to remain in the
>> EU?
]
We are at that point* where if you dont keep harping on about it and saying its going wonderfully, you will be blamed when its proven a failure.
*we knew that point would come.
|
>> .
>>
I logged on to read your message, Zero. The first post from anyone for over 16 hours and I have to be honest, I am slightly underwhelmed.
|
>> >> .
>> >>
>>
>> I logged on to read your message, Zero. The first post from anyone for over
>> 16 hours and I have to be honest, I am slightly underwhelmed.
Good punctuation.
|
>>…. The first post from anyone for over 16 hours…
Maybe they’re all in having their hips done?
;-)
|
How droll :-)
Out limping round the hills, then supporting the local hospitality trade.
Needs must
|
I did read the best thing sunak could do is get Rory stewart, Hunt, Gauke to endorse Truss. Would do wonders for his prospects of winning with party members.
|
Too late.
Matt Hancock wrote an opinion piece yesterday endorsing Sunak.
|
>>I'd not previously come across this Truss gem from 2018
>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr04x_z26Is
It's a dog-fight shirley?
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 23 Jul 22 at 13:23
|
>> Personally I would vote (if I had one) for Sunak. I could accept Morduant.
Yep. It's a Tory leader that is being elected so it's no good looking for somebody with Socialist credentials.
Sunak's best of the bunch but Mordaunt if it's a stop Truss campaign.
The Tory who is least worst for the nation.
|
Hasta la vista baby!
I hope not but I fear we haven’t see the last of him.
|
If anybuddy would like to see our future prime minister, please click along to 05:29
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0019g2c/newsnight-20072022
|
Whoever is the choice, they may want to consider a snap general election.
Looks like Labour is on the verge of imploding over their lack of support for the Unions.
|
|
Looks like it will be Truss, but even if something sudden happens and its Sunak, I can't either calling a GE. I doubt they'd increase their majority right now.
|
Since 1900 27 Prime Minister appointments have been made. On 10 occasions the new PM was appointed following a general election. 3 times an election was called within 50 days. That leaves 14 becoming PM without a general election - including Brown, May and Johnson.
The general election elects a party not the PM. There is no real precedent for an election to endorse a new leader.
Given the deficit in the polls there is little chance, and no reason, for an election until end 2024.
Both Truss or Sunak will both be hoping that by then inflation will be under control, real wages growing again, economic growth, unemployment low, Brexit legacy issues resolved, and Boris blamed for any pandemic criticism.
|
Whilst I can accept the fact that the parliamentary party members can depose and re-elect another leader without calling an election what I find totally unacceptable is the idea that anyone other the elected members of parliament should have a say in appointing the new leader and thus prime minister..
This is a complete abuse of democracy. M.Ps were elected. Conservative party members other than MPs were not.
|
"This is a complete abuse of democracy. M.Ps were elected. Conservative party members other than MPs were not."
I don't follow. The Conservative Party is a group of individuals with shared beliefs and with its own rules who (among other things) offer candidates for election. I fail to see why or how the general population can be part of that. Democracy doesn't come into it. How would the public be in a position to elect members of a political club? Why would they even want to?
Once candidates stand in an election the voters do their bit - that is where democracy comes in.
Both the Tory Party and the Parliamentary Conservative Party are pretty much private clubs with their own rules. If you don't like how they work, your options are either to join up and work to bring about reform, or to ignore them completely and never vote Tory.
|
We elect MPs, constituency by constituency. We do not have a prime ministerial election in the way that the USA elects a President. Much less do we have 200,000 self selected, unelected people choosing a PM, albeit from a very short list.
It's undeniably undemocratic.
The people we elected actually put Sunak ahead. Their members will quite probably choose the other one.
|
Do you find it satisfactory that that in a representative democracy our next Prime Minister is highly likely to be neither the choice of the majority of her colleagues, who know her well and see and hear her in action daily, nor the choice of the population as a whole who have no say whatsoever, but simply the choice an unrepresentative and unelected body i.e Conservative party members.
There is something very broken with our constitution..
|
>>There is something very broken with our constitution
I certainly think this is one occasion when the Conservative method of picking a leader won't really work very well. The unelected old bigots (or wise old owls depending on your point of view) will be choosing between 2 candidates emerging from a contest in which most of the votes were cast to keep somebody out rather than get somebody in.
Is it actually a constitutional issue? I suppose the queen could invite Sunak to form a government, regardless, on the basis that he is the most popular least unpopular with MPs. But she won't.
If I could change one thing it would be to switch to PR. I don't understand why Labour isn't agitating for it more visibly. When Scotland goes there might as well be no opposition.
Hung parliaments used to be seen as a bad thing, but if majority governments are henceforth going to keep changing the rules to get their way and prevent proper debate and scrutiny, then it's time to chuck them.
|
In 2011 the alternative vote referendum completely failed to get traction - opposed by 68%. The public are either happy with the status quo or don't care. The major parties have no reason to change the system.
Labour and Tory party members elect their leader and (potential) PM - neither has a public vote. Members of both parties are unrepresentative of the wider public.
We elect MPs to represent constituencies. The Queen appoints the PM on the basis he/she has the confidence of the House. Any form of PR will need a massive cultural and behavioural change - coalition will become the norm. It can, but does not always, work any better.
That we may not always like the outcome does not make the system wrong. A presidential system where a leader is appointed by a full public vote has different flaws.
However there are many things wrong with our democracy which do need addressing:
1. House of Lords - role, basis of appointment, authority etc are still unresolved
2. No linkage of national to local politics - over centralisation
3. Separate chambers for English vs UK legislation (assuming the Union continues)
4. Regional and local delegation of authority and funding wherever possible
5. Proper accountability for civil servants
6. No formal constitution leaving the country exposed to potential undemocratic abuse.
|
>> In 2011 the alternative vote referendum completely failed to get traction - opposed by 68%.
>> The public are either happy with the status quo or don't care. The major parties
>> have no reason to change the system.
After the last 3 years I think people might have a different view.
>> That we may not always like the outcome does not make the system wrong.
Of itself, no. But sometimes a consequence can be so obviously wrong in absolute terms (systemic lying to my mind is pretty unarguable and there is plenty more in Johnson's conduct) that it is clear that the system has not worked for the common good for the last 3 years.
>> However there are many things wrong with our democracy which do need addressing:
>>
>> 1. House of Lords - role, basis of appointment, authority etc are still unresolved
Thank glub for the HoL. The Conservatives would love to hobble it even more.
>> 2. No linkage of national to local politics - over centralisation
I don't know what this means - you want your council changed when the Conservatives are in power at Westminster?
>> 3. Separate chambers for English vs UK legislation (assuming the Union continues)
Too hard for now.
>> 4. Regional and local delegation of authority and funding wherever possible
The subsidiarity principle?
>> 5. Proper accountability for civil servants
What are you thinking of? (If you mean the police should have arrested Johnson for malfeasance I agree).
>> 6. No formal constitution leaving the country exposed to potential undemocratic abuse.
by Bunter, for one. I agree.
I'm deeply concerned about abuse of power. And now that Johnson has recalibrated, we can expect more IMO from Truss.
I have been massively disappointed by the level of debate and challenge in the leadership contest. Of course they are now playing to the old bigots/wise owls in the membership who don't care about much of it, but where was the challenge on the NI protocol bill which all the candidates said they would push on with? Where is the debate on the NHS, which is not just about money - we now have just about the worst performing healthcare of the major nations in Europe despite being at par with the highest on spending, quite possibly as a consequence of the high level of ad hoc private sector involvement in the provision of services.
Somebody also needs to remind these berks of the importance of good faith, just how hard it was to get the Good Friday Agreement, and why there will inevitably be a customs border in the Irish Sea unless there is a land border in Ireland or a customs union. As for the vengeful scrapping of "EU" rules - this is blatant sabotage. Alignment can only be good for trade, but destroying it makes it much harder to realign sensibly in the future.
If they want another civil war, they are going the right way about it. And I'm not joking.
|
Somebody also needs to remind these berks of the importance of good faith, just how
>> hard it was to get the Good Friday Agreement, and why there will inevitably be
>> a customs border in the Irish Sea unless there is a land border in Ireland
>> or a customs union.
What to be done about the part of the community that wants alignment with GB? Mind you the whole of NI is a constant compromise of pretty much everything.
Perhaps we can move some more gov jobs to NI.
|
>>What to be done about the part of the community that wants alignment with GB?
I think we probably violently agree. It's easy for NI to align with GB and remove the Irish Sea customs border if we have a customs union for goods for UK and EU but they have painted themselves into a corner by rejecting that.
This is the hijack bit. They might have a mandate for Brexit (although I don't think 51.89/48.11 was mandate for all the money and effort wasted so far) but they certainly don't have a mandate for the hard Brexit they have pursued. Now they want to burn all our boats so that their successors can't use them, whatever the people want.
People can cope with not getting the election result they want. But when the government then starts changing the rules of good governance and taking the pith generally, they rightly get upset.
Labour is a feeble opponent, sadly. It should be much further ahead in the polls given the awful mess of the last 12 years and the depths of abjection plumbed by Johnson and his accessories in moral turpitude.
|
No major party wants a custom union with the eu, so that's out. I suspect they'll come up with something that the DUP can just about sell to its side and something the EU can just about manage.
Labour have said they'd do that, in effect.
|
>> No major party wants a custom union with the eu, so that's out. I suspect
>> they'll come up with something that the DUP can just about sell to its side
>> and something the EU can just about manage.
>> Labour have said they'd do that, in effect.
Well, yes, but Starmer is promising something that Bunter and his friends in the Fourth Remove have given up on which is why they will simply renege on the agreement they made.
Starmer says the EU will be more amenable with him because he's nice, and more trustworthy - because the EU now thinks the Greyfriars gang speaks with forked tongue (they catch on quick).
Starmer IMO is foolish explicitly to rule out the customs union. It's clearly his long term hope that we will, if not actually rejoin, align much more closely again with the EU. But he knows that come the election the Tories will fight the Red Wall seats by saying that Labour will rejoin the EU. So he has said that Labour will not seek to rejoin the EU or the single market, or join the customs union.
Starmer has a problem of course with these seats where Labour voters were roughly 70% Leave, in contrast with Labour members and voters generally who were majority Remain. But of course the electoral issue is primarily with the Red Wall seats which Labour must recover, and the belief is that they voted Conservative in response to Johnson's GET BREXIT DONE fantasy. And they might yet do it again. People don't like admitting they were wrong.
|
Starmer IMO is foolish explicitly to rule out the customs union. It's clearly his long term hope that we will, if not actually rejoin, align much more closely again with the EU. But he knows that come the election the Tories will fight the Red Wall seats by saying that Labour will rejoin the EU. So he >has said that Labour will not seek to rejoin the EU or the single market, or join the customs union.
Starmer has a problem of course with these seats where Labour voters were roughly 70% Leave, in contrast with Labour members and voters generally who were majority Remain. But of course the electoral issue is primarily with the Red Wall seats which Labour must recover, and the belief is that they voted Conservative in response to Johnson's GET BREXIT DONE fantasy. And they might yet do it again. People don't like admitting they were wrong.
Politicians can only work, to a certain extent, within what people allow them. They can like it or not, however they'd do well to remember it. Ignoring people and/or telling them they voted wrongly is one of the reasons why we are where we are.
|
"No linkage of national to local politics - over centralisation.
I don't know what this means - you want your council changed when the Conservatives are in power at Westminster?"
Councils have different boundaries to Parliamentary constituencies so an obvious disconnect.
The chain of command is broken - in some countries the "leader" of the council may be a parliamentary representative. In England local government is accountable to a relatively junior minister.
Funding is centrally controlled through grants, business rates, community charge etc. Activities are largely mandatory with very little local discretion. Local democracy in action in name only.
There are very obvious reasons why things like defence, foreign policy, taxation (mostly), legal framework, national transport infrastructure etc should be a national responsibility.
There is a role for central government in setting standards for key deliverables but councils should have far mor discretion and be far more accountable for local delivery, and the ability to flex services to meet the needs of their local community.
|
I can't see any other way other than a GE every time a party leader changes? Or perhaps its left upto the MPs of that party.
I'm not sure party members and unions etc would be happy with that.
|
"Do you find it satisfactory that that in a representative democracy our next Prime Minister is highly likely to be neither the choice of the majority of her colleagues, who know her well and see and hear her in action daily, nor the choice of the population as a whole who have no say whatsoever, but simply the choice an unrepresentative and unelected body i.e Conservative party members."
I take your point. My previous post was really about the functioning of the Tory Party in general when it comes to choosing a leader.
The only way round the present problem would be to call a general election. As there is every likelihood that Labour would win, that would be in inhibiting factor when changing a leader mid-term, with the result that Johnson would never have been forced to resign if a GE was mandatory.
|
In my lifetime since 1953 there have been 14 Prime Ministers.
8 were appointed without a general election - 2 Labour and 6 Tory.
This may seem skewed - but note that during my 69 years - 45 years were under a Tory government and 24 years.
As James notes forcing a general election would be a major impediment to a change of PM mid-term if the polls were poor - likely to be the case - why change the leader if they are riding high.
|
|
t's very simple - let the parliamentary party select the PM when one resigns mid term.
|
|
I don't know how anyone can make either major party change their rules. It's upto them I guess.
|
>> t's very simple - let the parliamentary party select the PM when one resigns mid
>> term.
>
Yeah - we get to approve (or not) at the next election
Mind you, I cant see how anyone at Tory Party Central can see whats going on and approve, Its like a front row seat at the chimps tea party, "look how swivelled headed we can be"
|
Liz Truss is carrying forward the Boris legacy - shoot from the hip, over promise, big picture not detail. Sadly she lacks his presentation and communication skills.
Evoking the Thatcher memory is implausible playing to the Tory party audience she needs to persuade - I would hope a good number are unconvinced.
|
The thing that most worried me about Truss when she did the ITV head to head with Sunak was her saying she wants to try something new with the economy.
I don't want the economy in the hands of somebody who wants to try something new. David Gauke on Any Questions on Friday said much the same thing - she doesn't like 'experts' and thinks she knows better.
She has been citing Patrick Minford, the only economist who producing any positive modelling for Brexit. Inter alia he is on record with “if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.”
Brexit has dramatically increased economic risk for the UK. I have suggested to my children they might consider moving into the EU if they can.
Something that really really concerns me is that it is still not OK to be in any way negative about Brexit, despite the fact that it clearly isn't going well. There is no real possibility of fixing a problem if you won't admit it exists.
Even Starmer seems afraid to criticise Brexit now he feels that he must not show any enthusiasm for the EU lest the Red Wall votes Tory again. This is a very bad state of affairs.
|
>> news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-u-turns-over-public-sector-pay-row-after-backlash-from-conservatives-12664147
>>
>> Very rapid u turn there. I guess they didnt test the waters with that one
>> first.
It just didn't add up.
Either you introduce it only for new contracts and leave others on legacy rates OR you save n billion.
You cannot have both.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Aug 22 at 18:49
|
|
...don't you go introducing logic and maths into it, Bromp, neither have any place in this process....
|
|
Don't they still have London Weighting and Large Town Allowances?
|
>> Don't they still have London Weighting and Large Town Allowances?
When I joined in 1978 there were national scales which applied on most places; there were special Departmental Scales in some specialist outliers. London Weighting was either Inner or Outer. I was mostly on the former but 'marked time' on the Inner London rate during a 15 month posting in Uxbridge.
I don't recall any other allowances for cities etc.
During the era of Derek Rayner's 'Next Steps' Agencies outfits went their own way. The Public Trust Office(PTO) had different pay & grading structures to Lord Chancellors Dept HQ. Both differed from the Court Service.
HQ's scales were broadly recognisable as EO>HEO>SEO etc. The others were different.
PTO split the HEO grade in two. Some people who's faces didn't fit were posted to the lower tier a day or tow before the new grades were announced. Broadly speaking management was favoured over casework.
Subsequent moves were closer to going back to old fashioned 'Treasury' grades.
Later MoJ adopted some level of regional pay with 'hot spot' additions to the national rates in places like Brighton or Leeds (but not Bradford!).
Not easy for posting people between offices...
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Aug 22 at 19:31
|
|
The same job should be paid the same rate regardless of where it is, otherwise, to take Truss's whims to the extreme, many civil service jobs could be outsourced to Africa or Asia where wages are significantly lower still.
|
"The same job should be paid the same rate regardless of where it is"
Nah you can't do that, housing and other costs are very significantly higher in the South East, along with commuting costs (and time!) for those who have to go to the office. I think London weighting worked as a method of evening it a bit but I still remember wondering at age 23 how a bloke in Doncaster, same age and grade, could afford a new XR3I and personalised number plate. (Of course there are any number of other factors but I recall when we discussed it, a large bit of it was that his cost of living was considerably lower than mine.)
btw I'm sure in SWMBOs early days in a bank there were other Large Town allowances.
|
>> but I still remember wondering at age 23 how a bloke in Doncaster, same age
>> and grade, could afford a new XR3I and personalised number plate. (Of course there are
>> any number of other factors but I recall when we discussed it, a large bit
>> of it was that his cost of living was considerably lower than mine.)
London Weighting of around £1200 was a bonus for my first year or so in London when I lived in a subsidised Civil Service Hostel. Once a group of us struck out alone renting a house for £360/month it was a different kettle of fish.
If I'd been an EO in Leeds, perhaps living with my parents, I'd have had a car long before I did and a far better one than the 9yo rusty Mini I bought in 1982.
|
>> Don't they still have London Weighting and Large Town Allowances?
>>
some government depts still have a london allowance.
|
>> some government depts still have a london allowance.
MoJ had London scales. I think the SEO max in London is still the same as when I left in 2013; increases are focussed on the start rates for the grade.
|
>> increases are focussed on the start rates for the grade.
>>
That's happening across the finance industry. Many large employers have given a flat £ value increase rather than a percentage increase, meaning those at the bottom of the scale get a much better percentage increase. My employer's lower paid staff got inflation busting pay-rises. Higher paid staff got real terms pay cuts.
Whilst I cannot begrudge the pay-rises to those that really need it, the consequences are that those with significant service get very low percentage increases and therefore receive a real terms pay cut and these serve to flatten differentials between the top and bottom of the scale, suggesting that experience is now worth less from a corporate viewpoint but managers still expect more experienced staff to take on more responsibility.
When there is hardly any difference between the top and the bottom of the scale, one has to wonder, why bother.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 2 Aug 22 at 21:53
|
As I heard on the radio many listeners ringing in have raised the question that if this was brought in would the 'out of town' MPs also take a cut?
|
|
Miss Z reports that her pay-rise as a junior doctor is 2%. She is not impressed.
|
|
One of my pensions has just gone up by 10%.
|
>> Miss Z reports that her pay-rise as a junior doctor is 2%. She is not
>> impressed.
>>
I thought they were getting 4/5%?
|
>>
>> I thought they were getting 4/5%?
>>
No, junior doctors were settled a while back. 2% agreed under a 4 year deal.
|
|
Ah, must have been a different group of Drs. 2% a year (?) until when ?
|
news.sky.com/story/tory-leadership-live-updates-tv-debate-sunak-truss-12593360?postid=4250992#liveblog-body
Only one poll, but seems to suggest people prefer truss to both sunak and starmer as PM. I guess we'll see if it's repeated or not.
|
It is not just distressed northern industrial cities that need levelling up.
Rural areas are equally deprived, albeit in different ways - lack of jobs, lack of transport infrastructure. Cornwall and West Wales, for instance, are amongst the poorest in Europe. English coastal towns have some of the UKs worst health.
Tunbridge Wells may or may not be a worthy recipient of levelling up money. What surprises me is why it has taken the Tories 12 years to undo the Labour policy which separated the country into wealthy cities exploiting the poor, rural idylls upon which the sun always shined, and the obviously deserving ex coal mining, steel and manufacturing hubs.
|
>> the Labour policy which separated the country into wealthy cities exploiting the poor, rural idylls upon which the sun always shined, and the obviously deserving ex coal mining, steel and manufacturing hubs.
Which policy was that?
The conservative government of 2010 started off by successfully blaming and punishing the poorest people in the country for the financial crisis.
Now they won't even admit there are problems with Brexit. Or that Theresa May understood NI and the people who replaced her don't
They are an utter disgrace. A majority of members would rather have Johnson as PM rather than Sunak or Truss. It seems extremely likely that Johnson, effectively sacked for gross misconduct, will now pack the Lords with Tory peers in a 'resignation' honours spree, and they will let him do it. The party is corrupt to the core. It is their purpose, their nature, and their stock in trade.
The puzzle is why people vote for them.
|
>>The puzzle is why people vote for them.
Because they don't go a bundle on the alternative.
|
The puzzle is why people vote for them.
Not much of puzzle really though is it? The choice last time was between Corbyn and Johnson. Certainly Johnson has been a disaster but I suspect that Corbyn would have been an even bigger one so the electorate probably made the right choice.
|
>>
>>
>> Not much of puzzle really though is it? The choice last time was between Corbyn
>> and Johnson. Certainly Johnson has been a disaster but I suspect that Corbyn would have
>> been an even bigger one so the electorate probably made the right choice.
>>
Corbyn's latest pronouncement is to blame Britain and America for sending arms to Ukraine because they have caused the deaths of thousands of Russian troops. Apparently the whole thing could have been avoided if only we'd got the UN to negotiate with Putin.
He's what Putin would sneeringly describe as a useful fool. I personally think he is a bit deranged.
|
Both Corbyn and Johnson look like aberrations viewed against their predecessors. But I simply can't believe that even a Corbyn government would have done more damage than the present one.
Sadly the Conservatives seem set to continue their aberration for a while. Truss has created a persona for herself as a nightmare combination of Johnson and Thatcher. The upside of that I hope is that she will lose the next election.
|
>> Sunak wants to remove money from deprived areas to give it to wealthy areas (speaking
>> in Royal Tunbridge Wells)...
You don't seem to understand the English language.
If I gave you £10 last week, but am giving you £5 this week I haven't taken anything from you. I am giving you less than I previously gave.
I haven't taken anything from you. It's my money, in any case.
|
>>I haven't taken anything from you. It's my money, in any case.
It's not your money. It's not even the government's money.
We need to see the detail of this to make sense of it. Meanwhile I have no doubt the party members will think he's done a very good thing.
|
>> >>I haven't taken anything from you. It's my money, in any case.
>>
>> It's not your money. It's not even the government's money.
>>
You have missed the point.
My post was about the grammar - the English - the pedantry, if you like - not the politics.
|
|
I thought we did the pedantry stuff to death years ago. It's getting boring.
|
>> I thought we did the pedantry stuff to death years ago. It's getting boring.
>>
You only find it boring because you so frequently get stuff wrong.
|
|
I think you need to get another hobby.
|
It is tax money, paid by us as tax payers to the Government on the understanding that it will be used sensibly and distributed fairly.
I agree with the postings above re not only inner cities being deprived, but Royal Tunbridge Wells certainly isn't a deprived rural area.
|
|
It’s got a hell of a traffic problem though.
|
|
...probably needs some Central Government investment.....
|
>> but Royal Tunbridge Wells certainly isn't a deprived rural area.
>>
...the population of Withernsea are devastated to find out that there are people in Tunbridge Well who just don't know where their next Pimms is going to come from...
|
|
Hey!! Whats wrong with With?? :/
|
...it makes BridlingtonSkeggy* look like Las Vegas...
(and isn't the most prosperous looking place along the Yorkshire coast)
*alteration in recognition of possible further offence ;-)
|
Ah! You mean Skegvegas. Withernsea - The last resort.
Back in the day it was on my patch. We rotated patches for a while. I had a nurse observer with me and were having a light hearted general chat about stereotypical resident of With. You know - webs between the toes and fingers, cyclops features, banjos and so on.
So we decide on fish and chips for tea and walked into the chip shop. There was this apparition behind the counter that seemingly ticked every box. Thing was my nurse observer was struggling to stifle a laugh and it got worse then it just became infectious and I started.
Anyway I said something into my radio (not really) "Got to go, job on. Back soon hopefully"
We did manage to compose ourselves and get fish and chips that evening from the same emporium.
I know it was unprofessional but sometimes events just take over :)
|
I do understand, like Rushi, that there are pockets of need even in prosperous areas. However I am amazed at the central government grant of £237,000 to help buy a gastropub in a local village where there are many million pound properties and semis have averaged well over half a million. There’s a lot of guff about a community asset but, unless the clientele changes from its previous incarnations, it will be used by the well-heeled.
At the same time a local charity for supporting vulnerable adults has had its local authority grant slashed and will close. The local OAP lunch club had similarly had its grant reduced and has had to raise its price by 50% to £12.
I know there will always be contrasts between different funding requirements but nearly quarter of a million to support a fancy pub seems out of proportion. If that’s an example of Rushi’s approach he really is out of touch.
|
What better way to make the comfortably off resentful of taxes which benefit only the rest of the community in which they play no part and have no links.
I can see the benefit of supporting old folks clubs, charities, kiddie play groups and all the other things I personally have no use for. I am happy (up to a point) to contribute.
I also expect my community to devote some effort to the provision of things I want, but may interest other groups far less - eg: robust planning laws to inhibit indiscriminate development, prioritise quality not volume of service provision, cut the verges etc etc.
A community is about more than just small segments of society - it is about a cohesive whole. A gastropub provides jobs, opportunity, feeds aspirations as well as stomachs. It is a part of an integrated community which (perhaps) without support would fail.
The community and all in it may be worse off as a result. Fairness is not just about supporting the needy at the expense of the better off.
|
I'd have to take my shoes and socks off to count the multi-millionaire land owners living near my local. Sainsbury, Sopwith, Palmer-Tomkinsons, Fergusons etc.
The only one I've actually seen in the pub is Tara PT who used to call in to use the fag machine.
The folks who use the pub regularly are us empoverished working class.
|
Shopping in my local LIDL this afternoon, I heard a couple discussing what they could and couldn't afford. They were putting stuff back on the shelves.
Whatever next, they'll be doing the same thing at Poundland and 'spoons!
|
Who will be the next Prime Minister? Volume 2 - CGNorwich
