Does that make her part of the anti-growth coalition?
Nope because Truss is talking about good immigration and Braverman about bad immigration. Two completely different things which should not be confused even if they are easy to do so.
Worth looking at the front pages today. Most papers seem to have gone with Truss pulling the most insane facial expressions possible.
Gave me a chuckle anyway.😁
Most papers seem to have gone with Truss pulling the most insane facial expressions possible.
I am not a great fan of those sort of photos since they often seem based on stepping through a video to find the worse one.
In other news. Mad nad thinks the current government is a bit right wing.
Two completely different things which should not be confused
TBF I'm easily confused.
Kelvin
Those are aims/goals, they don’t have the same “plan”.
No they aren't....
Both promise a better economy and better services
Two completely worthless and throwaway metrics without the detail...
Better Services?
Take the NHS, the Tory's offer a "better NHS" it's just not FREE at the point.. or open to everyone. (Or for that matter called the NHS)
They aren't going to say that because the overwhelming majority of the Tory party members aren't rich in the way Trusso-nomics is meant to benefit. To be more specific these are the poor folk earning less that a 100M a year.. so just slightly wealthier versions of working class in the vast scheme of things.
Even bankers on say £10M a year can't afford their own private police and fire service... though to be fair they can maybe just about live in gated communities with their own shared ones.
explains why the UK Tory Party is one of the most successful political parties in the western world.
I thought that was due to First Past The Post?
I agree with you Kelvin and fail to see where Ernie is going with this?
The same place he always goes…
In other news. Mad nad thinks the current government is a bit right wing.
Terrifying isn’t it. She also says you can’t just ditch a whole manifesto and go off in a different direction just because you’ve got a new leader
There was a Truss supporter on Radio 4 this morning basically saying this is year zero and she can do what the hell she likes, irrespective of the manifesto touted at the last election
At least we know where we are
You can forget all that namby pamby levelling up stuff! It’s 1984 in oh so many ways
I thought that was due to First Past The Post?
Well obviously not, because FPTP gives the Tories no advantages over the Labour Party.
The Labour Party does not represent a minority point of view. At least it shouldn't.
The Labour Party should benefit as much, if not even more, than the Tories from FPTP. Which explains precisely why no Labour government has abolished it and the current Labour leader refuses to make it Labour policy.
Well obviously not because FPTP gives the Tories no advantages over the Labour Party.
Not true at all. Good material for another thread though.
Not true at all.
That is because you apparently spectacularly fail to understand the class nature of UK politics.
The Tories represent the interests of the 1-2%, there is no reason why FPTP should benefit them. On the contrary.
And yet despite that they are one of the most successful political parties in the western world.
Edit: The reason why the Tories are successful is because there is a consistent failure to understand whose interests they represent, not because of FPTP.
Yeah, it’s me that doesn’t understand. Of course it is.
Yeah, it’s me that doesn’t understand. Of course it is.
At last, something that we can both agree on 😉
If you really want to argue that FPTP doesn't favour the Tories above other parties, start a thread on it. You are wrong though. And as you've changed the subject towards "understanding whose interests they represent" and other things that are true but irrelevant to the point, I suspect you know you are. FPTP favours the Tories more than Labour.
If you really want to argue that FPTP doesn’t favour the Tories above other parties, start a thread on it.
What's wrong with talking about it here? I really don't understand this pedantic thread policing. This is a politics thread no? So discuss politics!
FPTP benefits the party who wins. Given their previous record in supporting and collaborating with the tories I can't think of anything worse than a labour govt being beholden to lib dem support in a coalition which would almost certainly be the outcome of PR.
FPTP benefits the party who can gain support with the right geographic spread to win the most seats. In the UK, the demographics means that if your support is weighted towards older and retired or soon to retire people your voters are spread across town and country seats giving you a better chance of winning more of those seats. That's the advantage the Tory party has. For Labour, growth in support often happens with younger and working people, who are more concentrated in the cities... this means that a swell in support often just means winning bigger majorities in city seats, rather than winning additional seats in the town and country seats. That's the very basics of it. Let's not have pages and pages of it here please... it's a possible huge distraction from this thread that can run on and on.
Gerrymandering of constituency boundaries benefits the tories. FPTP can be reformed to remove the tory advantage. My main problem with PR is it promotes the maintenance of the status quo. When the tories are in power that's a mild positive, but when Labour it's a massive negative because it would prevent them bringing in the radical policies which we desperately require. That's assuming of course that labour would require support from the lib dems and SNP. If the green party could somehow improve their presence it could be different, but we're a long way from that.
Your very first sentence contains the precise point I am making:
FPTP benefits the party who can gain support with the right geographic spread to win the most seats.
"FPTP benefits the party who can gain support". The Labour Party's problem isn't FPTP it's lack of support. The Tories aren't one of the most successful political party in the western world because of FPTP but because of the support which they receive.
The primary problem, for Labour, is that voters don't recognise whose interests the Tories represent. And that fact serves the Tories extremely well. To add to the problem, and to the Tories's extreme good luck, Labour is generally terrified of talking class politics.
The previous Labour leader talked of "for the many, not the few", they soon put a stop to that.
First past the post favours the Tories more than Labour. All your other whataboutery might be true, but doesn't change that fact. As for your closing attempt to make this yet another thread about the previous Labour leader, or the latest one, or both... **** that, life is too short.
Worth looking at the front pages today
Put a pint in her hand in that Times picture & it could be Farage in a blonde wig.
Big parties who send MPs to parliament: Tories, Labour, Libs, SNP. In addition the Greens get a big vote. UKIP did once but are now integrated into the Tories.
This means that the Tories get all the right wing votes, whereas the progressive vote (we can argue about bits of SNP and sorry Plaid) gets spread, making it less likely a given candidate on this side will win against a Tory whose vote isn't split.
The end.
Unless you want to go on to tactical voting, PR etc. Or just go on telling us how bad you think Labour is.
All your other whataboutery might be true, but doesn’t change that fact.
All my "whataboutery" gets to the very heart of why the Tories are such a successful political party - they have huge support among the electorate, approximately 30-40% support, despite serving the interests of only about 1-2% of the electorate.
Do you believe that most Tory voters recognise that? Do you believe that 99% of Tory voters simply vote Tory as a philanthropic act to benefit the 1-2%?
Whatever problems FPTP might throw up it is not the primary problem, which is the electorate's lack of awareness of whose interests the Tories represent.
As for your closing attempt to make this yet another thread about the previous Labour leader, or the latest one
What an idiotic comment.
What an idiotic comment.
Raising the tone of discussion as usual.
approximately 30-40% support, despite serving the interests of only about 1-2% of the electorate.
Not everyone votes in their own personal interest. Though Tories are most likely to, obv, or to think that's what they're doing. And wealthy old folks are more than 2% of those who actually vote.
Put a pint in her hand in that Times picture & it could be Farage in a blonde wig.
Ever seen them together in tbe same room? Makes you think....
The ownership demographics of the press can't harm, either.
The Greenpeace protest that disrupted Liz Truss's Tory party conference speech yesterday actually "did her a few favours" and broke the ice for her, according to a body language expert.
There was a lot of references in the news bulletins yesterday that the Greenpeace protest galvanized Truss's Tory audience as they rallied to express their disapproval.
This clearly seemed to be the case and she certainly seemed to welcome it. I think it's stretching it a bit though to claim that apart from those two points it did her any favours.
The audience Truss was really talking to wasn't a few hundred loyal Tory Party members who were always by and large going to agree with every word she uttered, it was the millions watching it on the news in their homes.
For them it provided a powerful reminder that no one had voted for defining points of Liz Truss's political programme, bankers bonus, fracking, tax giveaways which have caused financial instability, etc.
The way the TV cameras zoomed in on the protestors showing their relaxed confidence, especially after the banner was ripped from their hands and they calmly picked it up and held it high again, will have done the Tories no favours at all.
Nor will the fact that the Greenpeace protestors managed to get all the delegates credentials, circumvent all the security and smuggled in a banner. Are they not concerned about possible terrorist attacks? Truss banged on about increasing defence spending during her speech, the Tories can't even organise effective security at their annual conferences.
Are you suggesting they now nuke Birmingham?
Actually… that doesn’t sound like a bad idea
Whatever problems FPTP might throw up it is not the primary problem,
Actually, I think it is.
Actually, I think it is.
Which isn't in the least bit surprising as issues concerning class interests are overwhelmingly ignored in UK politics.
Recent opinion polls have suggested staggering Labour majorities of well over a 100 if a general election was held right now under FPTP.
So the Tories can easily lose elections under FPTP.
The reason the Tories are polling so badly at the moment is because of Liz Truss's policy of rewarding the rich for being rich and expecting everyone else to pay for it, through lower wages and almost certainly poorer services and benefits.
Bankers will get huge mindboggling bonuses and nurses will get real wage cuts.
This provides a stark reality check to British voters that this government represents the interests of an elite few - and they make very little attempt to even bother hiding it.
FPTP is not necessarily an obstacle in defeating the Tories. What is vital however is that voters understand whose interests the Tories exist to serve. Once that has been established it becomes relatively easy to defeat the Tories.
ErnieLynch
That is because you apparently spectacularly fail to understand the class nature of UK politics.
The Tories represent the interests of the 1-2%, there is no reason why FPTP should benefit them. On the contrary.
And yet despite that they are one of the most successful political parties in the western world.
Edit: The reason why the Tories are successful is because there is a consistent failure to understand whose interests they represent, not because of FPTP.
Whilst that is true longer term ...
The current Tory policy doesn't represent anything like the top 1-2% ... more like 0.01-0.02%
Some exec on 200k just had 10%+ of her pension fund wiped out that she's been paying into for probably longer than a decade. Her mortgage has gone up
Lets randomly take Shell PLC (since Truss used to work for her) that employs 6000 or so but there are probably <15 earning 200k or close and probably 5,000 on NMW working in service stations.
Anyway the marginal tax gains on say 200k are hardly going to compensate for the loss of pension, mortgage etc. thanks to Truss-o-nomics
Do you believe that most Tory voters recognise that? Do you believe that 99% of Tory voters simply vote Tory as a philanthropic act to benefit the 1-2%?
Erm nope the Red Wall voted tory because of Wokism... and they will next time
Those, especially red wall ex traditional labour are just sick of being told what they can and can't think or say and would rather be broke than have more Wokism
Erm nope the Red Wall voted tory because of Wokism… and they will next time
That's obviously your opinion based on the now well-established stw vilification of working-class voters.
I strenously disagree on two levels. The 2019 general election result had nothing to do with "wokism", and there is no evidence that "the Red Wall" will vote Tory next election.
In fact the evidence currently is that Tory support in those areas has haemorrhaged far more than in other areas.
Has "wokism" ceased to be an issue, or is it connected to the current Tory leader's unashamed determination to make the wealthy elite even wealthier?
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wall-voting-intention-3-4-october-2022/
Our latest Red Wall poll finds Labour leading the Conservatives by 38%, a staggering twenty-three points more than in our previous poll two weeks ago, and the largest lead ever achieved by any party in our Red Wall polling. Altogether, the results of our poll (with changes from 19-20 September) are as follows:
Labour 61% (+12)
Conservative 23% (-11)
Reform UK 3% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 7% (+2)
Green 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (+1)
Other 1% (–)
Has “wokism” ceased to be an issue, or is it connected to the current Tory leader’s unashamed determination to make the wealthy elite even wealthier?
It's a meaningless word but that doesn't top it determining how people vote.
That’s obviously your opinion based on the now well-established stw vilification of working-class voters.
No it's my opinion based on former lifelong Red wall labour voters.
STW not withstanding then vilification is a little abstract and does your definition of "working class" extend to the 98%?
You said
Do you believe that 99% of Tory voters simply vote Tory as a philanthropic act to benefit the 1-2%?
Another way to look at this... Red Wall voters voted for things that were more important to them than money... they also voted strongly to leave the EU.
You or I may not agree with their reasons BUT independent of who the following is attributed to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" this is what Labour have failed to do.
Another way to look at his is there is almost no working class anymore.
there is almost no working class anymore.
So who inhabits these "Red Wall" seats which you appear to attach a great deal of importance to and see as some sort of typical Tory voter?
Affluent middle-class professionals?
*sips latte while reading the Guardian*
What shall we call this?
https://twitter.com/emilythornberry/status/1578070802125185025?s=21
Operation “Bigger Fridge”?
Operation “Don’t ask me, I’m only the PM”?
No, no, needs to be three letters…
“Leave in silence”?
Rubbish… can some brighter minds apply their brain cells to it…?
Erm nope the Red Wall voted tory because of Wokism… and they will next time
Those, especially red wall ex traditional labour are just sick of being told what they can and can’t think or say and would rather be broke than have more Wokism
An interesting take I suppose.
And TBF I think the Tory party still see those who define their political world view mainly by what they're 'against' rather than 'for' as worth attracting, it's more "anti-wokism" or maybe US style libertarianism that they're keen to cultivate.
Cruella Braverman certainly likes to blow that dog whistle and Lizzy's list of groups that make up the "Anti-Growth Coalition" was clearly intended to play a similar tune...
But I think it's worth noting the Red wall voters were promised quite a lot in 2019 and they'd maybe be prudent to ask if much ever came of those promises...
"Growth, growth and growth!" is being focussed on by both major parties, what really is the difference between "Growth" and "Levelling up" at the end of the day?
As nice as it would be if blocks of voters simply voted on single issues, very few people are that simple in their motivations.
Back in 2019 the overlap between ardently anti-woke, fiscally conservative, habitual Tory voter, starry-eyed believer in Levelling up, brexiteer, etc all nicely overlapped for Bozza to give him some new seats...
I don't think Liz can rely on her team presenting the same Venn diagram any time soon...
sips latte while reading the Guardian
Please tell me that it's not made with cow's milk.
Tories aren’t one of the most successful political party in the western world because of FPTP but because of the support which they receive.
It doesn't hurt though as your comment about being the most successful party in the Western world demonstrates. I'd be happy to have PR as it will prevent extremist left or right wing parties running the executive. It will allow them representation and damp that part of the electorate that feels that they aren't given a voice.
The breaking the link between constituency and MP under PR is a canard as, for example, my local MP has no link with my constituency being parachuted in from Cambridge CC. See also one Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson and sundry other MPs currently sitting in the house.
Please tell me that it’s not made with cow’s milk
It is, but it’s organic, free-range, fair trade and locally sourced
We’re not animals
I’d be happy to have PR as it will prevent extremist left or right wing parties running the executive.
That is an interesting comment as one of the most claimed benefit of FPTP is that it denies a foothold to small extremist parties.
A good example of this is UKIP which despite its past widespread support (it once had the largest share of the vote of any party in a national local election) I believe has only once ever managed to win a parliamentary seat.
Under proportional representation UKIP would have very likely won many dozens of Westminster seats, and quite possibly would have ended up coalition partners with the Tories, if not kingmakers.
Very recently in Denmark under their PR system the far-right became kingmakers. Even more recently under the Italian system the far-right did even better.
I very strongly support PR btw, but apparently not for the same reasons as some.
I've learned a life lesson over the last year or four, 'don't ever say that no PM could be worse than the previous one'.
wait until she cans free childcare and shuts schools to make them online only
No one watch QT last night?
I bloody hate it when I have to agree with Piers Morgan.
@ernielynch Sweden, not Denmark. And the racists are busy trying to avoid responsibility for working in our parliament right now.
Actually, I guess KD (Christian Democrats) are more of the kingmakers. They are the way smaller party but are religious headbangers and not out and out racists.
Stupidly, I did. Thought zahawi was going to pop on a few occasions, obviously struggling with defending this shower. Didn't know when to shut up either.
EDIT: I’ve been reliably informed that Truss wore the dress before Years&Years was broadcast. Still, it’s a look.
