Forum menu
ransom, right idea, wrong approach, what we need to be doing is investing massively in renewables, reversing the stupid block on onshore wind and trying to decouple our selves from the international markets. We're in a better position geographically than most to tray and achieve this. If the money spent on the oil wars in the last few decades had been spent on home grown power generation we would not be in this mess.
There's not much we can do to cushion people against the current issues.
Dazh how much has are you using???? I thought our combined gas / electric of £165 per month pre price increases was high usage.
reversing the stupid block on onshore wind
Destroys peat moorland with the access tracks and is akin to shooting yourself in the foot for net carbon
ransom, right idea, wrong approach, what we need to be doing is investing massively in renewables,
Obviously we need to do that, but it's not the point I was making. Decarbonisation requires us, amongst other things, to switch from gas to electricity-based heating. This requires action on the supply side, demand side, and market regulation. At the moment, investment in decarbonising heating is hamstrung by the large price difference between gas and electricity: you can just about make running costs achieve parity with heat pumps in well insulated buildings, but without any saving, 3-4x capex is always going to be hard to justify.
Dazh how much has are you using???? I thought our combined gas / electric of £165 per month pre price increases was high usage.
A lot! Our combined bill in the winter is ~£300/month due to a drafty central heated farmhouse with a gas powered aga which costs about £6/day on it's own. The aga is going asap so that will help a lot. After that it's going to be greater use of blankets and woolly hats. Or we might sell up and move into a new build. 🙂
Burn some wood Daz or get a heat pump?
Labour could just have a simple policy such as "Where privately owned utilities are failing we will take them into public ownership"
Also another policy of a MASSIVE investment in renewables. Tidal power please!
Also Sunak writing of that Covid fraud money should be as big as Boris partying. Should be 3 questions every PMQs. People still go on about Labour selling the gold FFS.
rone
Free MemberIf Sunak does go through with this 500 handout (not sure he will but…) to make up for the cost of living crisis – Labour are going to look dumb as **** again.
Well 1, £500 doesn't make up for the cost of living increases.
But 2, how does it make them look "dumb as shit" when they set the agenda, constantly chase the government on something which they repeatedly deny is even an issue, and then the government finally, grudgingly admits they're right and does something about it? There'll always be some people that give all the credit to sunak but that can't be helped but changing government police is pretty much the acme of opposition excellence.
As long as you shout about it. Don't be sportsmanlike, you've got to be an absolutely savagely bad winner and gloat. Tories constantly slag Labour policy then nick it and they're just not good enough at that fight.
I agree with 1) naturally but it will have a positive effect with the electorate.
2) with respect I don't know what you're saying. Labour are messing with a nonesensical vat deduction.
There's already a difference in the two approaches. And neither are satisfactory.
Sunak deserves zero credit for anything. He's a simple idiot with a Brexit supporting track record, a messed up eat out to help out offering and total misdirection and lies on how the government finances things.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1485659356318232579?t=q79P6pscXDiz1NNd0qUWUQ&s=19
Yeah, you read that correctly - that's the Tories gaining 4pts.
Labour could just have a simple policy such as “Where privately owned utilities are failing we will take them into public ownership”
Based on rail it's already conservative policy
I'd actually back it as a policy as long as they destroyed shareholder value prior to nationalisation so the UK taxpayer isn't shafted again. Where the the companies are successful leave them be.
Yeah, you read that correctly – that’s the Tories gaining 4pts.
That poll says it all. What a confused bunch of people the electorate are. What could possibly be the driver behind the Tory +4 when they are in the shit everyday, what is the driver behind Green -2 (what have they done?)
Polls really do seem a bit pointless don't they.
Polls really do seem a bit pointless don’t they.
Absolutely.
But not sure what other interim metric we can use!
Everything is always weighted against Labour. So much sticks in people's heads - that ridiculous Gold selling off non-story still proliferates today despite the facts.
Tories create that much havoc people just let it go. Almost to the point of boredom with excess.
People need inspiring now more than ever.
We're fatigued as a nation - post pandemic anxiety making everything difficult to plan for. (I know the
Pandemic is not over.) Corruption and sleaze Tory trademarks. Labour using a 30 year old model to tempt the electorate.
Everything needs rewiring for 2022. And start smashing these libertarians that have moved the debate to masks and migrants.
I still see we are in a huge macro-economic shift now. Markets unstable, things crumbling. It will take a long distance lens to see what is really happening.
Nationalisation will be inevitable. (Back door or front door) It always is when things are in trouble to this extent.
Tax and spend makes no sense any longer in any debate in terms of funding. Q/E not currently being reversed. Interest rates on a strange precipice.
All to play for.
But we will keep playing the pre-pandemic play book to preserve the status quo.
Latest YouGov poll puts Labour 6 points ahead of the Tories.
Voting Intention: Con 32%, Lab 38% (26 - 27 Jan)
The reason Labour appears to have such a small lead over the Tories isn't that the Tories are still polling reasonably well it's that Labour are so weak.
At 38% Labour are 2 points less than they got in the 2017 general election which they failed to win.
Yesterday's Survation poll did put Labour on 40% but it also put the Tories on 35% so the Labour lead was only 5%
Latest YouGov poll puts Labour 6 points ahead of the Tories.
Shouldn’t they be 20 points ahead by now? 😂
This is without a shadow of a doubt the worst govt I can remember. SKS should be smashing it.
He is tame and a bit too forensic. Go for the jugular.
Boris staying in post could be a good thing for SKS though.
SKS should be smashing it.
I remember the centrist dismissal of the 2017 improvement in vote share was that May was a terrible Tory leader. With a much worse opponent Starmer can’t get anywhere near the 2017 figures. It’s pathetic.
I think some are mistaking the Labour turnout in 2017 as an endorsement for Corbyn and his policies. It had nothing to do with that, we were on the Brexit precipice and people voted in vain hope that a hard Brexit could be avoided.
That's why the 2019 numbers are a more accurate reflection of what people thought of Corbyn all along. I voted Labour in 2017 and didn't in 2019. I always thought Corbyn was a moron, I was not alone.
I remember the centrist dismissal of the 2017 improvement in vote share was that May was a terrible Tory leader. With a much worse opponent Starmer can’t get anywhere near the 2017 figures. It’s pathetic.
No, silly. 2017 was nothing to do with Corbyn and 2019 was everything to do with Corbyn.
It had nothing to do with that, we were on the Brexit precipice and people voted in vain hope that a hard Brexit could be avoided.
So in 2017 people voted Labour "in vain hope that a hard Brexit could be avoided", but in 2019 when May had been replaced by Johnson, who was far more committed to a hard Brexit than May, they voted for him instead of Labour?
And in 2017 labour’s policy was to respect the brexit result whilst in 2019 it was to hold a second referendum. Either inkster’s analysis is bollocks or remainers were idiots.
ernie, the vain hope had turned to despair by then.
Re polling Difference is surely that there's no ukip to eat the tory vote, lib Dems are getting a few but not enough to help.
And red wall collapse was due to 2 factors equally, one was wanting brexit over, 2 was corbyn being elecroral poison
Both of those things are no longer major factors
He interesting to see what dickgate does for numbers
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1486687773109145601?t=lpKMtq2wxA5-9yNmOURkrw&s=19
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1486712906037141504?t=SPwxfVIhUkzFdM9pdiRvOw&s=19
ernie, the vain hope had turned to despair by then.
So you didn’t vote for the only party who could have stopped brexit, whilst at the same time being in despair about brexit? It seems I was right on both fronts in my earlier post.
"So you didn’t vote for the only party who could have stopped brexit,"
There was no party who could have stopped Brexit, that was the hope that died in 2017.
I knew Corbyn was heading for a landslide loss in 2019 and didn't want to put my name to it.
ransos has it.
Difference is surely that there’s no ukip to eat the tory vote
So why are the Tories polling so badly then?
The only reason Labour are currently ahead in the polls is because Tory support is so low.
Labour's average for the last 7 polls of the last week is 39%, which is less than they managed in the 2017 general election. But unlike 2017 it now puts them ahead of the Tories.
There was no party who could have stopped Brexit, that was the hope that died in 2017.
Labour wasn't proposing to stop brexit in 2017.
I knew Corbyn was heading for a landslide loss in 2019 and didn’t want to put my name to it
And do what instead?
ransos has it.
So taking the piss out of your muddled thinking explains your position?
"So why are the Tories polling so badly then?"
The polls currently reflect the public's position with regards integrity, not policy.
"Labour wasn’t proposing to stop brexit in 2017."
I know that, that's why I used the term 'vain hope'. The word vain referring to vanity, I knew the game was up, couldn't see an alternative so shut my eyes and pinned the tail on the donkey.
Likewise, vanity got the better of me in 2019 too, though this time I voted with my eyes open. Call my rejection of Corbyn a virtue signal if you like.
"And do what instead?"
Post on here?
I knew Corbyn was heading for a landslide loss in 2019 and didn’t want to put my name to it.
So you didn’t vote Labour because you didn’t want to be on the losing side? That’s pretty hilarious. Or tragic. Or both.
Well ernie, my muddled thinking predicted a 100 seat majority for the Tories in 2019, I guess you could say I didn't want to be on the losing aide, my inner Trump got the better of me.
You're reminding me of when Richard Burgon said to Kay Burley: "people said we were going to lose the 2017 election"
To which she replied: "You did"
"That’s pretty hilarious. Or tragic. Or both."
When comedy and tragedy are combined I think they call it a farce. Then as now, that is the situation we are facing and I acted in accordance with the times.
My not voting for Corbyn didn't enable a conservative victory, Corbyn managed that all by himself.
I know you blame people like me for the loss but people like me blame people like you with your support Corbyn for the loss too. There's no mileage in that blame game.
I think the real killer for May's 2017 campaign was the overconfidence of her advisors.
They were so convinced that a landslide was inevitable, and tbf the polling wholly supported it, that they thought they could put in policy ideas that would in 'normal' circumstances be electoral suicide - people having to sell their houses to pay for future social care? the Conservative Party? - and get away with it.
It's tempting to think that Corbyn had an invigorating leftist appeal in '17, but it's just as easy to say that May, or rather those around her, threw it by thinking she'd as good as won it before the campaign even started, so could put some difficult stuff in she could claim to have a mandate for later.
The crux of this thread is wether or not Starmer is a suitable leader for the Labour Party. Some on here think that he is too centrist and not progressive enough with his policies.
I agree, but I want to see something other than another Tory administration next time round so temper what I would like with what I believe possible.
The biggest difference between now and a generation ago is the change in demographics. Not immigration bit distribution of the population by age. 30 years ago the proportion of voters over 80 was miniscule, now it is significant. In the period since then we have seen a significant decline in the birth rate so the distribution of voters by age has become skewed dramatically and the trend is set to continue for the next 20 years at least.
That means that every year the average age of a voter gets older. That an increasing number of voters who have no stake in the economy or the education of their children. They vote for the triple lock pension and for things to say the same and their numbers are growing.
That's why progressive policies are struggling in the west, it's not that the average voter is getting more right wing its that they are getting older. Unless you put a ceiling on voting age you will have to tale their wishes into consideration unfortunately. It's just cold, hard statistics and they're scary.
May was saved in 2017 my the labour / tory anti snp pact in Scotland that led to 10 ( IIRC) tory MPs - more than they have had for decades. If it had not been for that we would have had a labour minority government and a second brexit referendum
Just think about that for a minute. Labours tribal hated of the SNP led directly to another tory government and brexit
Labour wasn’t proposing to stop brexit in 2017.”
I know that, that’s why I used the term ‘vain hope’. The word vain referring to vanity, I knew the game was up, couldn’t see an alternative so shut my eyes and pinned the tail on the donkey.
Likewise, vanity got the better of me in 2019 too, though this time I voted with my eyes open. Call my rejection of Corbyn a virtue signal if you like.
“And do what instead?”
Post on here?
So you voted for Labour when they said they wouldn't stop brexit, and didn't vote Labour when they said they'd offer a referendum. Because you don't like Corbyn.
Genius.
Going by his politics he must be about 85.
So you voted for Labour when they said they wouldn’t stop brexit, and didn’t vote Labour when they said they’d offer a referendum. Because you don’t like Corbyn.
Genius.
Unfortunately I think that was the case for a lot of people. Corbyn was the reason they didn't;t want a Labour party. They didn't listen to his policies or the fact he was generally on the right side historically, they just didn't like him (no doubt not helped by media)
Starmer may be dull but he doesn't have that problem so may actually have a better chance.
I would have MUCH preferred a Corbyn Labour government but I would also MUCH prefer a Starmer Labour government to any Tory government that I can imagine.
but I want to see something other than another Tory administration next time round so temper what I would like with what I believe possible.
That’s going to be our epitaph. Instead of demanding and doing what’s necessary to solve the problems we have, we accept what the politicians tell us is possible so that they can succeed in their careers. Until we break this downward spiral of ever reducing ambition and increasing apathy we’re f****.
we accept what the politicians tell us is possible
I find it very easy to find a politician who shares my idea of what is possible. Some of them are even MPs. We can keep blaming politicians for not being brave or imaginative enough… but, in England especially, there’s the small problem of the voters. Especially older voters.
Starmer may be dull but he doesn’t have that problem so may actually have a better chance.
Most people haven't a clue about Starmer; what he's about or what he stands for. And it's shame he chosen not to do battle with Johnson through the pandemic. It's made him appear very weak which is why now the Tories can get away with murder in all senses of the word.
Looks like we are doomed to cycles of lesser of all evils with current parry politics.
Corbyn was shaped by the media - when people say they didn't like Corbyn it's because the nature of the establishment calling out clearly beneficial things like Broadband Communism etc as a weapon against Corbyn's incompetence.
Things like the four day week and nationalisation are now hovering around. They were laughed out of existence during the previous elections.
People always prefer the status quo even if it's not that good for society at large. Conservatism itself is all about resisting change, and that now proliferates through the Labour party too.
I can't see a decent future coming out of all of this. It will take an earthquake to unseat the Tories. Even with Partygate the centrist excitement of this leading to a successful general election is severely miscalculated.
Chase the Tories by pushing back on their nihilism for sure but also target polices that are inspiring above all else.
I find it very easy to find a politician who shares my idea of what is possible.
I would suggest you’re not being imaginative enough. Seriously though, name me a single mainstream politician who speaks the truth about climate change and environmental collapse. They can’t even solve simple problems like homelessness let alone the big structural stuff.
Clive Lewis
I listened to RReeve and all she could go on about was VAT on fuel bills (only levied at 5% so more or less irrelevant) and 'growth' ie trickle down (which was shown to be nonsense decades ago). So nothing on offer and hence the vacuous comments about 'get a grip', Johnson being 'put on notice', 'security, prosperity, respect'. Anyone care to explain what all this means?
IF the Met do nothing and Keir says nothing then truly this country is ****ed.
People always prefer the status quo even if it’s not that good for society at large. Conservatism itself is all about resisting change, and that now proliferates through the Labour party too.
They certainly do like the status quo, especially if it protects their money and they are selfish (i.e. why should their money be used to make things better for other people)
Those people outnumber anyone who actually gives a shit about others so we get the governments we get. Having some dream like party which will solve all ills is great until you actually go out and try and get any votes.
Make the maximum voting ago 50 and you may have a chance of big change and progressive government but without that is inset changing any time soon.
Thanks Kerley.
It's not difficult is it? I bet those on here thinking me a red Tory didn't bother to look at that link about demographics that I posted. I pretty sure you didn't need to look it up Kerley because like me, you just looked around you and saw loads more old people about whilst schools were shutting down and thought, "that's going to change things isn't it?"
It's important to recognise that the situation is only going to get worse and that wherever the centre is, it will move progressively rightward year on year not down to changing attitudes but soley down to changing demographics.
The threat to progresssive ideas is therefore existential to however a good an idea might be.
We've talked a lot about 2017 on here. That was 5 years ago and in that 5 years the only thing we can say for certain is that the balance between the number of old and the number of young voters has widened significantly. So a policy idea that might have seen reasonable then would be much harder to get over the line now.
Unfortunately I think that was the case for a lot of people.
For a lot of people who were comfortable with "get brexit done", sure. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Clive Lewis
Can Clive Lewis be considered mainstream?
Those people outnumber anyone who actually gives a shit
I'm not buying this demographics excuse. They were the generation of mass union membership who repeatedly voted for left of centre governments (on both sides by todays standards) which maintained the welfare state and post-war settlement. They stopped voting for labour because labour stopped representing their interests and the resulting apathy and frustration with politics made them easy prey for dog-whistle populists and opportunists like Farage and Johnson. They can be won back, but to do that labour have to actually give them a reason to vote for them, and Starmer isn't convincing anyone that he's on their side.
"I’m not buying this demographics excuse."
Then you are a flat earther.
Then you are a flat earther.
Oh bugger off. I'm not denying the older generation are more inclined to vote for conservative/centrist policies, but I am saying they're not the selfish rightwing nutters you and others would have us believe. They grew up and worked in a left of centre social democratic system and did very well out of it. Then that system was dismantled by Thatcher and Blair and they rightly concluded that the political establishment, and in particular the labour party, were no longer interested in them, and like many other disenfranchised generations they fell into the hands of dog-whistle populists.
The demographics thing isn't talked about much but I'm sure it will be a mainstream conversation shortly.
There's a fallacy at play here. In the US, the thinking in the early noughties was that owing to demographic changes white people would soon be in a minority, so ergo the nation was inevitably on the path to progressive politics. The election of Obama only seemed to confirm this theory.
"There's just not enough angry old white men", was the retort.
Well, in the first instance they forgot about the angry old white women but further than that, they forgot that the constituency of old white voters would grow exponentially over the forthcoming years.
Looked at obliquely, the voter registration numbers would appear to suggest that there are more old people being born than young people. I know that sounds strange but it's the counter intuitive problem facing democracy in western societies. There arent really any examples in history where this demographic context has occurred so we have don't have examples to draw upon (This is why we miss its significance)
It is the elephant in the room, it hasn't been noticed yet but it'll be on a stampede by the end of the decade.
Keir says nothing then truly this country is ****.
have you not read what he has been saying - and the rest of the front bench - hammering away at it
have you not read what he has been saying
Yeah not a lot. The longer this goes on the more ineffective he looks. The electorate will once again conclude the labour party are pointless and they'll vote for Johnson's successor like they're a new political party. Labour's only chance is to start addressing the issues that people are concerned about. It's going to take much more than a 5% vat cut on energy bills and a tiny increase in the minimum wage.
Agreed dazh not a lot. He has been out manoeuvred to an extent.
He is playing to nice. It's a problem of the Labour Party. If I was asking questions in pmqs I'd be asking about Jennifer Arcuri every week. Russian money etc. The writing off of the covid fraud money.
This party gate could easily blow over. They need more stuff to stick.
A whole £4 a week. Whoopy-doo!
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1487349794678968322?s=20&t=-fxEIC-b4d4nzLwF9oRjfg
If it was all about demographics and an ageing electorate then both Wales and Scotland would also be seeing a swing towards right-of-centre governments.
If I was asking questions in pmqs I’d be asking about Jennifer Arcuri every week. Russian money etc.
If Starmer is being guided by Mandelson as rumoured then I'd imagine sleaze and Russian money will be strictly off the agenda.
Peter Mandelson rejected fresh calls yesterday to reveal the full extent of his relationship with Oleg Deripaska, saying that no conflict of interest arose during his meetings with the Russian billionaire.
Speaking to the Guardian at the Baltschug Kempinski hotel overlooking the Kremlin, the business secretary said he would not clarify how many times he had met Deripaska or what they discussed.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, urged Mandelson on Sunday to say whether he had ever talked about aluminium with Deripaska, whose companies benefited from a lowering of EU tariffs on the metal while Mandelson was EU trade commissioner.
"What is important is not where you meet somebody or how long you meet them for but what you do during the meeting," Mandelson said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/oct/28/peter-mandelson-oleg-deripaska-corfu
Yeah not a lot. The longer this goes on the more ineffective he looks.
Utter nonsense
You have decided he is ineffectual nd then see what fits your position
Both him and Raynor have been hammering away
Both him and Raynor have been hammering away
With very little impact. They can't even get a report published let alone get rid of Johnson. And then they try to make a thing about the cost of living, and make the centrepiece of their response a completely pointless and laughable 4 quid a week discount on bills that are set to increase by 70%.
Fair point Scotroutes.
I don't have the same grasp is Scotish and Welsh politics but isn't the SNP a Nationalist Party? and and didn't Wales vote for Brexit?
I think the voting patterns (and identities) in both countries are somewhat skewed by their relation to England,
I've always been aware that many traditional Labour voters have been extremely right wing culturally, whilst certain conservative voters are sometimes culturally progressive.
I see both Scotland and Wales as quite culturally conservative, never mind what it says on the tin (badge).
I'm sure the ever increasing old folk of Scotland and Wales will vote in their own interests, which is the point. This is a thread about Starmer and wether he should move to the centre or give what Corbyn tried another go. I am merely pointing out that progressive ideas become an increasingly harder sell year on year owing to changing demographics.
Had you said "The old folk in Scotland are more compassionate than those in England and are more likely to vote with their grandchildren interests at heart", then you'd have a better argument.
That argument wouldn't work for Wales though...
They can’t even get a report published let alone get rid of Johnson.
they have precisely zero power to do either. Jeepers.
I am merely pointing out that progressive ideas become an increasingly harder sell year on year owing to changing demographics.
there was actually some recent research that showed people hardly changed their views as they got older. the whole thesis is false.
I see both Scotland and Wales as quite culturally conservative,
Wrongly in the case of Scotland. Quite wrongly. this is why we voted for a tax raising government, why the tories have not had a majority here since the 50s etc etc. There is a long history of left wing / progressive politics going back well before the rise of the SNP
they have precisely zero power to do either.
Rubbish. As the official opposition they have significant leverage on the policies, actions and behaviour of the govt. Or at least they would have if Starmer provided any sort of electoral threat. But he doesn’t, so Johnson and his MPs feel safe in lying, covering stuff up and barely disguised corruption. If as you say Starmer has zero power then that’s proof of his failure and he should step down in favour of someone who can be more effective.
Daz beat me to it, if they cancel VAT on energy bills we save £16 on a bill of £333pm. Blimey O'Reilly, he's inciting a riot and a general strike.
there was actually some recent research that showed people hardly changed their views as they got older
Yup from what I remember its people do tend to get stuck in their views whatever those views are.
However that can lead to a "change" in political parties if the overall countries shifts on a subject which I think has resulted in some people switching to the tories and is something they capitalise on with their culture war and virtue signalling.
For example take a subject like gay or women rights. If we go back to the early 90s in both cases what was seen as a fairly standard position then would be seen as restricted mostly to a subsection on the right nowadays so that person could seem to have become more conservative and if that person didnt shift with the times they may well be voting tory now whilst whining that Johnson is a bit of a lefty and needs replacing with a true conservative.
Daz beat me to it, if they cancel VAT on energy bills
One reason to talk about vat on energy bills is that was one of the promised brexit benefits. So that we are getting the downsides but not the "upside" is something worth challenging them on.
Yep, and if they cut taxes they cut expenditure. The Tories could hardly object to that. All this old vs young bit is really a load of cobblers, the 'Red Wall' wasn't all codgers. Old Inky tries very hard but he needs to understand it's about bringing together theory and practice ie giving a class conscious perspective to people's lived experience and there's lots more of that coming up.
tj,
I said culturally conservative and you countered that observation with a fiscal example.
If you think that Scotland is more culturally liberal than England then fair enough, but give a cultural example to make your point.
Nationalism in England and nationalism in Scotland play out in very different ways that don't correlate entirely with the right / left axis reflected in each nations political parties.
Anyhow, I'm all about the numbers game and these days there's probably more voting pensioners in England than there are voters of all ages in Scotland.
Considering that this is a Starmer thread, do you think he's looking at Scotland planning hw to garner votes from the SNP, who you say is more left wing than Labour anyhow? or do you think he's looking at the ever increasing number of pensioners across the union who, for whatever reason, are allergic to overtly progressive policies?
Starmer in Scotland appears to be going for the unionist vote from the tories. thats the only pitch I have seen so far. labour in Scotland have given up on having any policies but SNP baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad
Rubbish. As the official opposition they have significant leverage on the policies, actions and behaviour of the govt.
I think this is the single most deluded thing I have seen posted on a politics thread
Just how is he supposed to do that with the tories having and 80- seat majority
Just how is he supposed to do that with the tories having and 80- seat majority
Do I really need to explain? An opposition’s leverage is fuelled by the electoral threat they present. Majorities can be overturned, MPs naturally fear losing their seats, so they will take action to save themselves when they think that might happen.
Starmer should be scaring the shit out of at least a 100 tory MPs. So far only a handful have declared their opposition to Johnson.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1487516193405681667?t=cMdU6EOI9aXq9VzsJmD1Zw&s=19
Defecting Tory MPs and off the scale corruption really hitting the spot.
The polls are all over the shop for sure but they really shouldn't be. There should be no room for Tories pulling back currently.
Never heard anything so daft in my life. Name one time where this has happened that a party with a big majority has been scared by the opposition into changing policy. Not a tiny majority but a big one
One instance of this
NO? I thought not
If you think that Scotland is more culturally liberal than England then fair enough, but give a cultural example to make your point.
Note the quote from Sturgeon
Or how about Bashir Ahmed - the first muslim MSP - " its not where I come from as a person, its where we are going as a nation"
Or this "as new MSPs were sworn in to what has been described as Holyrood’s most diverse ever parliament, taking their oaths in British Sign Language, Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi, Doric, Scots, Gaelic, Welsh and Orcadian, and after an election in which refugees had voting rights for the first time in Scotland."
Now what language do you take your oath in Westminster?
TJ you seem to be forgetting the most famous of all policy reversals - the poll tax and Thatcher’s downfall whilst having a 102 majority from the 87 election. Also Cameron was famous in his second term with a safe majority for nicking labour’s policies. Blair was so fearful of the tories he barely did anything at all with two massive majorities!
It’s ridiculous to say oppositions have no power. If they didn’t, democracy - even our shit dysfunctional version of it - wouldn’t work.
That was nothing to do with opposition pressure! Honestly its an absurd thesis. There was no effective opposition to thatcher at that point. Revisionism of the highest order. the poll tax was dropped because it was an electoral liability to tory core voters.
Now go on - explain how Starmer can force Johnson out and get the report published - whats the mechanism?
tj,
We've been here before, plucking individual cases to try and suggest that Scotland is less racist than England is not a good look.