Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[The Real Rasta]

If you're saying there are any mitigating circumstances for Baddiel's blackface - an act he hasn't apologised to Jason Lee for to this day, indeed an act that he used frequently to say that the backlash to which means he doesn't get a fair hearing - then you must see why he was disgusted surely?

Leave him to it, he knows fine rightly mate, which is why he chose to leave out half my post and focus on and insinuate what he did about me saying jewface and hooked nose (excuse me for not knowing any other physical stereotype of a Jewish person as I'm neither Jewish nor antisemitic and I wouldn't associate with anybody who is or any kind of racist for that matter to have an in depth knowledge of what other stereotypes I could have used in place of that to make my point).

[Yorkykopite]

Like I said before I'm off the roundabout (I thought your thumbs up suggested you were too). Not least of my problems with the 'conversation' is I haven't a clue what either one of you is talking about. Your posts are very unclear.

[oldfordie]

Just to add to/reinforce Nobby’s reply, the playbook goes something like:

• Make local authorities 'responsible' for implementing policies in the name of empowering local democracy;
• Starve them of funds to the point where services fail;
• Lie and point the finger of blame at the council;
• Use central funding to bring in private sector/consultants/party donors/mates.

And in more recent twists:

• Hold competitions to fund local projects (rather than using core funding);
• Fix the results to give most of the money to Tory (or target) seats;
• Lie about the ineffectiveness of opposition run councils;
• Marvel at results in Tory councils.

Where the lies are allowed to perpetuate they will eventually supplant events on the ground with their own narrative.

Yes the Government have been cutting council subsidies for years, the Torys had chopped council subsidies by over 60% last time i checked a few yrs back, I remember Corbyn questioning Cameron over the letter his constituents wrote moaning about council cuts in his own Constituency, the Torys intend to cut council subsidies to zero so things will get even worse for local Councils.
The point am making really though is the arguments to defend Labour from obvious criticism from ill informed constituents should be a priority, the answers to defend Labour should be more vocal to squash all the ignorant big mouths who tear into Labour for shutting local Hospitals. if you do a online search looking for why Hartlepool hospital closed you don't get any Labour defence except for Labour MP opposes Hospital closure from a article a few yrs back. others say we can't get the doctors or population too small. am sure this must be happening all over the country.

[Bobsackamano]

If that's the full extent of your imagination it could do with a bit of work.

Maybe 'educate' was the wrong choice of word but I think the substantive point remains: if you build formal or informal networks between people with similar vested interests, you undermine attempts to divide them.

That sounds great in theory but how on earth do you go about that? Sounds very management speak to me, vague notions about what to do without any practical steps.

It could just be my lack of imagination again but can you think of any practical steps to build these formal and informal networks that you speak of?

My impression of people of the left (of all stripes) is that they are unable to stand being near anyone who doesnt agree with them on everything. Witness the shitshow of the past 5 years for evidence of that.

[Nobby Reserve]

Not the Shirley Porter who sold off Westminster's cemeteries and debunked to Israel to avoid the financial consequences?

Yeah, the one who masterminded the 'homes for votes' gerrymandering scandal, where her council shunted likely Labour voters out of the borough and flogged off hostels and social housing to developer friends on the cheap, to develop high-cost apartments for likely Tory voters.

The corrupt crook was ordered to pay a £12.3m surcharge.

She's the daughter and heiress of Jack Cohen, who founded Tesco.

[Red Raw]

Just to add to this:

Johnson’s planning laws an ‘utter disaster’, say countryside campaigners

Critics say bill unveiled in Queen’s speech to spur housebuilding will bring ‘dark age of development’
...

Indeed. Local planning laws have been a key target for successive Tory administrations.

Folk may remember when George Gideon Oliver Osborne, son of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon and Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, educated at St. Paul's and Magdalen College, Oxford scrapped the key commitment to zero carbon homes in 2015 (just before it was about to come into law) while at the same time removing powers for LAs to set requirements for energy efficiency standards that were more ambitious than building regs

The LAs of course remained responsible for carbon reduction targets.  Other loopholes allow developers to build to standards that were current at/near the time of the planning application rather than when they were built. It is possible for instance to stick in for the planning permission, dig a couple of holes, then sit on the project for several years until market conditions appear favourable, then complete the new homes to crappy 2013 standards.

Jenrick continues the tradition of trashing Local Plans and efforts to curtail carbon emissions where the interests/profits of his developer mates are at risk.  One recent example: https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/jenrick-approves-700-home-barratt-scheme-despite-climate-fears/5111644.article

Such moves, they are inclined to say, are designed to 'remove the burden' from housebuilders (mates) which by definition means said burden is dumped on the poor saps who buy the leaky, inefficient homes and have a lifetime of higher energy bills to look forward to.

I won't even get started on the standards for tower blocks and the despicable, post-Grenfall ruling that requires leaseholders to subsidise the shortcuts and penny-pinching practices of developers.


edit: good to see the Osborne autocorrect is still enforced on RAWK. 

[Nobby Reserve]

Yes the Government have been cutting council subsidies for years, the Torys had chopped council subsidies by over 60% last time i checked a few yrs back,

Not all councils. Some Tory councils, mostly in the leafy SE suburbs, have suffered little in the way of central grant cuts.

It's hard to find a full league table, but this study from 2019 has some comparisons:

https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/cities-outlook-2019/a-decade-of-austerity/

This bit is particularly crushing:

Northern English cities have been hardest hit by austerity

Cities in the north of England were much harder hit than those elsewhere in Britain (see Figure 5). Seven of the 10 cities with the largest cuts are in the North East, North West or Yorkshire, and on average northern cities saw a cut of 20 per cent to their spending. This contrasted to a cut of 9 per cent for cities in the East, South East and South West (excluding London).

Barnsley has been the city hardest hit by austerity on this measure, with a reduction of 40 per cent in its day-to-day spending on services. This was a fall of around £145 million, which equated to a cut of £688 for every resident in the city.

On a per capita basis, Liverpool has seen the largest cut. Its £441 million reduction in spending equates to £816 fall for every resident in the city.

[Jiminy Cricket]

edit: good to see the Osborne autocorrect is still enforced on RAWK. 

It tends to irritate me. It is not so much the repetitiveness - even more repetitive than Sangria's posts* - it is the breaking of links which properly irks me.

* No offense, Sangria. I often find myself agreeing with your points, repeatedly.

[Red-Soldier]

You said you were confused. I think you still are. Those left-wing sites have the same "feeling" as you do. That's all. Shared feelings are not what I'm after.

The yougov link is interesting though. I'm suprised you posted it:

You must have missed this link they also posted.  Somehow, I don't think you'll rubbish the publication 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-923X.12963

[Nobby Reserve]

Indeed. Local planning laws have been a key target for successive Tory administrations.

Folk may remember when George Gideon Oliver Osborne, son of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon and Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, educated at St. Paul's and Magdalen College, Oxford scrapped the key commitment to zero carbon homes in 2015 (just before it was about to come into law) while at the same time removing powers for LAs to set requirements for energy efficiency standards that were more ambitious than building regs

The LAs of course remained responsible for carbon reduction targets.  Other loopholes allow developers to build to standards that were current at/near the time of the planning application rather than when they were built. It is possible for instance to stick in for the planning permission, dig a couple of holes, then sit on the project for several years until market conditions appear favourable, then complete the new homes to crappy 2013 standards.

Jenrick continues the tradition of trashing Local Plans and efforts to curtail carbon emissions where the interests/profits of his developer mates are at risk.  One recent example: https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/jenrick-approves-700-home-barratt-scheme-despite-climate-fears/5111644.article

Such moves, they are inclined to say, are designed to 'remove the burden' from housebuilders (mates) which by definition means said burden is dumped on the poor saps who buy the leaky, inefficient homes and have a lifetime of higher energy bills to look forward to.

I won't even get started on the standards for tower blocks and the despicable, post-Grenfall ruling that requires leaseholders to subsidise the shortcuts and penny-pinching practices of developers.


edit: good to see the Osborne autocorrect is still enforced on RAWK. 

One of the first planning rules the Tory scum cancelled was the requirement for house builders to have a minimum number of dwellings per [area measurement] and some affordable housing on any development.

This after developers whining that having smelly paupers on developments, in affordable housing, or having to include some small houses/apartments on developments had a downward impact on the prices they could charge for their 5-bed executive homes.

[Yorkykopite]

You must have missed this link they also posted.  Somehow, I don't think you'll rubbish the publication 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-923X.12963

Never heard of it.   

[diggerling!]

See, for example, almost everything to do with Brexit. Prior to the referendum, almost non-existent on the lists of things people were concerned about - ever since, the single biggest issue in the UK constitution and politics. Campaign utterly fuelled by managed, targeted lies and facilitated by potentially illegal use of personal data. People don't like admitting to having made mistakes so once a lie has been bought, rowing it back takes a good amount of moral strength. This becomes harder the longer the lies are allowed to persist.

This isn't really evidence that opinions were changed by lies though. For that you'd have to show a poll from before the campaign that shows the result would have been different, and have interview evidence from voters that they changed their minds because of a proven lie. Otherwise it's fair to assume that people's pre-existing worldview was the dominant factor in their decision to vote, and many opinions on the EU were at least partially formed before the referendum was announced. An undercurrent of anti EU feeling had built on both sides of the political divide, as well as a broad pro-European faction.

There was also, let's be honest, lies and disinformation on both sides. Whether you think one side was worse than the other really will depend on your worldview (there was an objective study but I can't find it now. It didn't make for pretty reading for either side though).

Finally, even with the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of these all lies and disinformation, polling shows that the result would be much the same today (https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/). Shouldn't the lies being uncovered make people change their minds if your theory was correct? It doesn't take any moral strength to row back if you know your opinion was based on a lie does it. There must be something else, some overiding factor, that formed the opinion with the lie operating as a sort of support act, no?

This ready supply of red meat to the base support was sufficiently potent to provoke an attack on the seat of government. The election lies were however designed to change to minds of Republicans.  The Big Lie has forced Republican Representatives and Senators to pick sides, these people are the among the most powerful opinion formers in the US and the overwhelming majority of them have gone with Trump to the point where the likes of Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney are being marginalised in their own party.

You have to consider though that this all took place during a time when Republicans face a very real existential threat: the demographics are against them and their position in their society is under threat from what they see as 'outsiders', 'cultural marxists' and other assorted bogeymen. That threat is quite real and that is forming the essential worldview that frames the rest of their opinions. 'The Big Lie' as Snyder calls it doesn't work on liberals because their (alternative) worldview doesn't allow it to, but for the Trumpists it affirms their beliefs. It's fuelling the fire rather than starting it.

If you want read more about the power of Trumps lies see, for example Timothy Snyder at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/magazine/trump-coup.html or for the short version see the associated Twitter thread at https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/1347212082035519489

We underestimate the power of lies from Trump and Johnson at our peril, they feed off our complacency.

I don't really disagree with anything he says, I just think he's overblowing it a bit.

As the old adage goes: Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither.

[oldfordie]

Not all councils. Some Tory councils, mostly in the leafy SE suburbs, have suffered little in the way of central grant cuts.

It's hard to find a full league table, but this study from 2019 has some comparisons:

https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/cities-outlook-2019/a-decade-of-austerity/

This bit is particularly crushing:

Typical Torys, having said that Labour councils aren't to blame for cuts forced on them by a lack of funding from government but the public in places like Hartlepool lay all the blame on Labour for chopping local hospital etc. this really should be defended better.

[Yorkykopite]

Typical Torys, having said that Labour councils aren't to blame for cuts forced on them by a lack of funding from government but the public in places like Hartlepool lay all the blame on Labour for chopping local hospital etc. this really should be defended better.

I don't know the full story (or even half) of how Hartlepool local council defended itself against the Tory cuts since 2008. But it's staggering to me that they are copping the blame from the voters.

[Elmo!]

You said you were confused. I think you still are. Those left-wing sites have the same "feeling" as you do. That's all. Shared feelings are not what I'm after.

The yougov link is interesting though. I'm suprised you posted it:

As Keir Starmer approaches 100 days in office as leader of the Labour Party, what do Labour voters, and the general public, make of the former lawyer?
Since taking office as leader of the Labour party, Sir Keir Starmer has been presented with a tough set of challenges; unite the party following a crushing general election defeat, tackle the issue of antisemitism, and win back Labour’s key voters. Add to that list the COVID-19 pandemic and a resulting surge in support for the Government, and you’ve got a truly monumental task ahead of you – so what do Labour voters and the general public make of him 100 days in, and how does he stack up against his predecessor?

How do Starmer’s early days compare to Corbyn’s?
Firstly, looking at whether adults thought Jeremy Corbyn was doing well or badly in the months following his election on September 12th 2015 shows that the majority of Brits thought he was doing poorly – with his net score firmly in the red. Roughly four months after his election in December 2015 Corbyn held a net score of -32, with 60% of adults saying he was doing badly compared to just 28% who said he was doing well.

Looking at the equivalent data for Keir Starmer shows the start difference between the two leaders. Starmer, unlike Corbyn, has maintained a positive net score (meaning more Brits think he is doing well than badly) since his election. As of July 6th, 47% of Brits said Keir Starmer is doing well as leader of the oppositon, with 23% saying he is doing badly leaving Starmer with a net score of 30, compared to the -32 net score Corbyn had at a similar stage of his tenure.

Updated polling came out about this today.....

Keir Starmer’s leadership ratings now worse than Jeremy Corbyn’s, polls show

Keir Starmer's poll ratings are now worse than Jeremy Corbyn's at the same point in their respective leaderships, polls show.

A new survey from YouGov conducted on Monday found Sir Keir has a net rating of -48, with just 17 per cent of voters saying he is doing well and 65 per cent saying he is doing badly.

At around the same point in Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in September 2016, Sir Keir's predecessor had a net rating of -40 per cent.

21 per cent of voters then believed Mr Corbyn was doing well while 61 per cent thought he was doing badly.

Mr Corbyn had by this point survived an attempt by internal opponents to oust him as leader, winning the 2016 leadership contest by 62 per cent to 38 for his rival Owen Smith.

His ratings stayed around the same level until 2017, recording a net score of -43 per cent in mid-December.

The dire comparison is a blow for Sir Keir, whose pitch to Labour members centered around the idea that he would be more popular with voters than Mr Corbyn.

But his approach has so far failed to bear electoral fruit, with Labour last week losing a slew of council seats across the country last contested under Mr Corbyn.

An embarrassing parliamentary by-election defeat in Hartlepool, a seat Labour won in 2017 and 2019, has also sparked a wave of criticism, as has his handling of an ensuing reshuffle.

A source who was close to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership told The Independent: "Keir is proving the old adage right that if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

"Jeremy's ratings were low at this point after a year of being savaged by the media and his own MPs. Keir's had a softball ride.

"Unless Starmer develops a backbone, shows people what he's about and what his alternative for the country is, his ratings will fall further in an election rather that rise dramatically like Jeremy's did."

Keir Starmer's team did not respond to a request for comment on the poll findings.

Labour sit as far as 10 points behind the Conservatives in the voting intention polls for the next general election, according to the latest surveys.

Sir Keir’s personal ratings have been on the slide in earnest since November, with every YouGov poll since one conducted on 23 November showing an increase in his negatives and a fall in positives.

Since the middle of February more voters have said they have a negative view of the Labour leader than a positive one.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-polls-corbyn-labour-b1845588.html

[Yorkykopite]

Quick, bring Jeremy back.

[oldfordie]

I don't know the full story (or even half) of how Hartlepool local council defended itself against the Tory cuts since 2008. But it's staggering to me that they are copping the blame from the voters.

Yep, hard to find any info on the arguments made by Labour to lay all the blame for the cuts on the Torys, point for me is it shouldn't be left to individuals to think of arguments to counter all the publics anger for local cuts to services etc. heads should of got together long before any election to work out what to say when someone tears into them for closing local hospital etc.

[Elmo!]

Quick, bring Jeremy back.

I certainly wasn't arguing for that. 

[Jiminy Cricket]

Updated polling came out about this today.....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-polls-corbyn-labour-b1845588.html

But isn't that to be expected after an election where Labour did not vastly increase their share of the vote (from a very low level)? Maybe Labour should have done better (and Starmer take the blame). But when Corbyn's support was polled (unless I am mistaken), this was not days after a (reportedly) poor performance in local elections.

I am not necessarily suggesting that Starmer should have done better. As Yorkykopite stated a few days ago, this was (effectively) a war election (COVID). It is very difficult for the opposition to do well in such a situation, especially following positive news 'on the war front'.

[Elmo!]

But isn't that to be expected after an election where Labour did not vastly increase their share of the vote (from a very low level)? Maybe Labour should have done better (and Starmer take the blame). But when Corbyn's support was polled (unless I am mistaken), this was not days after a (reportedly) poor performance in local elections.

I am not necessarily suggesting that Starmer should have done better. As Yorkykopite stated a few days ago, this was (effectively) a war election (COVID). It is very difficult for the opposition to do well in such a situation, especially following positive news 'on the war front'.

I wasn't really posting it as a judgement... just thought if you are going to compare Starmer and Corbyn you might as well use the latest rather then a poll from last year.

You do have a point though - pollingstraight after elections is going to have a big impact on the results.

[Yorkykopite]

I am not necessarily suggesting that Starmer should have done better. As Yorkykopite stated a few days ago, this was (effectively) a war election (COVID). It is very difficult for the opposition to do well in such a situation, especially following positive news 'on the war front'.

Who was it - I wanna say Clemenceau - who said "any fool can govern in a siege"?

Johnson is the fool.

The accountancy (both economic and moral) comes later. That's when the general public comes to its senses and asks the big question. "Who has done well out of Covid?"

This is the reason why the Labour party should not despair at the election results. A slight swing to Labour is not good enough obviously. But the big swing will come later.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Who was it - I wanna say Clemenceau - who said "any fool can govern in a siege"?

Johnson is the fool.

The accountancy (both economic and moral) comes later. That's when the general public comes to its senses and asks the big question. "Who has done well out of Covid?"

This is the reason why the Labour party should not despair at the election results. A slight swing to Labour is not good enough obviously. But the big swing will come later.

Count Cavour—"any fool can govern in a state of siege".

Needless to say, I looked it up.

[TepidT2O]

Petition against voter id here..

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/576024

[Yorkykopite]

Count Cavour—"any fool can govern in a state of siege".

Needless to say, I looked it up.

Ta!

[west_london_red]

Who was it - I wanna say Clemenceau - who said "any fool can govern in a siege"?

Johnson is the fool.

The accountancy (both economic and moral) comes later. That's when the general public comes to its senses and asks the big question. "Who has done well out of Covid?"

This is the reason why the Labour party should not despair at the election results. A slight swing to Labour is not good enough obviously. But the big swing will come later.

I don’t think the big question is ‘whose done well’ but more ‘whose going to pay for it all?’

Because when the tax rises and spending cuts come, we all know who gets screwed the most.

[Zeb]

Obviously Covid has changed everything but do you see his utterances, and his appointment of Reeves, as being fully in line with his pledge to maintain Labour’s previous plans?

Think you'd very surprised if you actually looked at what Reeves has been writing past few years. eg https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FABJ7429-Socialism-Pamphlet-0819-WEB-002.pdf

Think there's a great deal of confusion about reaching out to voters meaning a lurch to the 'right' in economic policy. It doesn't. It's really about finding a bridge between cities and towns, between renters and homeowners, between students and pensioners. It's the basics of forming an electoral coalition which Labour have failed to do for all but a decade these past 40 years.


----

@Nobby - was looking for something else but remembered this and thought back to a discussion we had a while back on how big the 'left' was. This is really good on breaking it down for 2017 and 19: https://medium.com/@psurridge/values-and-the-2019-election-94ec07cc7552

[Wild Romany Boy]

You said you were confused. I think you still are. Those left-wing sites have the same "feeling" as you do. That's all. Shared feelings are not what I'm after.

The yougov link is interesting though. I'm suprised you posted it:

As Keir Starmer approaches 100 days in office as leader of the Labour Party, what do Labour voters, and the general public, make of the former lawyer?
Since taking office as leader of the Labour party, Sir Keir Starmer has been presented with a tough set of challenges; unite the party following a crushing general election defeat, tackle the issue of antisemitism, and win back Labour’s key voters. Add to that list the COVID-19 pandemic and a resulting surge in support for the Government, and you’ve got a truly monumental task ahead of you – so what do Labour voters and the general public make of him 100 days in, and how does he stack up against his predecessor?

How do Starmer’s early days compare to Corbyn’s?
Firstly, looking at whether adults thought Jeremy Corbyn was doing well or badly in the months following his election on September 12th 2015 shows that the majority of Brits thought he was doing poorly – with his net score firmly in the red. Roughly four months after his election in December 2015 Corbyn held a net score of -32, with 60% of adults saying he was doing badly compared to just 28% who said he was doing well.

Looking at the equivalent data for Keir Starmer shows the start difference between the two leaders. Starmer, unlike Corbyn, has maintained a positive net score (meaning more Brits think he is doing well than badly) since his election. As of July 6th, 47% of Brits said Keir Starmer is doing well as leader of the oppositon, with 23% saying he is doing badly leaving Starmer with a net score of 30, compared to the -32 net score Corbyn had at a similar stage of his tenure.

We are not 100 days in now playa, it is over a year, and that score hasn't maintained.

You know, there are a lot of stats saying Ian Rush was a great striker, but those stats wouldn't have him in the team now. Starmer has fallen badly since, and it needs to be addressed by him and his team. You can't rely on the reality of Tory destruction hitting home anymore, nor should they want to.

[Nobby Reserve]

Petition against voter id here..

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/576024

Signed.

[Nobby Reserve]

@Nobby - was looking for something else but remembered this and thought back to a discussion we had a while back on how big the 'left' was. This is really good on breaking it down for 2017 and 19: https://medium.com/@psurridge/values-and-the-2019-election-94ec07cc7552

Thanks - skimmed through it and looks an interesting read that I'll go through more carefully later

[Nobby Reserve]

Basically, this corrupt Tory government's plans for the next Parliament:

Make it harder for people to vote (even though turnout is a problem and not fraud)
Make it harder to challenge its decisions in court
Make it possible for the Prime minister to control when a general election takes place instead of the elected Parliament
Make it harder to protest about any of this

Given all the corruption, the underhand awarding of contracts to family, chums and party donors, the assisting property developers who donate to the party, the refusal to hold public inquiries into alleged wrongdoing, the burying of the report into dodgy Russian crooks funding the Tory Party, the burying of the report into neo-Nazi Patel's bullying, the breaking of international treaties, the whole duplicity of Brexit, this government is by far the most corrupt in modern history, and turning the UK into a banana republic.

[oldfordie]

Basically, this corrupt Tory government's plans for the next Parliament:

Make it harder for people to vote (even though turnout is a problem and not fraud)
Make it harder to challenge its decisions in court
Make it possible for the Prime minister to control when a general election takes place instead of the elected Parliament
Make it harder to protest about any of this

Given all the corruption, the underhand awarding of contracts to family, chums and party donors, the assisting property developers who donate to the party, the refusal to hold public inquiries into alleged wrongdoing, the burying of the report into dodgy Russian crooks funding the Tory Party, the burying of the report into neo-Nazi Patel's bullying, the breaking of international treaties, the whole duplicity of Brexit, this government is by far the most corrupt in modern history, and turning the UK into a banana republic.

Many of the public believe the extreme left should be nowhere near power as they are very dangerous while completely oblivious to the dangers of the extreme right. we have seen this happen in the US as well as the UK. millions voting for 2 extreme right corrupt partys who care little for democracy or the future of their country, the only thing that matters to them is personal gain and power.
The voter suppression laws being brought in by the Torys will make it more difficult for lower income voters to vote. people on low income are far more likely to vote Labour.
This Tory party will do anything to get what they want and that includes stopping your MP from representing you in Parliament, a right we have all held for hundreds of years. Johnson took away that right when he lied to the queen to suspend Parliament to stop any democratic resistance to Brexit. the Supreme court stopped him, Torys decided they should be above the law so the Supreme courts power to hold them to account when they break the law will stop.

[Bobsackamano]

Many of the public believe the extreme left should be nowhere near power as they are very dangerous while completely oblivious to the dangers of the extreme right. we have seen this happen in the US as well as the UK. millions voting for 2 extreme right corrupt partys who care little for democracy or the future of their country, the only thing that matters to them is personal gain and power.
The voter suppression laws being brought in by the Torys will make it more difficult for lower income voters to vote. people on low income are far more likely to vote Labour.
This Tory party will do anything to get what they want and that includes stopping your MP from representing you in Parliament, a right we have all held for hundreds of years. Johnson took away that right when he lied to the queen to suspend Parliament to stop any democratic resistance to Brexit. the Supreme court stopped him, Torys decided they should be above the law so the Supreme courts power to hold them to account when they break the law will stop.

Im not disagreeing with any general points but must point out that its not true anymore that people on low incomes are more likely to vote Labour.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

[Nobby Reserve]

Many of the public believe the extreme left should be nowhere near power as they are very dangerous while completely oblivious to the dangers of the extreme right. we have seen this happen in the US as well as the UK. millions voting for 2 extreme right corrupt partys who care little for democracy or the future of their country, the only thing that matters to them is personal gain and power.
The voter suppression laws being brought in by the Torys will make it more difficult for lower income voters to vote. people on low income are far more likely to vote Labour.
This Tory party will do anything to get what they want and that includes stopping your MP from representing you in Parliament, a right we have all held for hundreds of years. Johnson took away that right when he lied to the queen to suspend Parliament to stop any democratic resistance to Brexit. the Supreme court stopped him, Torys decided they should be above the law so the Supreme courts power to hold them to account when they break the law will stop.

There's the big Tory gerrymandering project going through shortly, too

They tried this in 2011 when they tagged a gerrymandering bill onto the AV referendum (helping torpedo the chances of PR, and the useless Lib Dems let them)

[Nobby Reserve]

Im not disagreeing with any general points but must point out that its not true anymore that people on low incomes are more likely to vote Labour.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

Whilst that's true, a majority vote for non-Tory candidates.

Also Old Fordie was not fully accurate just saying the 'low income people' are most likely to not hold photo ID. The groups with the lowest proportion of having photo ID are under 30's and BAME people. Both of these vote heavily for non-Tory parties.

[Nobby Reserve]

Monbiot making a very accurate comparison:

Thread
George Monbiot
@GeorgeMonbiot
·
11 May
When I ask myself what trajectory this country is on, the most likely answer seems to be Orbán’s Hungary. How much in this thread sounds familiar?
1. The ruling class, wallowing in corruption, enjoys total impunity. Meanwhile, peaceful protest and other freedoms are criminalised.

2. No political scandal is a sacking offence.
3. A complicit media so distorts the reporting of government action that it becomes almost impossible to distinguish truth from lies.
4. Apparently endless rule is sustained by voter suppression and gerrymandering.

5. Politics proceeds by means of the grand gesture. Billions are spent on major infrastructure, while basic services are allowed to wither and die.
6. Public agencies are repurposed to direct money into the hands of chums.

7. People trying to defend minority rights and liberal values are bated and provoked, as the government seeks new enemies and revels in its illiberalism.
8. Policies that would once have made you gasp are normalised, as the frontier of acceptable outrage is constantly extended.

9. Immigrants are demonised and blamed for problems for which they bear no responsibility, even as their numbers fall.
10. The government inventively discovers endless scapegoats for its own failures.

11. Patriotism and flag-waving are used to advance an agenda that destroys the very fabric of public life and the meaning of the nation state as a shared polity belonging to all its citizens. The worse the state of the nation, the more national greatness is invoked.

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1392060740954116097

[Nobby Reserve]

Cold War Steve is more blunt:

[Yorkykopite]

I don’t think the big question is ‘whose done well’ but more ‘whose going to pay for it all?’

Because when the tax rises and spending cuts come, we all know who gets screwed the most.

Yes. Its the same question of course. - and generally it's a class question. Some people will have made money from Covid (lots of it). Some will have to pay off the debt.

It's why the country should now be talking about a wealth tax.

[Yorkykopite]

We are not 100 days in now playa, it is over a year, and that score hasn't maintained.

You know, there are a lot of stats saying Ian Rush was a great striker, but those stats wouldn't have him in the team now. Starmer has fallen badly since, and it needs to be addressed by him and his team. You can't rely on the reality of Tory destruction hitting home anymore, nor should they want to.

I know. I was merely quoting the link he posted.

Tho obviously your Ian Rush analogy is ludicrous since has long ago retired.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Quick, bring Jeremy back.

He, like Garlic Bread, is the future!

[TSC]

Basically, this corrupt Tory government's plans for the next Parliament:

Make it harder for people to vote (even though turnout is a problem and not fraud)
Make it harder to challenge its decisions in court
Make it possible for the Prime minister to control when a general election takes place instead of the elected Parliament
Make it harder to protest about any of this

Given all the corruption, the underhand awarding of contracts to family, chums and party donors, the assisting property developers who donate to the party, the refusal to hold public inquiries into alleged wrongdoing, the burying of the report into dodgy Russian crooks funding the Tory Party, the burying of the report into neo-Nazi Patel's bullying, the breaking of international treaties, the whole duplicity of Brexit, this government is by far the most corrupt in modern history, and turning the UK into a banana republic.

You missed the Covid inquiry to maybe conclude sometime this decade.