Would you vote for this scumbag?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62436193
Printable View
Would you vote for this scumbag?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62436193
Scumbag imagine a Tory voter describing someone in that term.
Isn't life about respecting differences , Isn't that the Labour Party inclusiveness mantra..
Problem is he’s pandering to the staunch Tories.
What will win the election, what will win the Tory selection and what he actually thinks are 3 totally separate things. It’s the reason the left leaning tories will never get anywhere near party leader.
Look at this on Truss. https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1...iA1y2IdVliUWFg
God knows what she actually sides with
He's a snake oil salesman
She's completely mad and is just looking for votes .
They are both clowns .
Why do you mention the Labour Party? Supporters, backers, voters etc of various other parties are likely to have the opinion that the Tories are lower than vermin. You can rest assured it’s not something exclusive to Labour Party sympathisers. The ‘F*ck The Tories’ chant seems to be getting a grip at football matches and gigs, doubt the chanters are all Labour voters.
I’m not going to call Sunak ascumbag, vermin etc - I look at that and think he’s bonkers and has no clue how to relate to ordinary people - surely it’s just basic politics not to be caught saying things like that?
They are both horrible horrible choices.
Now is the time for a Mick Lynch to step up.
Lynch and Dempsey have been making idiots of self obsessed politicians and pundits like Piers Morgan over the past month or so by speaking plain common sense and drawing on their experiences of a working life that the career politicians and professional media men and women cannot begin to comprehend.
I wonder what the fuss is all about. Surely these are core Tory values and the raison d'etre for these people's entry into politics.
True levelling up requires wholesale redistribution of assets and more. The object of Tory politicians is to prevent it happening so as to protect their type of people from it affecting them.
Indeed so why would Labour then feel the need to focus more funding and energy on urban cities rather than other cities or areas not so urban , as it seems they had a funding formulas that did just that ?? Unless there is evidence to contradict this ?? ..
It seems to me both parties know where their guaranteed vote base is and divide it on those lines .
Labour know they have a secure base in the urban ethnic metropolitan areas , so apease that base..
Tories view the neglected underfunded smaller Cities/ Areas of the North East , Midlands that Labour lost interest in somehow and those middle English suburbs.
As I see it they are as selective as each other ...
This is where the success of Blairism kicked in , it cleverly joined those areas together , then Labour decided not to build or better Blair , it just decided to implode on itself... and here we are today 2022 still single digits between the parties , an incredible sad state of affairs really as they should be making huge gains ??
You don't know anything about the Conservative party or Thatcher rite free market economics if you think her low tax pitch is just a ruse. I'm not saying she's definitely right to cut taxes at this time as it's a complicated topic, but she genuinely believes it is the right thing to do. That's what fiscal Conservatives do...
This is why the politics of Boris Johnson were never going to work - he was appealing to two very different electorates.
To one group he promised billions in "levelling up" and the other he assured them he'd deliver tax cuts and a small state. It still amazes me how so many fell for this con trick. He was always going to let down one group and it's hardly a surprise that his premiership was a disaster.
It looks like Truss is trying to sell the same nonsense and is clearly as unprincipled as Johnson.
Sunak is slightly more realistic but showed his true colours earlier, a sort of reverse Robin Hood.
What a time to be alive.
They'll cross out Sunak and Truss on their ballot papers and vote Boris back in.:hehe:
I suppose one benefit of the Tories veering further to the right is that there's more middle ground for Labour to mop up, even with the inept Starmer. I genuinely feel that there are some who feel that Britain is now a right wing country, particularly after Brexit, but it's not true at all. Theresa May couldn't get an overall majority against Corbyn. Johnson, the class clown, appealed to lots of people, not because he was a Tory, but because he'd spent years creating his image on TV. There's nobody in the Conservative Party capable of wooing the electorate like Johnson. Sadly, there are few elsewhere in any party capable of it, either.
The Tories sometimes manage to pull 4 out of 10 voters and that's enough as the opposition is divided .
That still means that 6 out of 10 people who vote don't vote Tory
So if the tory stranglehold on power is to be loosened we need a decent labour party, a decent liberal party or a united opposition .
Proportional representation is an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. For example, if a party gained 40% of the total votes, a perfectly proportional system would allow them to gain 40% of the seats.
This would mean that lots of constituencies in a general election would be represented by an MP who failed to gain the most votes.
Would that be an acceptable scenario in your constituency?
Constituencies would have to change. PR would have a ripple effect right through the political system.
We could be into bigger constituencies backed up by regional lists for top-up MPs to achieve proportionality, or any of dozens of other models in use around the world that have been designed to achieve PR.
What can't work is 650 constituencies that operate just like now but with 'allocated MPs' from some national PR machine.
Although as others have said in most constituencies the sitting MP who 'represents the area' and does all the casework was not voted in by the majority of the electors.
I would certainly accept it over the current system. One overarching benefit is that PR would tend to exclude more extremist policies from either side of the Great Divide.
I think there is a better than fair chance this approach would result in more pragmatic politics better suited to tackle challenging issues.
Back in 2019:
Attachment 5059
Attachment 5060
Tories had 70 more seats that they would have done under ‘simple’ P.R.
Labour had 14 fewer.
Lib Dems were the party with the most to gripe about, given the share of their vote. However many of these votes cast for Lib Dems were probably protest votes i.e. anything but Tory or Labour.
Ditto for ‘Green’ voters.
SNP got more than they ‘deserved’.
The ‘rest’ are largely insignificant in terms of making an argument for P.R.
So basically 45% voted Tory and 45% voted Labour / Lib Dem.
Not sure whether P.R. would be that much fairer.
Chaos would ensue?
We will never have pr in this country
It helps out the liberals and others who get a fair amount of support yet few seats
The liberals went in with the Tories for a chance of a form of pr but the country wasn't even interested in getting off its arse to vote
I think even the labour party campaigned against pr ?
I can't stand corbyn and his gang in the same way I don't mind moderate Tories like the Ken Clarke of twenty years ago
John Major was a moderate fella too
If we could have a centrist party with liberal social policy it would get my vote
I thought the defection of a few liberal , tory and Labour mps with that chukka ummuna was the start but it was a damp lettuce
Labour was officially, if half-heartedly, in support of a change to the Alternative Vote system, but the party was completely split internally. The most high profile Labour people campaigned (with the Tories) to keep First Past The Post.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56435341