General Election
 

Questions for CF-ers, who have said they will never vote Labour.

(this being asked by a 66 year old who has never voted Labour).

A) considering that the Labour Party have only been in power for 13 out of the last 50 years, what did they do in that time* that makes you feel that way?

B) What do you think the Labour Party will do if they get elected, that would make you not vote for them?

C) What could persuade you to vote for them?


*not including the farrago that was the Iraq War (which was also supported by the Conservatives)

Re: General Election
 

Will comment more later, however for now I’d observe that it’s traditional to date modern politics from 1945, not 1973. While that is now almost a lifetime ago, I think it’s fair to say that perceptions of both our main political parties arise as much from the post-war period as they do from the 1970s. That being the case, Labour has had 30 years of power rather than 13, which admittedly is not very much better.

Re: General Election
 

I was able to vote under Thatcher, and my parents voted labour, at the time she was know as milk snatcher Thatcher.

I had always voted labour, but that changed when the then leader JC was a leaver, but switched to remain as Conservatives were a leave party (after DC left) .

Being a leaver I could not vote a remainer party, and switched to Tory.

It would surprise me if labour would try and take us back in to the EU and surrendering the pound and switch us to the Euro.

I cannot see me voting for Labour in the foreseeable future.

I should add I refrained from saying Liebour instead of labour.

Re: General Election
 

I will also post in depth later when I have the time. I would just like to pull you up on something.

Voted on yes, based on a pack of lies, a complete fiction put forward by Blair and Campbell, just because Blair had promised his support to Bush.

How they never got done for misleading parliament is beyond me compared to recent goings on.

So, I therefore, reject that caveat to your question.

Re: General Election
 

I very much doubt I will ever vote again.Sadly we are now basically a two party country so voting liberal or green is just a meaningless gesture. If labour ever returns to it's historic basis on which it was founded I may vote again.Mind as the constituency in which I reside has always been a firmly Conservative I've never had any hope of a change.Neither Labour or anyone else has ever had a toehold here.

Re: General Election
 

Not sure that's correct, Labour and the Tories used to compete on who could build the most council houses in the 60's I'd say Hugh has it pretty much spot on with his dates

Corbyn was a leaver long before it was fashionable, you could even make a strong argument that his lack of action in the campaign until the end contributed to our leaving. Might be better imo to base voting intentions of what's actually happened to you and your family over the last 13 years rather than speculate on what probably won't happen years down the line

---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 ----------

It splits the vote Liberals and labour voters, anyone who promised proportional representation would get my vote

Re: General Election
 

My initial take is that the framing of the question is slightly wrong. The issue is not really should I vote for Labour, rather it is, given the damage inflicted on the country under Conservative governments, why wouldn't you vote Labour/LibDem/SNP/etc?

Re: General Election
 

Being in a constituency where Labour have no chance, and the Lib Dems are the opposition, is the reason I don't vote Labour. It has to be tactical voting, our system sucks.

Tactical voting out is too complicated for many to work out, and they shouldn't have to. Every vote should be equal, but unless you are in one of the marginal constituencies it's largely meaningless.

Re: General Election
 

It wasn’t that simple - Iain Duncan Smith strongly supported it, because of his links to US neo-Cons, and dragged the Party along with him.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...acked-the-war/

Re: General Election
 

Not at all - a defining issue at every general election since 1945 has been the welfare state. It was established by the Attlee Labour government elected in 1945 and every single election since then has seen one part or another of the welfare state as a major issue, the NHS most of all. Labour was elected in part on its warning that there were ‘24 hours to save the NHS’ in 1997. The welfare state fundamentally changed the way this country is administered. How much tax is collected and how it is spent is an entirely different question in government today than it was in 1939, because of decisions taken between 1945 and 1951.

The way the Tories and Labour have approached the NHS and the wider welfare state is fundamental to how those parties are understood by the electorate and so you cannot fully understand public attitudes to the parties unless you understand how their approaches to the NHS has become folklore - and the issues of folklore is very much implicit in Hugh’s original question.

Re: General Election
 

A) There're the WMD lies, Sir Tony taking for granted the votes in 'safe' seats and doing nothing in return for the support they gave.

B) I'll not vote for them because the leadership couldn't give a damn about working class people. Keir talks about his sister working for the NHS but let's be honest, he's only Labour because he's a career Liberal who's worked out he's not going to be able to feed his ego if he shows his true colours. The party is meant to be democratic but Keir is going out of his way to stamp on it.

C) An apology, a change in leadership and a change in direction back towards supporting the working class would be a start.

Re: General Election
 

Yeah the point was though the tories have taken a very different approach to the welfare state since the 70's than they did before in that they used to compete with labour to make it better whereas in the last fifty years they've done all they could to destroy it

Re: General Election
 

Hmm, thats since 1973 then ?
Labour were in power 1974 to 1979, and 1997 - 2010 were they not ?
I make that 18 years, not 13.

Re: General Election
 

[QUOTE=Hugh;36158489]Questions for CF-ers, who have said they will never vote Labour.

(this being asked by a 66 year old who has never voted Labour).


A) considering that the Labour Party have only been in power for 13 out of the last 50 years, what did they do in that time* that makes you feel that way?[SEPH]:In the last 50 years, Labour have achieved nothing of importance. It’s always more of the same + technology. Tories are not much better.


B) What do you think the Labour Party will do if they get elected, that would make you not vote for them?

[SEPH]: That’s a poorly phrased question. Sort of cart before the horse. I can predict what they’ll try to do if they gain power - and that’s kow-tow to the unions and make us even more competitive than we currently are. My instinct is that they will crap on everyone in the name of levelling-down and achieve nothing.

C) What could persuade you to vote for them?

[SEPH]: Nothing. That said, the Tories, my party, are a disaster. Both Israel and France started new parties that took their elections by storm, but ending up proving that most leading politicians are the same - bad eggs


We are in a mess.

Re: General Election
 

That’s all very interesting, but without the fiction put forward by Blair and Campbell, I would doubt they would have been able to sell it to the wider Tory benches.

Re: General Election
 

Agreed - I was active in the Party at this time, and we were told to shut up about our misgivings…

Re: General Election
 

Quite simply because they are not the “Labour” party. I don’t know what to call them.

You know what you’re getting with Conservatives, this current lot aren’t up to much, but you know what you’re getting.

I don’t know what this Labour iteration stands for.

Just waste money, don’t get me wrong I know the Tories have wasted money, they do get a bit of a pass with COVID.

But, I trust Labour even less with the economy.

A vision, a different leader.

Major, turned the economy around and we were in a really good place. But Blair came in, young, dynamic with a vision and message. If John Smith had not died. I believe Major would have won again.

Starmer is no Blair. Starmer is the only reason the Tories still may have an outside chance….or at least a hung Parliament.

Starmer, is a politician guided by the wind, he’ll go whatever way it’s blowing.

In short, I don’t like him, and I don’t like very many of the Labour front bench.

Re: General Election
 

Re: General Election
 

I thought that before going to war, the Government of the day shared all the information from the intelligence services with the Leader of the Opposition. From what I recall Blair was given intelligence that Iraq had WMD and this was shared with the Opposition.

It is a separate discussion whether Blair should have challenged it, requesting verification, etc.

Re: General Election
 

I don't think there is a lot of talent in the Labour Party - or the Tories for that matter - so Starmer probably is doing well for them. Even with the Tories doing badly we shouldn't forget how much Corbyn damaged the party. The fact Starmer has positive ratings and Labour do on most issues is quite the turnaround since 2019.

Re: General Election
 

Agreed, but it’s a low bar. The fact he’s the best they have is saddening.

Also, the fact that Sunak is the best the Tories have is equally as saddening.

You know what makes this even worse?


Compared to this lot Cameron looks like a statesman with gravitas and a calm hand on the tiller.

Re: General Election
 

So who do you choose? Cameron gambled that no plonker could possibly vote for Brexit. He resigned because he knew he'd screwed the country's future, all for his own political survival .

Just look at the state of the UK after 13 years of the Tories, and the fall out from Cameron's cock up. We're in a worse state in every way. You used to be able to vaguely trust them with the economy but no more. If the Monster Raving Loonies were the main opposition, they'd get my vote. Cameron is the main cause of our ills.

Sir K - we'll' have to wait and see but under our electoral system, he's the only alternative. And any alternative is better than we currently have.

Re: General Election
 

Oh, he royally screwed himself, his party and the country. It was a gamble, a huge gamble and it failed.

If he had of won. He’d still be PM now.

But, like Major before him, he had to address it. Unlike Major, he lost.

I don’t agree with that assessment.

Unfortunately COVID did for this government. Plan and simple. Without COVID Johnson is still PM and who knows where we are……

He is the only alternative, I disagree that “any” alternative is better, just because it’s the alternative.

Re: General Election
 

So how is the UK much better now than in 2010?

Covid has only been the last few years. There were 10 years of the Tories before that. Austerity and Brexit were massive blunders, the UK has stagnated with negligible growth. Compared to our peers, we're bottom of the class. An economic ageing backwater, reliant on food banks and immigrants to do the crap cheap jobs.

Re: General Election
 

Living under labour all I would say is be careful what you wish for

Re: General Election
 

It’s not. It’s worse.


You can’t measure covid in time, unless you’re very simple. covid may have been 3 yrs or so, but its economic impact was immense. People were paid tens of thousands a month for doing nothing. I know that may normal for you ( being paid by the state for doing nothing) But not for me. I also worked 100% through covid.


yes, and they were pretty good.

I don’t think that’s accurate, but feel free to back it up with facts.

Re: General Election
 

In all honestly I’d vote anyone but Tory. In fact that ought to be an option at the ballot.

Re: General Election
 

And that is absolutely acceptable and your choice.

However, whenever I see a post like that, what I’m seeing is an emotional response. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but it’s not really objective is it?


It’s like a Man Utd fan saying, I wish anyone will win the the league/ champions league than Liverpool.

Yeah, thanks for your input but it doesn’t really move us along much, if at all.

Re: General Election
 

I’ve never known any post requiring to “move things along”.

I’d call it pretty objective to be honest. I’ve never voted Tory in my life but I have never detested a government as much as the one we’ve had since 2010. Firstly it was the decade of austerity, then it was the era of lies, deception and corruption. It could be argued those factors have always been in government but this shower of shit have just been so blatant about it they’re not even bothering to try and hide it.

People have said the Tories are suffering from “long Boris” and good thing too. I hope he’s made his party unelectable for decades to come. My best hope is some kind of Labour coalition with the Lib Dems or Green Party. I don’t like the direction Starmer is taking Labour but I do think they’re the best of an awful bunch so they need another party in power alongside them to pull back on the reigns where needed.

Hell I’d even vote Plaid Cymru before I’d vote Tory.

Re: General Election
 

I think if I had “long Boris”, I’d welcome a bullet!

Re: General Election
 

Living under 13 years of Tory sleaze, corruption and mismanagement I'd wish for a change, whoever it is.

Agree with every word of that :tu:

Re: General Election
 

Totally agree with this, thanks Russ.

As I mentioned before, the important decision is how to get them out, not who to vote for.

Re: General Election
 

Why on earth would you want this ?
They are still the only really viable opposition (once they lose the next election).
Handing absolute rule to Labour (or anyone) for "decades" is not likely to turn out well for anyone.
I think they call it a dictatorship.

---------- Post added at 02:26 ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 ----------

Really, no one questioned this ? I checked again, still looks like 18 to me.

Re: General Election
 

So doesn’t that mean the past 13 years have been a “dictatorship” too?

Why would I want this? Easy, to punish the current shower of shit for the years of lies, corruptions and dishonesty that they don’t even bother hiding anymore. The contempt they have for the working classes like you and I. They way they’ve decimated funding for the NHS then blamed it on immigrant and striking staff. Speak of which, they way they’ve removed workers’ democratic right to strike and reduce our right to protest. They way they want to removed the ECHR. The way they’ve consistent broken international law. They way they’ve placed “stopping the boats” as their priority when we have a cost of living crisis. The way they have constantly lied about the “benefits” of Brexit. The damn stupid “oven ready deal” lie. Wage stagnation which for many puts us on equal earning terms from
2008.

Unless you’re a millionaire the last 13 years have not turned out well for anyone either.

I could go on and on but I need my breakfast. There are plenty of reasons why the **** Party need to be kept out of office for many years.

Re: General Election
 

If the last 13 years aren't a dictatorship, then they certainly in my eyes will go down as the years of lost opportunities.

The rest of your post sums the Conservatives up pretty well, and makes me scratch my head in disbelief when people on here hang on to their every word. The perpetually absent member for Mid Beds sums up the contempt they have for their constituents (the people who pay their wages). They used to be known as the nasty party but that'd make this lot sound nicer than they are.

Re: General Election
 

You were right to question this - Hugh's figures only cover the Brown and Blair administrations, not the Wilson and Callaghan administrations of the 1970s.

Re: General Election
 

I would never vote negatively and, because of our system of election would vote for the best MP in my area almost regardless of party.


I do agree that the NHS does need work but financially it's a bottomless pit and would consume all resource put towards it. When I worked for the NHS we understood we got lower pay than the public sector but we had a safe job, annual pay rises (including increment points for many) and a brilliant pension. It seems that all of the "perks" have gone but the pay masters still expect staff to work for lower wages, you can't have both. A further staffing problem was being able to get rid of the "dross", and there are some, and to retain the good staff in positions that they are good at.

Re: General Election
 

Well this does not make sense as you voted for Steve Brine. Paula Ferguson, who he beat by ~900 votes, was a far more capable and honest individual with significantly more integrity. It seems that your preference in 2019 was not the best MP, rather the best MP wearing a blue rosette.

Re: General Election
 

But the perceived politics of one party is not a suitable baseline to start from (even assuming it’s true - and given that the NHS has been under Tory control for most of its existence, and about 30 of the last 44 years since 1979, if they really are trying to actually destroy it, they’ve been about as effective as Wile E. Coyote).

The point is, the welfare state introduced by the Attlee government (1945-1951) fundamentally changed the demands placed on whoever has been in power ever since, while at the same time the UK, Europe and the world began to come to terms with the massive economic and social restructuring demanded by the end of world war 2. Both parties have shown differing political priorities since then, but that is when the modern rules of the game were set, and that is why serious academic treatment of ‘modern era’ British government and politics starts with 1945, not friendly but ultimately quite arbitrary figures like ‘50 years’.

Re: General Election
 

IIRC The NHS is run on a lower budget than some equivalent systems, although a lot of them have many things contributing to that budget including top-up payments from users of the service.

Healthcare is expensive.

Re: General Election
 

Agreed. The trouble is that this is a difficult sell to the electorate and there are still plenty of politicians around who will trot out the voter-friendly line lines that "the NHS has enough money, it just needs to be more efficient" or "the money is spent on admin and managers, not healthcare staff".

Yes, it can always be more efficient but the fundamental funding issue remains and no party seems to be willing to tackle this, for fear of making themselves unelectable.

Re: General Election
 

This is the truth of it.

The NHS is a behemoth, it is too big to control. All the money in the world still wouldn't be enough.

Re: General Election
 

Yet it’s more cost effective than private insurance based systems.

The “truth of it” is we need an honest conversation about funding it (and social care). People are living longer, with more ailments, yet public opinion is being driven to believe we should be paying less.

Insurance based systems all offer less bang for buck. However, like running a public utility like water, energy or a train operator it’s a good way to extract wealth from citizens to shareholders knowing the public have to carry the can for failure anyway.

Re: General Election
 

just wait until you have a relative that needs to go into care. You'll learn all about the Extraction of Wealth, very quickly.

Re: General Election
 

I’m more than aware - which is why I included social care in the ‘honest conversation’ Governments (whichever party) need to have.

Re: General Election
 

Nearly every problem Britain faces right now has one root cause and one only.

And that is the government and it's austerity cuts.

Re: General Election
 

They can't just shut it down however much they'd like to as they'd never get in office again, no far better to inherit something that had very high levels of public satisfaction and run it down by starving it of money and making it an unpleasant place to work so the staff leave, how inconsiderate of the public not to fall for it and demand private health care


We're not academics though but interestingly if you type when did the modern era of British politics begin Wikipedia says 1979 :D

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:37 ----------

Exactly :clap:

Re: General Election
 

Not being an academic is what allows you to cite Wikipedia as a source - try that in an academic assignment and you’d feel the force of red ink. ;)

Re: General Election
 

I understand the same result occurs if you cite the Daily Fail :D

Re: General Election
 

Not taking myself to seriously allows me to do that, thought the emoji made that clear but I was probably being a bit to low brow for you

Re: General Election
 

If it's a curated page on Wikipedia and not one that anyone can edit then no good reason these days not to view it as a reliable source.

Wikipedia does seem to split up the periods 1945-1979 as post war and 1979 to date as modern history. I can understand why they might do this given the significant and lasting changes that Margaret Thatcher's governments brought to the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...2%80%93present)

Re: General Election
 

Right, because all previous governments have been such well behaved angels. :rolleyes:

Yes, your personal hate for the conservative party is perfectly clear.
There is a difference between 'years' and 'decades', but your hatred seems blind you to anything.
We should also "punish" Labour for decades - for the lies, corruptions and dishonesty they managed under Blair. Right ?

Still, I'm sure all your troubles and woes will disappear after the next election. :erm:

Re: General Election
 

Tory lovers always seem to do this.

Are any of Blair’s government still in frontline politics?

Sorry, what’s that? No they’re not?

When you can demonstrate such corruption as £32bn spaffed off to their mates for companies that were registered in hotel rooms a week previously plus all the other blatant corruption, and placing those pesky boats over tackling the cost of living crisis, all from the current Labour Party then you’ll have a point.

And no my “woes” will still be there at the election. But I will happily be celebrating the mass sacking of Tory ministers:D

Re: General Election
 

What Tory lovers ? Do what ?

No, they are not, and neither will any of the current government in decades time. In fact most wont get past the next election, so whats your point again ?

Re: General Election
 

You blaming previous Labour MPs who don’t have any chance of getting back in to frontline politics again. That would be like me blaming Thatcher’s cabinet for this current shower of shit.

Your point is completely moot. This current shower of shit need to be kept out of government and most are too egotistical to do the right thing and leave politics altogether.

No doubt they’ll try again in 5 or 6 years time.

They need to be punished for their corruption by being kept out of politics. Nobody has said previous government have been squeaky clean. But none have been as corrupt and blatantly full of lies like this lot.

Re: General Election
 

Indeed, or much like someone stating "I hope he’s made his party unelectable for decades to come" due to the current 'shower of shit'. Sound familiar ? :angel:

Re: General Election
 

Yeah I said it. I’ve also previously made it clear I’m anti-Tory.

What’s your point?

Re: General Election
 

You need a strong opposition otherwise the Government can get away with whatever it wants. Some of the Tory issues are because for a good portion of the last 13 years the Labour Party forgot it was meant to be the Opposition with the goal being to become the Government and instead went on a self-indulgent tour.

Re: General Election
 

Right, so I’ll have a go at the question now, rather than having a go at the question :D

I am going to vote Labour next year. The reality is I would have to have voted for them no matter what because they are the only viable opposition to the SNP in the constituency I moved into last year. My last home was in a constituency that has been Tory, Labour and SNP in the last 15 years giving me a genuine three-way choice few people anywhere in the UK enjoy.

However, I will not really be holding my nose to vote for them …. Well, not much anyway. I think we need a change and Labour’s the only national opposition. Evicting the Conservative Party from government means voting for the Labour Party and that’s all there is to it. Maybe that’s a negative choice but it’s the choice I have (over and above the imperative of getting the Nat out).

My hesitancy in voting Labour however isn’t the centrists who are presently in charge. Starmer was DPP so is bound to be a competent manager at least. I actually quite like the likes of Yvette Cooper, who is quite thoughtful, and Angela Rayner, who is a proper Commons bruiser of the sort our political system needs in order to function well.

My hesitancy is, and has always been, who the lunatic fringe are. Now I’m not saying only Labour has fringe nutters, of course very movement has them. But I fear that Labour’s hard left is always likely to do more lasting damage to the fabric of society than the Tory far right. Think Diane Abbott. Richard Burgon. John McDonnell. Most of the ones who served in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet basically. If/when Labour gets in, it is likely to be in power for at least 2 terms, which is more than enough time for the political pendulum within the parliamentary party to veer back to the left. And that worries me.

Re: General Election
 

This is why I don’t fully trust Starmer and would much prefer some kind of coalition to help keep him in check. Let’s face it any kind of Labour government would be an improvement on the useless chumps we’ve got in power right now but in an ideal world it has to be more than a case of “get anyone in other than the Tories”. It has to be the right set-up to undo the horrific corruption and damage caused by Cameron, May, Truss the economy killer , Boris the king bullshitter and Sunak.

Re: General Election
 

https://makeagif.com/gif/chris-rock-...said-it-4MYbBo

Re: General Election
 

The first four, yes, but what damage has Sunak done ? He's spent most of his time trying to undo the damage of the previous four.

Re: General Election
 

He was the Chancellor for two and a half years under Johnson - he’s complicit/liable for the damage caused then.

Re: General Election
 

He's holding back UK science and thereby the future prosperity of the UK by preventing it from joining Horizon.
https://theconversation.com/horizon-...esearch-209279

Re: General Election
 

The damage he played a massive part in creating, just because the bar is set so incredibly low with human hand granade truss and bozo doesn't mean the prime miniature isn't up to his neck in it

Re: General Election
 

I could find no reference to Sunak in that article.

I did find this, which mainly suggests we are close to rejoining ;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/u...amme-fdxfj2znn

The article does however tell you its not perfect.
I think "holding back UK science and thereby the future prosperity of the UK" is being a little over dramatic.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

True, but he wasnt in charge then. That list was clearly intended as a list of "damaging" PM's. What "damage" has he done as PM ?

Re: General Election
 

Just because Sunak says something does not mean that we should regard his words as the truth. He's a politician.

There's certainly a link between UK science and prosperity and Horizon is the best scheme available for UK researchers. Not participating will hold us back in the long term.

Understandably for him, I don't think Sunak's thinking about the long term as he's unlikely to be PM after the next election and may even not be residing in the UK then.

In weighing up Horizon, I think the full paragraph which you quoted an excerpt from provides a good summary:

Re: General Election
 

Bojo promised to pay the ERASMUS expenses when we pulled out of EU. He never did. We wrote to him umpteen times. As a result my research grant had 6K unpaid. Others considerably more.

Bojo promised TURING to replace ERASMUS+ (" a global research network"), It never happened. (Unrelated to the Turing institute in London)

HORIZON the same, nothing happened, the years are passing and science is not static. Several of us got a second job in a EU Institute in order to participate in HORIZON.

Re: General Election
 

Your opinion ? or you have facts or evidence for this ?

This is just speculation, I (or anyone) could just as easily say it wont. ;)

Re: General Election
 

I'm sure everyone can see a link between science and prosperity.

The UK HSA says:
https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2023/03/10...nd-prosperity/

Anyone can say anything but that doesn't make them right. The facts speak for themselves here. This is is the largest and richest funding programme for scientific research in the world with nations like Japan and New Zealand keen to join. By not participating, the UK's impact in scientific research for the future is reduced.

As the article explains

Re: General Election
 

So, opinion then. ;)

Case rested. :D

Re: General Election
 

Almost. Except I then provide a gov.uk link to reinforce my point. ;)

Re: General Election
 

I don’t doubt there is, but we don’t need to be part of an EU program to realise that.

I’m adding that to my library of quotes, that I am entitled to throw back at anyone on this forum at any time I feel like.

Re: General Election
 

You need to be part of something international and we're not. Horizon is the best gig in town. Countries like Japan are queuing up to join it. Why not us? Short-term Sunak is why not.

Re: General Election
 

you can't be serious. The scientists of 27 countries are all crap, because they are European?

Re: General Election
 

I don’t know what parallel universe you inhabit, but that is patently not what I said.

Re: General Election
 

what did you say? expand.

Re: General Election
 

I said it once, read it.

Re: General Election
 

How on earth do you get that from his post :confused:

Re: General Election
 

I misread it. sorry

---------- Post added at 06:47 ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 ----------

I misread it. sorry

Re: General Election
 

You keep a little revenge book, how cute.

Re: General Election
 

It's heartening to see many of you have come to your senses over your love for the Tory party ;)

10 years too late mind, and the country is screwed, but better late than never.

Re: General Election
 

Re: General Election
 

Why not do something to protest?
e.g change your font colour to purple? :D

Re: General Election
 

A remainer at last. :D

Re: General Election
 

The Color Purple may be a bridge too far :D

Re: General Election
 

Whoopi, now we’re doing puns …

Re: General Election
 

Revenge Library.

Re: General Election
 

Re: General Election
 

Wales has had (I think )14 years of labour, that's really gone well :shocked:

Re: General Election
 

Has it?

Re: General Election
 

If it's like London, it will do better when the national UK government is the same as the regional or devolved one. Otherwise, regardless of Party, national UK government tends to favour its own.

Re: General Election
 

Must be , if they keep being re-elected.

Anywhere outside the SE England is not a Tory priority. 'Leveling up ' was a poor joke by them.