The Chronicles of Rishi

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Are you sure about that? The Mail, Express & Telegraph are always slagging the government off.

What about the Grauniad? A lefty mouthpiece?

For not being right-wing enough, but when push comes to shove (the election), they’ll be supporting the Conservatives.

You forgot the Sun and the Times - both Murdoch papers, and the Evening Standard, all supporting the Conservatives…

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

For not being right-wing enough, but when push comes to shove (the election), they’ll be supporting the Conservatives.

You forgot the Sun and the Times - both Murdoch papers, and the Evening Standard, all supporting the Conservatives…

I wonder if the Express might defect to Reform UK this year? It seems to favour Farage over Sunak.

As Labour will highly likely win anyway, backing a challenger party may be better than by association with a large Conservative defeat.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I wonder if the Express might defect to Reform UK this year? It seems to favour Farage over Sunak.

As Labour will highly likely win anyway, backing a challenger party may be better than by association with a large Conservative defeat.

I favour Farage over Sunak, obvs. But I'm a Tory party member and will not vote against John Redwood, also a great man.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I favour Farage over Sunak, obvs. But I'm a Tory party member and will not vote against John Redwood, also a great man.

They've all failed this country in one way or another:-
Farage - Brexit
Sunak - just about everything else
Redwood - crimes against the Welsh language
Time to move on.

[1andrew1]

The Telegraph EXCLUSIVE: Conservatives are heading for electoral oblivion on scale of 1997 defeat, poll reveals

The most authoritative opinion poll in five years forecasts that the Tories will retain just 169 seats, while Labour will sweep into power with 385 seats, giving Sir Keir Starmer a 120-seat majority.

🔓 This article is free to read for 24 hours

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...t-1997-labour/

While its just a prediction, I doubt anyone is particularly surprised by it, they have self destructed quite spectacularly in the last 2/3 years.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...t-1997-labour/

And this does not include tactical voting which is unlikely to favour the sitting government.

[Mr K]

The collapse of the the country isn't a surprise. The electorate that voted for populists like Johnson, or listened to liars like Farage, or voted for self defeating crap like Brexit, need to take their fair share of the blame. Ultimately its down to you.

(Don't worry too much about the Tories they've plundered the country's wealth, for their own benefit, so will be ok. Prob retire to the Algarve, or Provence, where they have decent healthcare and public services).

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I favour Farage over Sunak, obvs. But I'm a Tory party member and will not vote against John Redwood, also a great man.

I’m like you - I view Redwood and Farage with the same level of esteem…

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by ianch99

So in a two party FPTP system, what is the answer?

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ----------


1. Make money for their sponsors/donors/voter base
2. Stay in Power

How is that different from any party? It's just the the [1] differs on who gets the money. And the (senior) civil service stay there and keep their jobs and pensions whoever.


The last thing we want though is a national PR system when we would never get rid of the (left of) centre groups as being the least unpopular.


If people looked at their candidates and voted for the best there we may have a better chance but too many will vote along party lines regardless, get a muppet and we get a parliament of muppets. (Small 'm' the Muppets are talented entertainers.)


The reason the Tory/Labour swaps "worked" in the past was that the Tories built up the chests then Labour came in a spent it and then the Tories...


I can image all sorts of plans from Labour that would adversely affect me and my family, one biggie would be removal of charity status from religious groups forgetting that many of those groups also provide for communities external to their "religious" affairs. VAT on books is always popping up from Labour groups. But it's not the collection of the money, it's how it is spent and simply throwing money at the NHS or any other large group never works unless you are one of those employed to work out how to spend it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

How is that different from any party? It's just the the [1] differs on who gets the money. And the (senior) civil service stay there and keep their jobs and pensions whoever.


The last thing we want though is a national PR system when we would never get rid of the (left of) centre groups as being the least unpopular.


If people looked at their candidates and voted for the best there we may have a better chance but too many will vote along party lines regardless, get a muppet and we get a parliament of muppets. (Small 'm' the Muppets are talented entertainers.)


The reason the Tory/Labour swaps "worked" in the past was that the Tories built up the chests then Labour came in a spent it and then the Tories...


I can image all sorts of plans from Labour that would adversely affect me and my family, one biggie would be removal of charity status from religious groups forgetting that many of those groups also provide for communities external to their "religious" affairs. VAT on books is always popping up from Labour groups. But it's not the collection of the money, it's how it is spent and simply throwing money at the NHS or any other large group never works unless you are one of those employed to work out how to spend it.

The above is a highly rational analysis.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by denphone

And this does not include tactical voting which is unlikely to favour the sitting government.

I was puzzled by that. How could it not include tactical voting?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

How is that different from any party? It's just the the [1] differs on who gets the money. And the (senior) civil service stay there and keep their jobs and pensions whoever.


The last thing we want though is a national PR system when we would never get rid of the (left of) centre groups as being the least unpopular.


If people looked at their candidates and voted for the best there we may have a better chance but too many will vote along party lines regardless, get a muppet and we get a parliament of muppets. (Small 'm' the Muppets are talented entertainers.)


The reason the Tory/Labour swaps "worked" in the past was that the Tories built up the chests then Labour came in a spent it and then the Tories...


I can image all sorts of plans from Labour that would adversely affect me and my family, one biggie would be removal of charity status from religious groups forgetting that many of those groups also provide for communities external to their "religious" affairs. VAT on books is always popping up from Labour groups. But it's not the collection of the money, it's how it is spent and simply throwing money at the NHS or any other large group never works unless you are one of those employed to work out how to spend it.

Don't know those swaps worked that well. Surely with all that North Sea oil and gas revenue and privatisations we should be far better off than we are now as a country, even given the recent hit from Brexit?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Don't know those swaps worked that well. Surely with all that North Sea oil and gas revenue and privatisations we should be far better off than we are now as a country, even given the recent hit from Brexit?

Which privatisations, though? The utilities are a disaster and have done nothing for the exchequer beyond corporation tax. A better regulation scheme might have seen a better outcome.

That said, an arm's length operation, such as the Post Office, hasn't exactly worked out.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I was puzzled by that. How could it not include tactical voting?

Best to ask the company who carried the polling for the Daily Telegraph.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 ----------

Originally Posted by spiderplant

I was puzzled by that. How could it not include tactical voting?

The Electoral Calculus model based on current polling suggest a even worst result for the government.

Whatever polling one looks at the Government is heading for train wreck territory.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/...ary=2019nbbase