The Chronicles of Rishi

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

What I meant was from a coffers side - ie selling all those companies should mean we're better off financially.

Agree with you on the Post Office, a Conservative manifesto should really suggest privatising it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What I meant was from a coffers side - ie selling all those companies should mean we're better off financially.

Agree with you on the Post Office, a Conservative manifesto should really suggest privatising it.

It was fine before when it was part of the Royal Mail.

But like energy (wholesalers/retailers), the government were hell bent on separating the delivery of mail from the post offices that would feed the Royal Mail. Why? The lefties may well say so that their mates can get something out of it. But really, it was about shedding subsidy and that comes down to the question of public service vs profit.

We've seen with the PO 'privatisation', the government being the single shareholder, is that the CEO has been struggling for profit, withdrawing services from public availability (closing POs), which is perverse. Then the Royal Mail is trying to do the same by raising prices, trying to reduce deliveries and basically shafting the public. The two together, could at least coordinate policy and the government to recognise its obligation to maintain a public service.

The UK is structurally broken, imo, and this is a minute aspect of this wider question.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by denphone

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

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



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

Lets hope they've got this one correct, or even erring on the side of caution

Originally Posted by spiderplant

[b]I was puzzled by that. How could it not include tactical voting?[/b

Originally Posted by denphone

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

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



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

It did include Tactical Voting - the DT’s statement was not congruent with actuality…

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articl...ere-held-today

Finally, the Daily Telegraph also said that the YouGov MRP model does not account for tactical voting in its estimated shares. This is not the case – our model does provision for tactical voting in its design, including by estimating constituency competition effects as part of the model equation. It does not, however, apply any post-hoc readjustments to vote share estimates based on any assumed model of tactical voting beyond what we already have in the data.

YouGov also clarified* another of the DT’s comments

A separate note by the Daily Telegraph suggested that the presence of Reform UK is the difference between Labour securing a majority and not. This is their own calculation using our data, and appears to be based simply on adding the Conservative and Reform UK vote shares together in each constituency, which is not a reliable way of measuring their impact.

Were Reform UK not to contest the election, it is extremely unlikely that all, or even a majority, of their voters would transfer to the Conservatives. Some would go to UKIP and splinter parties, some to Labour and other established parties, and some would simply stay at home – YouGov polling in October found only 31% of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.

*pointed out they were fibbing

[ianch99]

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.

It is as if you have not lived through the last 13 years You seriously think the Labour Party sponsors/donors/voter base has the same level of wealth as the Tory one? If you do, you really do need to think again.

You seem to favour the status quo i.e. a right of centre executive striving to achieve a low tax, small state utopia designed to maximise the profits of private enterprise at the expense of the wider population. Look around you and consider the state of the nation's infrastructure and ask yourself if you want 5 more years of this. Then add the divisive culture wars, etc. for good measure.

[Sephiroth]

He doesn't want 5 more years of 'this'. Nor does he want 5 years of Labour and the divisions and incompetence they'll bring.

We really are up shit creek nix paddle.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

He doesn't want 5 more years of 'this'. Nor does he want 5 years of Labour and the divisions and incompetence they'll bring.

We really are up shit creek nix paddle.

Quite...

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

He doesn't want 5 more years of 'this'. Nor does he want 5 years of Labour and the divisions and incompetence they'll bring.

We really are up shit creek nix paddle.

All unproven as of yet as they are not the government of the day currently.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by denphone

Quite...

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:22 ----------



All unproven as of yet as they are not the government of the day currently.

Labour is a book you can judge by its cover. They are rowing back on promises; they have no plan for the economy; no plan for immigration. They are the same spinners/liars as the Conservatives.

It's very bad when we shouldn't be saying 'anyone but the Tories' because the others won't be any better.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Labour is a book you can judge by its cover. They are rowing back on promises; they have no plan for the economy; no plan for immigration. They are the same spinners/liars as the Conservatives.

It's very bad when we shouldn't be saying 'anyone but the Tories' because the others won't be any better.

Right now I'll settle for less corrupt, less incompetent and less cronyie, anyone but them will do fine

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Right now I'll settle for less corrupt, less incompetent and less cronyie, anyone but them will do fine

Unfortunately a lot of people will agree with you: punish the Tories.

Britain is completely broken save for the efforts of British business that keep things going.

If Labour can unbreak that my whatsit's a kipper.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Unfortunately a lot of people will agree with you: punish the Tories.

Britain is completely broken save for the efforts of British business that keep things going.

If Labour can unbreak that my whatsit's a kipper.

For all your chest beating and lamenting about the state of the Tory party and the mess it is presently making of the country, you’re clearly content to continue to support them and give them another 5 years at it. No wonder that you can’t understand why someone might vote for a different party - you see the value of doing so only as a punishment, some sort of means of disciplining the rightful party of government so that it might learn the error of its ways.

The thing is, they are not the rightful party of government and voting for someone other than them isn’t a punishment. It’s an alternative choice. As things stand right now it is hard to believe Labour could possibly be as bad. Yes, there are some complete wingnuts on their back benches, but then there are some complete wingnuts sitting behind the Prime Miniature in the commons right now (and one or two sat next to him as well).

Starmer doesn’t fill me with paroxysms of joy but he does strike me as a capable, if boring, leader, with an eye for detail and experience of running a serious public service. He literally can’t do any worse than Rishi Sunak and given Sunak’s almost complete disconnection from how most of us actually live in this country he is almost inevitably going to do better.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Unfortunately a lot of people will agree with you: punish the Tories.

Britain is completely broken save for the efforts of British business that keep things going.

If Labour can unbreak that my whatsit's a kipper.

Ok, Ace…

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Chris

For all your chest beating and lamenting about the state of the Tory party and the mess it is presently making of the country, you’re clearly content to continue to support them and give them another 5 years at it. No wonder that you can’t understand why someone might vote for a different party - you see the value of doing so only as a punishment, some sort of means of disciplining the rightful party of government so that it might learn the error of its ways.

The thing is, they are not the rightful party of government and voting for someone other than them isn’t a punishment. It’s an alternative choice. As things stand right now it is hard to believe Labour could possibly be as bad. Yes, there are some complete wingnuts on their back benches, but then there are some complete wingnuts sitting behind the Prime Miniature in the commons right now (and one or two sat next to him as well).

Starmer doesn’t fill me with paroxysms of joy but he does strike me as a capable, if boring, leader, with an eye for detail and experience of running a serious public service. He literally can’t do any worse than Rishi Sunak and given Sunak’s almost complete disconnection from how most of us actually live in this country he is almost inevitably going to do better.

Succinctly put and every observation spot on from my point of view. It's somewhat dissapointing that I feel so underwhelmed at the prospect of Keir Starmer running the show but your last sentence describes the situation very nicely.

[Dave42]

Brendan Clarke-Smith and 30p Lee Anderson resign from roles

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-depu...ments-13049746

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Dave42

Brendan Clarke-Smith and 30p Lee Anderson resign from roles

https://news.sky.com/story/tory-depu...ments-13049746

What a massive loss to racist bigots everywhere.