Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General British politics discussion thread

18283858788390

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Well yeah.

    I would prefer 100% of the electorate to vote but failing that I would prefer everyone over 65 and anyone prone to voting for Fianna Fáil to stay home.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,726 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    That's extremely simplistic, not least because it ignores the realpolitik of FPTP - which negates the possibilities of single or local policy/interest parties and the demographics who might vote for them. Many constituencies effectively boil down to "well if I don't want a Tory, I HAVE to vote Labour" (and vice versa obviously); and that's going to be unpalatable for many a voter, no matter how enfranchised they may be. Plus if the alternative Hobson's Choice candidate appears functionally similar to the ruling party's own - why would you get out and cast a vote in the first place?

    If we hadn't proportional representation, it's debatable Sinn Fein, Labour, the Greens and so on would ever have any kind of numbers in the Dail (removing one's personal opinions of that party for a second). Nevermind the metric tonne of independent TDs who bulk out the seats. Now, the structure of the Dail's ruleset is such that small parties struggle to even FIND a voice in the first place, but the principle of the voting system is, to my mind, sound and much more enfranchising to the voter than FPTP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    The point i was making here was chiefly in relation to the Labour party. In prioritising the red wall seats, which they are clearly doing, they are risking alienating their young progressive, minority base and the old assumption that these voters "have nowhere else to go" is a risky hat to hang on imo.

    I don't have to imagine this because it is already happening. The party has lost in excess of 100,000 members over the past 18 months and that is going to keep increasing and put their finances in even greater peril.

    So the question is where do these disillusioned voters go? Maybe they do stay loyal with nowhere else to go, maybe they go green or lib dem or, just possibly, they stay at home. That is an option for them. Which was my point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,017 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I don't think Labour voters in London feel anyway alienated or left out due to the left wall talk. One reason for that is that local councils are so much stronger in the UK and most Labour voters know that your council becoming Tory means all your public funded facilities are about to get gutted. I don't know how it affects the swing voter as I honestly never met one in London.

    I do think though that if the Tories did lose the next election it would be purely down to a vote against them rather than for an opposition. There are already signs that the blue Home Counties could be the next solid wall to crumble.

    The 100k Labour voters lost is definitely a reaction to Corbyn stepping down and I would also imagine there are plenty of that 100k just like myself who stopped paying because I don't live there anymore (Its actually very hard to leave the Labour party as there is no simple leave option in the membership section online so the easiest way is to just cancel your DD).



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,647 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Over 65 very ageist of you. But who would you have to blame then when it does not magically get better



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,647 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    No it isnt simplistic it is very hard work. It would involve people getting involved with stuff. Listening to each other (politicians and voter). It would also involve the voter actually have to think and take stock of there votes and not just blame others. In my estimation if you do not vote you can not voice a concern



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,726 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    And again, if the demographics are against you in Constituency X, all the newly engaged voters won't matter a jot in a 50%+1 FPTP system. Going double in a gerrymandered area. This is chicken and egg stuff; can't ask - or indeed blame - people to be more active if the structure then actively works against them. For sure voter apathy is a curse, but it can't be all pinned on personal responsibility when you get a Tory government with ~40% of the national vote.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Yeah, but what about all the local elections this year where the party has been bleeding, hemmorhaging, votes to the greens and lib dems? That doesn't necessarily translate to GE, but it is an alarming trend for them.

    And despite Starmer pledging an end to labour "naval gazing", the latest is now a move to expel radical fringe groups who are largely made up of the types of radical young leftists Starmer once was himself in his youth. Just pointless stuff which I am certain will further alienate young voters just so as to show their preferred kind of voter how tough and serious they are.

    The 100,000 figure is one they trot out, many believe it is a lot higher. And they are now broke and laughably blaming it on corbyn even though the latter was instrumental in reshaping the party's finances in the first place. Where are all the big corporate donors who backed Starmer for the leadership? Don't seem to be so keen now for some reason.

    But who knows? These are political calculations they are making and evidently believe in them. I think it's disastrous but what do I know really?



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Very ageist. Absolutely.

    I have no qualms about the most cosseted in society having less input tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    I think the point is to get the 100,000 Trots out? :)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Ah, yeah. The same "trots" Starmer hoodwinked into backing him for the leadership by promising to be a unified and signing up to the 10 pledges which he has since spent the last 10 months reneging on one by one. More fool them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,822 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Cummings interview on BBC from a couple of days ago.

    Absolutely astonishing just how shambolic things are over there at the moment.




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Never say never, but i suspect we may be nearing a tipping point on tory covid corruption. This guy didn't just buy a stately country estate (£1.5m worth) on the back of a £120m ppe contract that delivered 0.26% usable items, he bought a holiday home too as well as a house for his parents. Time for labour to take the gloves off, the anger over this is feral.




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭serfboard


    "i suspect we may be nearing a tipping point on tory covid corruption".

    An 80 seat majority and no general election due until 2024? The tories will line the pockets of the Chumocracy until then with no-one to stop them.

    If there is excessive heat in this particular instance (which I doubt), the man who has already been thrown overboard, Matt Hancock, can take the blame for it. (AKA The Dead Man Strategy).



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭serfboard


    And from a metaphorical Dead Man (Matt Hancock) to a literal one - an inquiry into the shenanigans around Greensill Capital found that the main person responsible was? A dead man, Jeremy Haywood.

    His widow went on the BBC and "accused the inquiry of 'trying to set up my husband, as far as I can see, to divert attention from things which happened much later after he died'".



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Polls aren't everything but for the first time the government is actually losing ground with voters. Latest You Gov findings have them down 6 points so it's not just one single outlier. That's following on from their recent pasting in Chesham & Amersham. So tipping point or not, the tide may be turning against them finally. This is almost certainly down to their handling of covid restrictions and let's see how worse it gets. Nobody is claiming this will have any immediate implications, but it likely does cancel out any remaining notions Johnson was harbouring of calling a snap election to capitalise on the vaccine bounce. That's all clearly past now.




  • Registered Users Posts: 21,489 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Harsh words from the Financial Times.


    Will it make any difference? Probably not, could well be one of those pieces they can point to in future to say they didn't shy away from such a story but truth be told, if they're not reporting on just who is involved and detailing their links to the government and their specific business interests then it is easily brushed off.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,017 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    This will go over more heads.

    Far more important things going on like PM having a baby, you know the important stuff in a democracy



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    The problem is that financial Times is a specialist publication as things go, so it's never going to drive the public itself. Also if their journalists know about it, it's likely that journalists for other publications with a wider audience know about it as well and haven't reported it. I know they haven't named anyone probably because they don't know the exact make up of board(as they admit themselves). A combination of British libel laws and my perception(which could be wrong) is that the FT is less likely to speculate on named on named individuals. Finally knowing that an advisory board like this exists(given the lack of minutes of meeting its fairly secretive) and knowing its make up are two different things. However it's existence is concerning and you'd hope that more mainstream media outlets would pick up on the story and start asking questions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,017 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    All the mainstream media outlets except the ones who might be on that list of course



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    After the overruling of the peerage vetting committee to give the big red box with the seal to Peter Cruddas, this latest thing is bear-in-woods.



  • Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭Fly_away


    It won't make a dent in UK public opinion.


    The FT is actually quite poor on UK politics as well btw, Sebastian Payne is one of their senior journalists and he's a courtier for the Tories. George Parker is the political editor I think and he's bang average.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    I forget who but one commentator made an interesting point about this story over the weekend. Regardless of how the public react or don't, it exposes a potential rift at the heart of the tory project. Basically, a lot of the supporters and big donor money comes from the property or developer sector and what they want is lax regulation and planning laws. But this is anathema to the wealthy and middle class white collar tory voters in the shires for whom nimbyism is a core value. Some of this may have factored into the recent tory collapse in Chesham and Amersham.

    Who knows but thought it was an interesting take anyway.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,726 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    So. Genuine idiotic goof, or more calculated Johnson fakery? It can be so hard to tell sometimes.

    This latest came while touring Scotland, Johnson tried to claim Thatcher's closing of the coal mines in the 80s was ultimately a headstart in environmentalism... needless to say the reaction hasn't been kind from some quarters.

    I suppose to a degree of pedantry he could be correct, if coal usage during that era wasn't still strong, the mines genuinely closed to save the planet.




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,441 ✭✭✭Dave0301


    Given that he is reported to have laughed after the statement and said to reporters "I thought that would get you going" he knows exactly what he is at.

    The Tories used Brexit to help secure votes they normally would not have won in the last election, but they have no interest in "levelling up" Britain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,017 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    It just trolling and in fairness to him it's a good one. He annoying Sturgeon, Starmer and probably the Greens in one go



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,357 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    I thought it was an excellent wind up by Johnson.



  • Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Yes just one problem though - You know all those northern red wall seats he so interested in keeping. You know in the ex mining areas of Durham, Yorkshire, Notts, etc, apparently the Tory MP's there are not best pleased with his joke.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,726 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp



    Well exactly. All well and good him chortling at another headline grabbing wheeze, but surely there's a legitimate risk at angering the very constituencies still living with Thatcher's decisions. Local MPs would be rightly fuming at a very London centric sneer. Not without reason there was wild outpouring of joy at her death, vulturous as it might have been.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob




Advertisement