|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 29, 2024 8:43:12 GMT
The platform on which it went to the country was comfortably to the right of that it put forward in 2019, but then again the 2017 and 2019 manifestos were comfortably to the left of any other Conservative manifestos this century where public spending was concerned.
I agree that due to incompetence it did not govern as its rhetoric would indicate, but I don't think that means it governed left - moving to the centre and being incompetent are not the same thing.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 29, 2024 8:45:08 GMT
Suella defects if/when not nominated, IMHO. She has announced she is not standing, does this mean that she does not defect?
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by polupolu on Jul 29, 2024 8:54:00 GMT
Suella is in the Telegraph saying she won't stand as leader and gives "a parting shot" of one kind of another ("the Tories won't listen as to why they lost the election") Those of us on the right side of democracy know why: cycles come and go and even after becoming the most far right government in years (voter id, botched Brexit, end of peaceful protest, Rwanda etc), the general public didn't buy into the idea that one more term of economic chaos was worth the effort. Going Trumpian (as Reform would like) didn't save the Tories from a defeat. I don't know what kind of Conservative Party Suella wants to create. She was head of the most extreme, isolationist, little Englander Home Office in generations, so it can't be that she wants to row back. Is the newest Telegraph column (I assume she declares her income?) just a red flag to wave before joining Reform? Will other right wing extremist Priti Patel be next? May I remind members - again - of the original meaning of Little Englander? Thank you. For those who are interested:
In summary: 19th century wing of the Liberal party against foreign wars (such as 2nd Boer war), expansion of empire and even independence for colonies.
I suspect doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ meant English chauvanist and was using "right wing" to mean "authoritarian" rather than economically small-state.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 29, 2024 9:17:28 GMT
Suella defects if/when not nominated, IMHO. She has announced she is not standing, does this mean that she does not defect? not necessarily, although we don't know. She has probably announced that she isn't standing because she doesn't have the necessary support. Whether she translates this into leaving the Conservatives we will have to wait & see. I doubt she would make a decision all that soon.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,290
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 29, 2024 9:48:04 GMT
She claimed she did have the needed nominations, again "they would say that wouldn't they" applies but *if* true that maybe puts a somewhat different slant on things.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 29, 2024 9:54:54 GMT
She claimed she did have the needed nominations, again "they would say that wouldn't they" applies but *if* true that maybe puts a somewhat different slant on things. There is nothing stopping her presenting a list of signatures in confidence to Bob Blackman who could verify the claim without breaking confidence.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 29, 2024 9:55:37 GMT
Suella is in the Telegraph saying she won't stand as leader and gives "a parting shot" of one kind of another ("the Tories won't listen as to why they lost the election") Those of us on the right side of democracy know why: cycles come and go and even after becoming the most far right government in years (voter id, botched Brexit, end of peaceful protest, Rwanda etc), the general public didn't buy into the idea that one more term of economic chaos was worth the effort. Going Trumpian (as Reform would like) didn't save the Tories from a defeat. I don't know what kind of Conservative Party Suella wants to create. She was head of the most extreme, isolationist, little Englander Home Office in generations, so it can't be that she wants to row back. Is the newest Telegraph column (I assume she declares her income?) just a red flag to wave before joining Reform? Will other right wing extremist Priti Patel be next? How did you manage to find yourself 'on the other side of democracy' young man? Does it hurt and do you need our help? Do you think that you might be able to get back again? Braverman is entirely correct about her party. She was attempting to get it into actual conservative blue water but the MPs, for the most part, were too timid and too stupid to go there. Thus they lost some of their strongest demographic lines of support and the GE by falling between three stools rather than just two. The Conservative Party is now '121 MPs in search of a leader, a policy, a purpose, a theme and their very soul'. They are in denial about nearly everything and she could have been a partial solution. She and Badenoch are the only two potential leaders that show any chance of getting out of this mess with a sense of purpose and direction. The rest of them are tired and vapid usual suspects.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 29, 2024 10:06:32 GMT
In what way is voter ID far right? I can see why some think it unnecessary but is there really a principled argument against asking people to show ID before voting? It's really odd for such a staunch EUphile being opposed to this country doing something that is commonplace on the continent.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,290
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 29, 2024 10:19:22 GMT
You could say the same about ID cards more generally, too.
But it is one thing to say voter ID is OK in principle, another to object to what amounted to fairly obvious and transparent vote suppression attempts in practice - especially when they were supposedly brought in to "deal with" a mostly non-existent problem whilst ignoring the main source of vote rigging in our elections (postal votes!) And no I don't expect the current government to simply scrap this, I do however think they will increase the amount of permitted identifiers to the point where it arguably means much the same thing in practice.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 29, 2024 10:22:18 GMT
Something that I don't think one member of the Blue Team on here actually agrees with, in fact they believe the opposite They would, wouldn't they? Hello Mandy!! Where have you been since those lovely long gone days of the 'smell' of Blairism?
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 29, 2024 10:30:40 GMT
In what way is voter ID far right? I can see why some think it unnecessary but is there really a principled argument against asking people to show ID before voting? It's really odd for such a staunch EUphile being opposed to this country doing something that is commonplace on the continent. But you know that the Voter ID introduced was complete bobbins? Including the admission that veteran cards couldn't be included because that would have to have allowed student cards. The system was created to supress non-Tory votes (fat lot of good that did mind).
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jul 29, 2024 10:36:36 GMT
You could say the same about ID cards more generally, too. But it is one thing to say voter ID is OK in principle, another to object to what amounted to fairly obvious and transparent vote suppression attempts in practice - especially when they were supposedly brought in to "deal with" a mostly non-existent problem whilst ignoring the main source of vote rigging in our elections (postal votes!) And no I don't expect the current government to simply scrap this, I do however think they will increase the amount of permitted identifiers to the point where it arguably means much the same thing in practice. The requirement for ID addresses a problem that has existed in the past more so than currently but could do again. It can be addressed by accepting anything at all from a Tesco Clubcard to a debit card, a screenshot of a junkmail letter, anything with the voters name on it. Maybe even their address and not even their name if they are the only voters at that address . The point is that it can't be cheaply or easily falsified for scores of voters so that a personater can make up ID for lots of voters then run around voting as lots of people who the marked register reveals did not vote last two or three times out or who the local newspaper revealed have died recently But postal voting is a far bigger problem both in terms of the secrecy of the ballot and outright fraud and the party at most risk from it is now the Labour party.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,290
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 29, 2024 10:45:21 GMT
It's really odd for such a staunch EUphile being opposed to this country doing something that is commonplace on the continent. But you know that the Voter ID introduced was complete bobbins? Including the admission that veteran cards couldn't be included because that would have to have allowed student cards. The system was created to supress non-Tory votes (fat lot of good that did mind). JRM later admitted most of those affected had been pensioners so it didn't "work" - saying the quiet part out loud alright.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 29, 2024 11:25:39 GMT
She claimed she did have the needed nominations, again "they would say that wouldn't they" applies but *if* true that maybe puts a somewhat different slant on things. Perhaps they all go to a different school.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 29, 2024 11:51:56 GMT
Meanwhile, back on topic -
Lord Heseltine from non-affiliated back to Conservative
|
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,758
|
Post by iang on Jul 29, 2024 18:05:33 GMT
Did he give any reason? Seems slightly strange timing "rat joining sinking ship" comes to mind a little (other than not thinking Lord Heseltine is a rat)
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 29, 2024 19:24:24 GMT
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,070
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 29, 2024 21:22:32 GMT
She claimed she did have the needed nominations, again "they would say that wouldn't they" applies but *if* true that maybe puts a somewhat different slant on things. Quite possible that she did have the necessary numbers to get on the ballot (such as calling in favours from friends etc), but she knew that that didn’t extend to people actually voting for her in the first round. Better to say you’ve been essentially prevented from standing than turn up and only get say 8 votes when you had 10 people sign your form.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,585
|
Post by john07 on Jul 29, 2024 22:20:40 GMT
She claimed she did have the needed nominations, again "they would say that wouldn't they" applies but *if* true that maybe puts a somewhat different slant on things. Quite possible that she did have the necessary numbers to get on the ballot (such as calling in favours from friends etc), but she knew that that didn’t extend to people actually voting for her in the first round. Better to say you’ve been essentially prevented from standing than turn up and only get say 8 votes when you had 10 people sign your form. Given what happened the last time a Conservative Government lost an election, there may be something to be said for candidates sitting this one out. William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith, and Michael Howard all had a shot before David Cameron almost won a majority.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 29, 2024 22:30:34 GMT
Quite possible that she did have the necessary numbers to get on the ballot (such as calling in favours from friends etc), but she knew that that didn’t extend to people actually voting for her in the first round. Better to say you’ve been essentially prevented from standing than turn up and only get say 8 votes when you had 10 people sign your form. Given what happened the last time a Conservative Government lost an election, there may be something to be said for candidates sitting this one out. William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith, and Michael Howard all had a shot before David Cameron almost won a majority. But Cameron, and Starmer, and Blair, were not elected to Parliament until after their parties went into opposition. It is likely that the next Tory PM is not an MP yet. Any of the current MPs will have too much "baggage" from the Johnson/Truss/Sunak era to be a contender for PM.
|
|