The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Mark Albrighton]

 

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

I wasn't suggesting it was technically not true.  I understand that.  It's the people banging on that Boris should return because HE's the only person with a mandate.

They're relying on this to suggest he should return.

But I stand by that the REASON the public gave the Tories a mandate was on a single issue.  Even without the truss regime I don't think they would have stood a chance at the next election as their one binding feature with the many disgruntled Labour voters has gone.

The opinion polls very strongly suggest that mandate is now gone, regardless of the technical situation.

They're both wrong. The people who say that Johnson should come back because "he's the only person with a mandate" are wrong. The people who "gave the Tories a mandate...on a single issue" are wrong. 

And their lack of understanding shouldn't be indulged, not least because it completely removes any responsibility for someone's vote and what it means. 

To take an example - Farage and the GB News dingbats have spent the last two years banging on about "a refendum on net zero, as nobody has given their consent". Except that anybody who voted Tory in 2019, voted for the aim of "Reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution", and I'd guess a Venn diagram of "nobody voted for net zero" and "Tory 2019 voters" is pretty much a circle. Those people shouldn't be handed the intellectual cheat code of "but I only voted because of Brexit, not all that other stuff".

I'm the first in the queue to say that an 18th Century electoral system isn't really suitable anymore and could be made a whole lot better - everything that is happening at the moment demonstrates some pretty massive flaws about Government legitimacy and how leaders are selected. But until somebody proposes changes to it and those changes are implemented, people shouldn't be going around thinking that it's something that it isn't. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by ml1dch

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

 

One of those absolutely pointless point scoring exercises on Twitter. They are both correct. Yes it's good for Labour (but it's reported by a Times journalist who is posting it as a warning against voting for Johnson) andand Yes Johnson shouldn't be anywhere near power but the Tories are being Tories. Both are valid opinions and are mutually exclusive

[The Fun Factory]

Wallace has paid to his serious political career by refusing to run and wanting to back the busted flush that is  Johnson. I almost thought he was normal but then realised he is a tory after all. Utterly baffling. It has to be Sunak or political annihilation. 

[Genie]

4 hours ago, sidcow said:

What the **** is this Boris Johnson obsession? There are so many insane people. 

Many saying he's the only one with a mandate from the nation. 

He had a mandate on a single issue. To "get Brexit done", well he's been on record, in fact like a stuck record saying that he got Brexit done. 

So many of our current issues are his problems coming home to roost.  Truss has obviously acclerated it beyond belief but we'd still be in a completely **** position if he'd have just stayed on and he would not sort anything, just give out more bullshit and bluster. 

We’re staring at an opportunity to move forwards as a nation. If we go back to Boris Johnson then I absolutely despair.

[stuart_75]

3 minutes ago, Genie said:

We’re staring at an opportunity to move forwards as a nation. If we go back to Boris Johnson then I absolutely despair.

And I thought the yanks having Trump run again in 2024 was madness....

[mjmooney]

Seriously,

I blame the rise of social media and TV 'voting' shows (X Factor, Strictly, Big Brother, I'm a Celeb, etc.) for the dumbing down of the electorate. 

It used to be that there were three types of potential voter:

1. Those 'tribally' loyal to one or other of the main parties. This could be for ideological reasons, family or regional tradition, etc. But they would reliably vote, and vote consistently. 

2. The genuine 'floating voters', who weighed up the manifestos, and could change their vote from one election to another, often for 'single issue' reasons. 

3. The confused, ignorant, uninterested or apathetic. Tended not to vote. 

Types 1 and 2 still exist, but their relative populations have changed/shrunk, due to changes in society and demographics. 

A large proportion of type 3 have morphed into a fourth group - who get their information from Twitter, Facebook, etc., and will vote for parties (or, more likely individuals) based upon media-influenced perceptions (Boris is entertaining, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, etc.) They've effectively adopted Type 1 tribalism, but based on a different set of perceptions. Voting in a GE is no different to voting in Eurovision or Strictly. And having nailed their colours to the mast on social media, they can't be seen to 'back down', so they will double down on their stance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are voting against their own best interests. 

I can't see a way out of this, tbh. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by mjmooney

[HKP90]

5 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Seriously,

I blame the rise of social media and TV 'voting' shows (X Factor, Strictly, Big Brother, I'm a Celeb, etc.) for the dumbing down of the electorate. 

It used to be that there were three types of potential voter:

1. Those 'tribally' loyal to one or other of the main parties. This could be for ideological reasons, family or regional tradition, etc. But they would reliably vote, and vote consistently. 

2. The genuine 'floating voters', who weighed up the manifestos, and could change their vote from one election to another, often for 'single issue' reasons. 

3. The confused, ignporant, uninterested or apathetic. Tended not to vote. 

Types 1 and 2 still exist, but their relative populations have changed/shrunk, due to changes in society and demographics. 

A large proportion of type 3 have morphed into a fourth group - who get their information from Twitter, Facebook, etc., and will vote for parties (or, more likely individuals) based upon media-influenced perceptions (Boris is entertaining, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, etc.) They've effectively adopted Type 1 tribalism, but based on a different set of perceptions. Voting in a GE is no different to voting in Eurovision or Strictly. And having nailed their colours to the mast on social media, they can't be seen to 'back down', so they will double down on their stance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are voting against their own best interests. 

I can't see a way out of this, tbh. 

Honestly, as much as we rely on it, this has everything to do with the rise of the internet as a phenomenon. 

Unless it goes away, or becomes regulated (which won't happen) so that lies which reinforce our prejudices can no longer eclipse truth, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. The hard right, like recent iterations of government both here and in the States feed on it.  

[bickster]

I don't think they've thought this through the grandstanding berks

[Panto_Villan]

9 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Seriously,

I blame the rise of social media and TV 'voting' shows (X Factor, Strictly, Big Brother, I'm a Celeb, etc.) for the dumbing down of the electorate. 

It used to be that there were three types of potential voter:

1. Those 'tribally' loyal to one or other of the main parties. This could be for ideological reasons, family or regional tradition, etc. But they would reliably vote, and vote consistently. 

2. The genuine 'floating voters', who weighed up the manifestos, and could change their vote from one election to another, often for 'single issue' reasons. 

3. The confused, ignporant, uninterested or apathetic. Tended not to vote. 

Types 1 and 2 still exist, but their relative populations have changed/shrunk, due to changes in society and demographics. 

A large proportion of type 3 have morphed into a fourth group - who get their information from Twitter, Facebook, etc., and will vote for parties (or, more likely individuals) based upon media-influenced perceptions (Boris is entertaining, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, etc.) They've effectively adopted Type 1 tribalism, but based on a different set of perceptions. Voting in a GE is no different to voting in Eurovision or Strictly. And having nailed their colours to the mast on social media, they can't be seen to 'back down', so they will double down on their stance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are voting against their own best interests. 

I can't see a way out of this, tbh. 

Let’s not pretend people in category 1 are any better. If you’re incapable of voting for the party with what you consider the best manifesto (making allowances for how likely that party is to be elected) then you’re part of the problem.

[ml1dch]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

I don't think they've thought this through the grandstanding berks

I disagree. They know it's not going to pass, but whichever of Sunak or Johnson becomes Prime Minister, its already with discussion of the stuff that brought them both down in the first place, bringing it straight back into the minds of anyone with a short memory. 

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Seriously,

I blame the rise of social media and TV 'voting' shows (X Factor, Strictly, Big Brother, I'm a Celeb, etc.) for the dumbing down of the electorate. 

It used to be that there were three types of potential voter:

1. Those 'tribally' loyal to one or other of the main parties. This could be for ideological reasons, family or regional tradition, etc. But they would reliably vote, and vote consistently. 

2. The genuine 'floating voters', who weighed up the manifestos, and could change their vote from one election to another, often for 'single issue' reasons. 

3. The confused, ignporant, uninterested or apathetic. Tended not to vote. 

Types 1 and 2 still exist, but their relative populations have changed/shrunk, due to changes in society and demographics. 

A large proportion of type 3 have morphed into a fourth group - who get their information from Twitter, Facebook, etc., and will vote for parties (or, more likely individuals) based upon media-influenced perceptions (Boris is entertaining, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, etc.) They've effectively adopted Type 1 tribalism, but based on a different set of perceptions. Voting in a GE is no different to voting in Eurovision or Strictly. And having nailed their colours to the mast on social media, they can't be seen to 'back down', so they will double down on their stance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are voting against their own best interests. 

I can't see a way out of this, tbh. 

This is demonstrably not true, especially with reference to group 3

No General Election since 1997 has had a greater % turnout than 1997  - 71.48%

1997 was the lowest election turnout since 1935 (71.1%)

Your claim that group 3 tended not to vote now do vote can only be true if groups 1 and 2 have really approached zero and we all know that isn't true without any research. We haven't gained a voting public we're losing them. It peaked in 1950 with 83.9% and was generally falling slowly until 1992 at which point it began to plummet for two election cycles (59.4% was its nadir in 2001). It then started to recover but even now we're only back in the mid-60% range. Non voters have massively increased

Social Media also affects those that rail against its effects

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I disagree. They know it's not going to pass, but whichever of Sunak or Johnson becomes Prime Minister, its already with discussion of the stuff that brought them both down in the first place, bringing it straight back into the minds of anyone with a short memory. 

That is possibly true, I'll concede that but I also dislike the use of parliamentary motions that get involved in party politics and should they pass would produce an absolute shit show in every government moving forward. Making laws to prove a point in the hope it fails and not considering the consequences of it actually passing should be left in the councils of the Student Unions where they belong

This is the same party that were calling the Tories out only.... *checks* ... today for not putting the good of the country first.

 

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

That is possibly true, I'll concede that but I also dislike the use of parliamentary motions that get involved in party politics and should they pass would produce an absolute shit show in every government moving forward. Making laws to prove a point in the hope it fails and not considering the consequences of it actually passing should be left in the councils of the Student Unions where they belong

This is the same party that were calling the Tories out only.... *checks* ... today for not putting the good of the country first.

Yes, that's all completely fair. 

[Genie]

 

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Seriously,

I blame the rise of social media and TV 'voting' shows (X Factor, Strictly, Big Brother, I'm a Celeb, etc.) for the dumbing down of the electorate. 

It used to be that there were three types of potential voter:

1. Those 'tribally' loyal to one or other of the main parties. This could be for ideological reasons, family or regional tradition, etc. But they would reliably vote, and vote consistently. 

2. The genuine 'floating voters', who weighed up the manifestos, and could change their vote from one election to another, often for 'single issue' reasons. 

3. The confused, ignorant, uninterested or apathetic. Tended not to vote. 

Types 1 and 2 still exist, but their relative populations have changed/shrunk, due to changes in society and demographics. 

A large proportion of type 3 have morphed into a fourth group - who get their information from Twitter, Facebook, etc., and will vote for parties (or, more likely individuals) based upon media-influenced perceptions (Boris is entertaining, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, etc.) They've effectively adopted Type 1 tribalism, but based on a different set of perceptions. Voting in a GE is no different to voting in Eurovision or Strictly. And having nailed their colours to the mast on social media, they can't be seen to 'back down', so they will double down on their stance, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are voting against their own best interests. 

I can't see a way out of this, tbh. 

I think it has eased up slightly as the social media platforms have realised how politically influential they can be. Most of the people who work for these platforms are smart, educated and don’t want the world to fall apart, so there has been a lot of internal pressure to clamp down on fake news, bot farms, etc - especially since Covid.

The situation right now is by no means perfect, but I think it’s better than it was in 2016.

Boris isn’t surging here because the British public have suddenly fallen in love with him again, but because the Tory Party is a word removed infested shambles.

Edited October 21, 2022 by KentVillan

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Boris isn’t surging here because the British public have suddenly fallen in love with him again,

Also, If anything it is the MSM that are pushing the Boris agenda right now not socials. Most of those, I suspect, are pushing it in the grand old newspaper tradition of build them to smash them down. There is still lots of Johnson dirt they've accumulated over the years that they just haven't used yet.

(The obvious Telegraph / Spectator etc outlets are excluded from this)

[bannedfromHandV]

I really hope we don’t sit idly by if Bozo gets back in.

There needs to be widespread demonstrations if it comes to pass.

The mere notion of it depresses me.

[Davkaus]

It'd be amusing to see how many people who resigned because his position was untenable would welcome him back and serve in his cabinet.

 

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It'd be amusing to see how many people who resigned because his position was untenable would welcome him back and serve in his cabinet.

 

And you can absolutely guarantee that every single one of them will be asked that question... repeatedly