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

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I think I anticpated what you would say.

But seriously, even the ones that were accurate show the declining support for the baby chompers.

 

well I don't like to disappoint  

 

No , I understand popularity is currently on the wane , but it kinda doesn't mean a lot until it comes down to cold hard votes ... see PM Miliband and "No hoper " Corbyn in the last 2 elections , I think we've kinda seen how a lot of people react to the moment ..one news story can change the outcome of those polls rather quickly

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I understand popularity is currently on the wane

Which is what I said

As to the future, you're right, we can't know for sure what will happen, but I'm personally confident in the tories ability and inbuilt instinct and disposition to absolutely make things worse for the majority of people. Furthermore, it's rare indeed if parties that have been in power for 7 years or longer actually increase their popularity. They run out of steam, and this lot are particularly useless anyway. There are no successes at all and serial failures.

[chrisp65]

for the life of me I can't understand why this pension age change wasn't a big part of their recent election campaign

[markavfc40]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

Furthermore, it's rare indeed if parties that have been in power for 7 years or longer actually increase their popularity. They run out of steam, and this lot are particularly useless anyway. There are no successes at all and serial failures.

You raise a good point here. I mean is there anything they have done of any good that would benefit the masses? I know they have reduced the point at which you pay income tax but it hasn’t offset the fact, that due to their disastrous policies, the economy is in that much of a mess that wages have stagnated and inflation is now rising.

Maybe those on VT who like to defend them could point to a handful of things they have done in seven years that have benefited the majority and better still given that the main role of any Government should be to help those most vulnerable name three things that have benefited those who most need the help?

[darrenm]

51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

A coherent opposition would smash through them like a mobility scootered fatty in a gift shop.

They do have a coherent opposition. Very coherent. It's just a shame it's taken them this long to get it together. Progress are all but wiped out and the NEC are about to become Corbyn/Momentum controlled.

When you look at the daily coordinated attacks on Labour from the vast majority of print circulation that then gets airtime on the TV and parts of social media, it's incredible that Labour denied them a majority in the election. Lots say the Tories were poor. I don't think that at all, I think the Tories were brutal and ruthless, attempting to exploit any weakness they could but it still wasn't enough.

Without Momentum, Labour would have been properly wiped out this election. You could say that without Momentum, the left of Labour wouldn't be there and we would have someone like Angela Eagle or Owen Smith, but it's unlikely they would have done much better than Miliband by being Tory lites.

My view is that Momentum are seen as dangerous by the right because it's now undeniable how powerful they are. They're the counter to the Murdoch, Dacre, Desmond, Barclays, Tory protection racket except they know how to engage people to create the feeling of a movement. The print media are still powerful amongst the working class and the old but they're having less influence all the time. We absolutely need Momentum to fight the old print media and rob them of their power.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

19 minutes ago, darrenm said:

They do have a coherent opposition. Very coherent. It's just a shame it's taken them this long to get it together. Progress are all but wiped out and the NEC are about to become Corbyn/Momentum controlled.

When you look at the daily coordinated attacks on Labour from the vast majority of print circulation that then gets airtime on the TV and parts of social media, it's incredible that Labour denied them a majority in the election. Lots say the Tories were poor. I don't think that at all, I think the Tories were brutal and ruthless, attempting to exploit any weakness they could but it still wasn't enough.

Without Momentum, Labour would have been properly wiped out this election. You could say that without Momentum, the left of Labour wouldn't be there and we would have someone like Angela Eagle or Owen Smith, but it's unlikely they would have done much better than Miliband by being Tory lites.

My view is that Momentum are seen as dangerous by the right because it's now undeniable how powerful they are. They're the counter to the Murdoch, Dacre, Desmond, Barclays, Tory protection racket except they know how to engage people to create the feeling of a movement. The print media are still powerful amongst the working class and the old but they're having less influence all the time. We absolutely need Momentum to fight the old print media and rob them of their power.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Labour were never getting it together, they made little progress and I believe Momentum has legitimised their ineptness by swaying people to Corby, not policy and the party. I'm sure there are coherent MP's and hopefully one day we will hear from them.

I also think the Tories were spectacularly poor. They had a weak manifesto because they thought certain flagship policies/consultations would be included in the conversation, of course they weren't. They mismanaged a fair few policy announcements and even the research for them. It was a robotic campaign that would have benefited hugely from involving a wide range of opinion to shut down the opposition, instead we got May delivering soundbite after soundbite while Corbyn actually campaigned on his promises.
Far from having no successes as blandy fells, they had a few very important policies that they did little to nothing to identify or promote.

I do agree with you on the print media and Momentum but we need some real objectivity and not this partisan approach to conquering the rags, where the left are as bad as the right.
Watching The Mash Report last night reminded me of how painful the conversation has become.

[darrenm]

36 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Labour were never getting it together, they made little progress and I believe Momentum has legitimised their ineptness by swaying people to Corby, not policy and the party. I'm sure there are coherent MP's and hopefully one day we will hear from them.

I'm sorry I don't understand any of this. Not sure what you mean by they were never getting it together, little progress and legitimising ineptness etc. Who are the coherent(?) MPs?

I also think the Tories were spectacularly poor. They had a weak manifesto because they thought certain flagship policies/consultations would be included in the conversation, of course they weren't.

The manifesto was definitely weak. That didn't help them at all and gave Labour an angle to attack but lots of traditional Tory voters still go on board with it. Lots of people still believe in austerity.

They mismanaged a fair few policy announcements and even the research for them. It was a robotic campaign that would have benefited hugely from involving a wide range of opinion to shut down the opposition, instead we got May delivering soundbite after soundbite while Corbyn actually campaigned on his promises.
Far from having no successes as blandy fells, they had a few very important policies that they did little to nothing to identify or promote.

Their campaign in any other election against any other opposition would have been average. Corbyn's team getting him in safe seats with plenty of core support to enthused crowds and then in stadiums singing Oh Jeremy Corbyn etc made the Tory campaign look weak. As I say, compare the Tory campaign to Cameron 2015, they wouldn't be a lot different.

I do agree with you on the print media and Momentum but we need some real objectivity and not this partisan approach to conquering the rags, where the left are as bad as the right.

A _single_ left wing paper (Mirror) is as bad as the right consortium of the Telegraph, Times, Sun, Express, Metro, Mail, etc. The Guardian and Independent are left-leaning but don't do hatchet jobs on the opposition. The hard right wing paper circulation dwarfs the left.

replies above

[blandy]

3 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Labour were never getting it together, they made little progress and I believe Momentum has legitimised their ineptness by swaying people to Corby, not policy and the party. I'm sure there are coherent MP's and hopefully one day we will hear from them.

I also think the Tories were spectacularly poor. They had a weak manifesto because they thought certain flagship policies/consultations would be included in the conversation, of course they weren't. They mismanaged a fair few policy announcements and even the research for them. It was a robotic campaign that would have benefited hugely from involving a wide range of opinion to shut down the opposition, instead we got May delivering soundbite after soundbite while Corbyn actually campaigned on his promises.
Far from having no successes as blandy feels, they had a few very important policies that they did little to nothing to identify or promote.

I do agree with you on the print media and Momentum but we need some real objectivity and not this partisan approach to conquering the rags, where the left are as bad as the right.
Watching The Mash Report last night reminded me of how painful the conversation has become.

I don't completely agree, but there's a lot in that. The tories were absolutely woeful, the whole campaign was an utter shambles (which was nice). I also agree on momentum and the media - things have got very polarised. And in the same way that if anyone in the public eye dares to criticise the Mail or Sun etc. they get absolutely slaughtered by those rags, the same is true on the modern media platforms when people, even constructively, criticise Corbyn or aspects of momentum - it's just mob, rather than Editor.

I notice you didn't actually name any of the alleged "successes". The catalogue of mishaps and pile ups and downright idiotic acts is massive, however. The only thing I can think of where they can claim some sort of statistical benefit is the number of people in employment, but for me that is countered by the jobs being low paid zero hours type jobs - the nation isn't really being rejuvenated by the increase in people in work, if anything it's contributed to further deterioration and division.

[Xela]

On 7/19/2017 at 14:43, markavfc40 said:

Affects anyone between the age of 39 and 47. I'm 43  I wouldn't be surprised if it changes again before that and I'll be looking at 70+ to see a state pension.... assuming I ever do.

I've written off my state pension. If I get anything I'll class it as a bonus. I'm 38 so it was 68 for me already but I daresay that will increase north of 70 in the next 25 years.

I cant see me being alive that long anyway! 

[Xela]

On 7/20/2017 at 10:32, PaulC said:

I was talking to my local pharmacist the other day about gp group practices being more about profit than care for patients. This particular one we were discussing take on 50 new patients a week when they cant care for the ones they have.  The biggest difference for me over the last 30 years is the quality of care from your GP has gone downhill. I know that's digressing form pensions but its all a big worry  the way this country has gone. 

Following on from this, a nurse at my locals Docs surgery said that in her time there (I didn't ask how long) the patient base has increased from 4,000 to nearly 12,000. That is staggering. 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Labour were never getting it together, they made little progress and I believe Momentum has legitimised their ineptness by swaying people to Corby, not policy and the party. I'm sure there are coherent MP's and hopefully one day we will hear from them.

I'm sorry I don't understand any of this. Not sure what you mean by they were never getting it together, little progress and legitimising ineptness etc. Who are the coherent(?) MPs?

Ha, I didn't understand how you could call them coherent! I tend to follow debates and am absolutely sick to the back teeth of Labour putting forward Shadow Ministers who bring nothing to the table and are outshone by Conservative backbenchers acting as the real opposition. Some Labour backbenchers are doing well but they appear the opposition of the opposition. John Healey is a good guy for his remit.
Also Corbyn is consistently saying one thing and MPs say another, even on what they'll be doing during this holiday break!  

I also think the Tories were spectacularly poor. They had a weak manifesto because they thought certain flagship policies/consultations would be included in the conversation, of course they weren't.

The manifesto was definitely weak. That didn't help them at all and gave Labour an angle to attack but lots of traditional Tory voters still go on board with it. Lots of people still believe in austerity.
I believe in austerity as living within ones means. And I agree with you on many agreeing with it, but there was a shift from the voters on things like education, which actually the Conservatives are quite strong on, despite the pathetic non Grammar narrative that gets thrown around. Yet they didn't promote T-levels, increased wages in skilled apprenticeships, or wages between some Uni and non-uni courses moving closer. They did however get involved in a fairer funding policy that Labour once supported! 
Imo, they not only had a weak manifesto but a weaker strategy in dealing with the very worthy and welcomed Labour promises, even if they were uncosted.

They mismanaged a fair few policy announcements and even the research for them. It was a robotic campaign that would have benefited hugely from involving a wide range of opinion to shut down the opposition, instead we got May delivering soundbite after soundbite while Corbyn actually campaigned on his promises.
Far from having no successes as blandy fells, they had a few very important policies that they did little to nothing to identify or promote.

Their campaign in any other election against any other opposition would have been average. Corbyn's team getting him in safe seats with plenty of core support to enthused crowds and then in stadiums singing Oh Jeremy Corbyn etc made the Tory campaign look weak. As I say, compare the Tory campaign to Cameron 2015, they wouldn't be a lot different.
I thought it was condescension more than a campaign. And that's my main issue with it. It didn't even get to average.

I definitely agree with you on Cameron, he was a showman and tbh, a bloody brilliant one. But his policies stunk and like Blair/Brown, he got lazy in his position, dropping every shred of purpose that he once shaped as the big society.
Since May came in, from a professional POV, I have seen a monumental shift in Ministers wanting to understand policy. It has been wholly refreshing both in terms of conversation and delivery. 

I do agree with you on the print media and Momentum but we need some real objectivity and not this partisan approach to conquering the rags, where the left are as bad as the right.

A _single_ left wing paper (Mirror) is as bad as the right consortium of the Telegraph, Times, Sun, Express, Metro, Mail, etc. The Guardian and Independent are left-leaning but don't do hatchet jobs on the opposition. The hard right wing paper circulation dwarfs the left. 
In modern Britain? Definitely. The right wing press splash nonsense in our faces and dwarf circulation of readership, but does it dwarf influence in the UK?
The Guardian and Independent are perhaps two of the worst papers out there, pretending to be objective or left leaning, but actually promoting the worst type of journalism, ignorance. (not all of it, but it's mostly 'Where's Wally' for good journalism)
And who reads their hyped headlines and 'in depth' stories that barely scratch the surface of the problem? People who write the news. Celebrities. Producers. People who influence millions of people in a way the papers stopped doing many years ago. That then moves to social media, which is already the most influential media outlet and many many times worse than the rags. Suddenly, chanting '**** the Tories' is as endearing as singing 'ohhhh Jeremey Corbyn'. And now, because everyone has 'liked' it, the News can legitimately spin it in whichever way the reporter wants.

Don't get me wrong, I know it works both ways, eg - the BBC Corbyn witch-hunt, but I think most of us are happy to accept that the right wing in the UK prefers print, whereas the left is working its magic elsewhere and very differently.
Eughh, all this talk of left and right make my skin crawl! ha.

@blandy I could definitely name some successes, I have been doing that for very many months now. Included a couple above but I am no fool to the reality that the Conservatives have been failing with deliverable positive policies such as the overburdened education syllabus for primary and consequently, difficult secondary progression and increased workload for teachers. Though tbh, education has always been a government plaything. Freeschools, baby!

Edited July 21, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[chrisp65]

5 hours ago, darrenm said:

They do have a coherent opposition. Very coherent. It's just a shame it's taken them this long to get it together. Progress are all but wiped out and the NEC are about to become Corbyn/Momentum controlled.

 

I genuinely wouldn't describe them as 'very coherent'.

I don't think I worked out their position on europe during the last election, and that was a fairly big ticket item. I think they stayed relatively vague and quiet on europe and mopped up the anti-tory, ant-brexit vote whilst themselves actually having a very similar position. I guess you could argue that they were coherent in that they mostly all stuck to the same fudge.

There needs to be a wider inner circle, if that makes any sense. Once you move away from a small number of loyalists I'd say the parliamentary Labour party is still quite a long way from being Corbynite.

 

 

 

 

 

[Davkaus]

I think pretty much the single policy that I agree with the tories over Labour is the state pension. Increasing the age a few years early is a step in the right direction, if not too little, too late. Meanwhile, Corbyn wants to preserve the triple lock, ensuring that pensioners continue to enjoy greater payrises than the working population funding the pensions.

The state pension simply can't be protected in its current state. It has stayed fairly static while the average life expectancy has gone up and up. It either needs to have the starting age increased, be means tested, or taxation is going to need to go through the roof.

In principle, I'd be happy with either or both of raising the age and means testing it, on the condition that we have a far stronger social safety net that protects those who are unable to work. Some people may well be able to work in to their seventies, but not everyone can, and we need to look after those people regardless of whether they're 68 or 18.

[peterms]

2 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

absolutely sick to the back teeth of Labour putting forward Shadow Ministers who bring nothing to the table

We are still in the phase where Corbyn is working with a PLP which is mostly unsupportive.  Some are supporting, some are accepting positions but seeing themselves as free to jump ship whenever a better chance for their personal advancement arrives, some are opponents who have shouldered weapons while he commands the support of the party and a large part of the country, some are resolute opponents who are even now working, scheming, briefing against him.

It's like trying to pick a team from a group consisting of the first team, the reseves, the bomb squad, and Birmingham City.

2 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

I believe in austerity as living within ones means.

This is the foundation of all sorts of misunderstandings.  As an economy, living within our "means" is what is environmentally sustainable.  But that's not what they mean.  They mean instead having a "balanced budget", failing to understand the difference between a household and a government (or possibly deliberately seeking to deceive people on that point).

That is the recipe for recession,  and the reason why our recovery from the last recession was the slowest in recorded history, artificially slowed by policies about "living within our means".  It's illiterate nonsense, don't be doing with it.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

We are still in the phase where Corbyn is working with a PLP which is mostly unsupportive.  Some are supporting, some are accepting positions but seeing themselves as free to jump ship whenever a better chance for their personal advancement arrives, some are opponents who have shouldered weapons while he commands the support of the party and a large part of the country, some are resolute opponents who are even now working, scheming, briefing against him.

It's like trying to pick a team from a group consisting of the first team, the reseves, the bomb squad, and Birmingham City.

This is the foundation of all sorts of misunderstandings.  As an economy, living within our "means" is what is environmentally sustainable.  But that's not what they mean.  They mean instead having a "balanced budget", failing to understand the difference between a household and a government (or possibly deliberately seeking to deceive people on that point).

That is the recipe for recession,  and the reason why our recovery from the last recession was the slowest in recorded history, artificially slowed by policies about "living within our means".  It's illiterate nonsense, don't be doing with it.

Absolutely about the PLP, shocking behaviour and they wasted two years. They need to learn how to be part of the process, as Corbyn did for 20 years. But division continues, which sadly means it's very difficult for Corbyn to embrace the detractors even if he is admirably trying.
Still, his favourites need to start performing past Tory rhetoric/manifesto promises and I believe he does too. Labour need granular policy discussion so the final Tory swinging vote  (and others) sees Labour as credible. 

Absolutely agree with you again, that's a different 'living within your means' and government does a particularly bad job delivering policy that delivers real change for ordinary people. However, it's not as recession stimulating as spending money wildly on promises you haven't actually costed; which is much of the Labour manifesto. And not only due to costs but due to delivery.
I look at the promise to take back the water companies and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but it leaves me chuckling for quite some time when I think about what that means and what their method to do it might be. I say might because I've heard nothing from Labour about what that promise means and what the purpose is. 

Also, every nation has had a slow recovery since this last recession and it's a lot more to do with things like the oil markets, finance and global trade/manufacturing than national policy. I do however welcome responsible public spending but not giveaways.
Though if you want to play that partisan game then who presided over the recession and who was in charge when we pulled out of it? That argument doesn't really get us anywhere but I'd be happy to look at how policies pre and post recession shaped something like the cost of housing, which, in the context of 'living within your means' is a predominant contributor.

Edited July 21, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[HanoiVillan]

The Observer are featuring a man called Andrew Gimson tomorrow, with his opinion on the Tory leadership. His opinions are silly:

'. . . is there some unknown figure who can save the day? It is true that the Conservative backbenches, and lower ministerial ranks, are rich in talent. I can without much difficulty think of half a dozen Tory MPs who might have the ability one day to lead the party.

But they do not have the ability to lead it now.'

The Conservatives have more than 300 MP's. Being able to think of a half dozen who might be up to it one day does not suggest they are rich in talent, you wazzock. 

'Whenever I am perplexed by the future of the Conservative party, I ring a shire Tory, buried deep in the English countryside, so immune to metropolitan fads. She is a kind of one-woman focus group, who reaches conclusions shared by many other Conservatives.'

Maybe she should have written the article. They haven't got a clue what to do have they?

[magnkarl]

11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The Observer are featuring a man called Andrew Gimson tomorrow, with his opinion on the Tory leadership. His opinions are silly:

'. . . is there some unknown figure who can save the day? It is true that the Conservative backbenches, and lower ministerial ranks, are rich in talent. I can without much difficulty think of half a dozen Tory MPs who might have the ability one day to lead the party.

But they do not have the ability to lead it now.'

The Conservatives have more than 300 MP's. Being able to think of a half dozen who might be up to it one day does not suggest they are rich in talent, you wazzock. 

'Whenever I am perplexed by the future of the Conservative party, I ring a shire Tory, buried deep in the English countryside, so immune to metropolitan fads. She is a kind of one-woman focus group, who reaches conclusions shared by many other Conservatives.'

Maybe she should have written the article. They haven't got a clue what to do have they?

I think this is true for both parties. When did Labour last produce a leader that was coherent, had his or her party's support and form any sort of effective opposition? The jury is still out on Corbyn but I'd say that both parties are extremely anemic on high end talent that could lead their very split parties.

[Dr_Pangloss]

On 7/21/2017 at 22:44, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Absolutely about the PLP, shocking behaviour and they wasted two years. They need to learn how to be part of the process, as Corbyn did for 20 years. But division continues, which sadly means it's very difficult for Corbyn to embrace the detractors even if he is admirably trying.
Still, his favourites need to start performing past Tory rhetoric/manifesto promises and I believe he does too. Labour need granular policy discussion so the final Tory swinging vote  (and others) sees Labour as credible. 

Absolutely agree with you again, that's a different 'living within your means' and government does a particularly bad job delivering policy that delivers real change for ordinary people. However, it's not as recession stimulating as spending money wildly on promises you haven't actually costed; which is much of the Labour manifesto. And not only due to costs but due to delivery.
I look at the promise to take back the water companies and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but it leaves me chuckling for quite some time when I think about what that means and what their method to do it might be. I say might because I've heard nothing from Labour about what that promise means and what the purpose is. 

Also, every nation has had a slow recovery since this last recession and it's a lot more to do with things like the oil markets, finance and global trade/manufacturing than national policy. I do however welcome responsible public spending but not giveaways.
Though if you want to play that partisan game then who presided over the recession and who was in charge when we pulled out of it? That argument doesn't really get us anywhere but I'd be happy to look at how policies pre and post recession shaped something like the cost of housing, which, in the context of 'living within your means' is a predominant contributor.

The very 'political' (rather than economic) decision, to deploy austerity in 2010, when the recovery was looking pretty good, is a big reason for the UK having a particularly 'slow' recovery, versus other highly developed nations.  

[tonyh29]

On 21/07/2017 at 18:40, Xela said:

Following on from this, a nurse at my locals Docs surgery said that in her time there (I didn't ask how long) the patient base has increased from 4,000 to nearly 12,000. That is staggering. 

The GP surgery get £125 ( I think )a year for every person registered at the surgery ... part of the problem seems to be some people die , some move away and the GP's don't get informed ... and it's probably not in their interest to bother to find out 

[chrisp65]

On 7/21/2017 at 18:40, Xela said:

Following on from this, a nurse at my locals Docs surgery said that in her time there (I didn't ask how long) the patient base has increased from 4,000 to nearly 12,000. That is staggering. 

 

7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The GP surgery get £125 ( I think )a year for every person registered at the surgery ... part of the problem seems to be some people die , some move away and the GP's don't get informed ... and it's probably not in their interest to bother to find out 

 

To be fair, not even Shipman managed to lose 8,000