New Tory Leader

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

See, this is one of the big problems with politics. For too many people, they conflate it with sports and pander around terms like you just have, "defeat from the jaws of victory" and making meaningless comparisons with football managers like politics is some sort of sport and you want bragging rights over the other team. That may be what it's like for you, and to be honest, I'm fortunate enough in that whether Tories or Labour win the next general election, my personal situation won't change to the extent that it will have a drastic effect on my or my family's lives.

However, I do live on a council estate and for the majority of my neighbours government policy's can have a profound impact on their day to day lives. That's why I was so pro-Corbyn, because he had policies that would make a genuine positive difference to people I see every day. As a leader, he sucked, he was never the right man to be a poster boy for what was probably the best Labour manifesto I've seen in my lifetime. And it was a manifesto that opinion polling proved was highly popular.

However, people can't see past this politics as some sort of tribal game, none moreso than the Labour Right who sharpened their knives, and huge swathes of the general public went to the polling booth with personalities, not policies at the forefront of their minds.

And it's for the same reason why I'm particularly non-plussed about the next general election, assuming Truss is gone by then. A Morduant/Sunak-led Tory Party won't be hugely different to a Starmer-led Labour Party in the impact it will have on my local area. On a broader scale, Starmer is advocating for the status quo on our back-dated, broken and corruption-enabling political system. He's more than happy for corporations or foreign governments to be in charge of industries that people rely on in their daily lives, and in some cases rely on to not die. On a local level there is no mention of bringing back SureStart, surprising given it was one of the best things Blair's Labour introduced to the country, despite the fact that shutting it down devastated plenty of families around here. He takes funding from sketchy people live Trevor Chinn who advocates for low income taxes for the wealthy and defended the rich's use of loopholes to reduce their tax bills (something he was aware was dodgy because he refused to disclose the support his leadership campaign received from him until after he'd seized power).

I expect he's a lot like you; to him this is a game that he wants to win. Nothing else matters. In that respect, he's no different from Cameron or Johnson. Becoming Prime Minister is the goal and nothing else matters, even what he does once in power.

With brave policies he could have been ahead long before the never-ending Tory scandals. If you insist on analogising football and politics, Boris was beating him 2-0 right up until the end of 2021. Starmer hasn't change his leadership style, personality or strategy since then and now. The Tory Party just started scoring a series of own-goals, which has given Labour the lead.

That's great for you, you're likely to able to celebrate a win for your boys next time we're called to vote. But for the people that need proper, radical policies in order to improve their respective lots, or the people that hope to see a fair, democratic political system in our lifetime, the poll lead is about as relevant as which Z-lister will be announced for I'm a Celebrity first.

You assume much too much.

First I have a humble upbringing - open fires and no bathroom - outside loo and a galvanized zink bathtub. Some will recall 😉

I am however unashamedly first generation University due mainly to my parents having loads of books around and wanting their children to do so much better. It's probably why I'm left of centre on social issues.

However - your biggest conjecture without evidence is that Starmer would be doing so much better if he was more 'left'. This is exactly the argument that Labour slavishly followed after Brown's defeat (and Brown was and remains well to the left of Blair) - they weren't radical or pure 'left' enough. They lost, doubled down and lost and lost and lost again moving ever more 'left' finishing with the catastrophe of Corbyn (and yes McDonnell would of been far more electable). Truth is you win elections from the centre in the UK & not the extreme as Truss is proving all over again. The same will be true under PR as well.

Many of McDonnell's policies were indeed popular - rail nationalization and so on as I've said before on here  - but as usual there were also many policies that where wholly idealistic or unworldly - easy targets for a right wing press and gullible voters to naysay. To his credit SKS, who is naturally proper 'left' has learnt those lessons from history and is intent not to lose again so easily. Politics is after all, all about compromise - the art of the possible.

As to SKS policies - as HF states he is being very careful (shrewd) not to give any hostages to fortune  - he doesn't need too as he's 25 or 30 points clear at present. Plenty of time to enlarge upon other sensible policies like Sure Start nearer the election and for a manifesto.

So no, my criticism of the Corbyn left is that they seem happy to be forever in opposition playing meaningless games of political purity, powerless, as opposed to focusing on gaining actual power and then the ability to improve the lot of our poorer citizens (I won't use the word working class as that's so 1970s and meaningless these days). SKS isn't playing games, he's playing to win.

Finally - just saw this. Wow.

In the latest round of extraordinary polling, a survey by People Polling for the Daily Telegraph has found Labour’s lead has stretched to a huge 34 points, with the Conservatives on 19%.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

Truss - 

Was out for few hours there -

Question looking at tonight's news is can she even survive tomorrow. 50/50 ?

[Mr Apples 1,335]

Kwarteng out, Javid in...could it happen?🤔😱🤣

Apples

[Herman 9,838]

7 hours ago, Mr Apples said:

Kwarteng out, Javid in...could it happen?🤔😱🤣

Apples

He's flying back early. 

Kwasi, Kwasi nights. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 hours ago, horsefly said:

When, during a televised election debate with Corbyn, Johnson said that he thought the "truth was important" the whole audience burst into laughter. Johnson was also well known to be a liar and fraud long before 2019. It was a devastating indictment of Corbyn that he lost so appallingly to a man the population knew to be a liar but considered preferable to him. Best you put those bridges up for sale on ebay.

And when Johnson enjoyed comfortable and consistent poll leads against Starmer for two years, the public knew Johnson was a liar then. Even as he mismanaged Covid and caused avoidable death, the polls STILL favoured Johnson.

A damning indictment, as you say.

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

he doesn't need too as he's 25 or 30 points clear at present.

On this I agree, with the lead he now has he is wise to keep his powder dry.

But when he was behind in the polls to a man responsible for one of the worst responses to the pandemic in the world, he could and should have been setting out a plan. Had Johnson not decided to party it up, Captain Hindsight would still be trailing him in the polls. Likewise, had the Tories not replaced him with Truss then Labour would still probably be behind.

On the eve of the Labour Party Conference, Liz Truss had a better approval rating than SKS. Liz. Truss.

Even as recently as June and after all his ****, the public STILL felt Johnson would make a better PM than SKS.

I'd love the be able to believe he's sat there hiding all these radical policies that he's waiting to unleash once in power, but there is no evidence to suggest that. Actually, there is one piece, he does have form for lying and pretending to be something he isn't to gain power.

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

And when Johnson enjoyed comfortable and consistent poll leads against Starmer for two years, the public knew Johnson was a liar then. Even as he mismanaged Covid and caused avoidable death, the polls STILL favoured Johnson.

A damning indictment, as you say.

When Starmer took over we went into severe Covid restrictions and lockdown. He didn't have the chance to campaign and show himself and the party to be distinct from the malign influence of Corbyn. Rightly he could do little more than support the government in its actions to protect the nation. You know as well as I do that when a nation is under a dire threat such as Covid presented the country's leader always benefits from a patriotic poll boost.  Starmer subsequently wiped the floor with Johnson in all subsequent PMQs and built up the case against him with the skill which explains why he was picked to head up the CPS. Do feel free to take a look at the polls subsequent to the perceived emergency.

Edited October 14, 2022 by horsefly

[canarydan23 4,060]

14 minutes ago, horsefly said:

When Starmer took over we went into severe Covid restrictions and lockdown. He didn't have the chance to campaign and show himself and the party to be distinct from the malign influence of Corbyn. Rightly he could do little more than support the government in its actions to protect the nation. You know as well as I do that when a nation is under a dire threat such as Covid presented the country's leader always benefits from a patriotic poll boost.  Starmer subsequently wiped the floor with Johnson in all subsequent PMQs and built up the case against him with the skill which explains why he was picked to head up the CPS. Do feel free to take a look at the polls subsequent to the perceived emergency.

I hate to tell you this, but no one watches PMQs. William Hague used to regularly wipe the floor with Tony Blair but  the difference it made on the polls and in the subsequent general election was negligible.

Similarly, SKS giving Johnson a hard time at the dispatch box did nothing to help Labour acquire a poll lead, or Starmer's personal approval ratings (which have only not been negative for the first time this month against the comparison of some of the most inept governmenting in recent history). 

Toward the back on end of 2020 Labour started to enjoy something close to parity with the Tories, but throughout 2021 the Tories stretched out to a significant lead again (which kind of rains on your theory that the Tory lead was down to Covid and lack of campaign time for Starmer). It was until the back end of 2021 with the nation finally getting sick to death of Johnson and partygate rumours started to emerge that Labour started to enjoy a poll lead. Are you seriously suggesting it was anything other than that? That actually, it was all because the nation had finally started to see SKS in his true light that Labour finally started to gain traction against the Tories in the opinion polls?! Seriously?

People just don't take to him. He only became palatable to the general population when the Tories hit the self destruct button. And against Liz Truss's Tory Party, I think a Labour Party led by Joey Essex would be smashing it up in the polling.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

27 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I hate to tell you this, but no one watches PMQs. William Hague used to regularly wipe the floor with Tony Blair but  the difference it made on the polls and in the subsequent general election was negligible.

Similarly, SKS giving Johnson a hard time at the dispatch box did nothing to help Labour acquire a poll lead, or Starmer's personal approval ratings (which have only not been negative for the first time this month against the comparison of some of the most inept governmenting in recent history). 

Toward the back on end of 2020 Labour started to enjoy something close to parity with the Tories, but throughout 2021 the Tories stretched out to a significant lead again (which kind of rains on your theory that the Tory lead was down to Covid and lack of campaign time for Starmer). It was until the back end of 2021 with the nation finally getting sick to death of Johnson and partygate rumours started to emerge that Labour started to enjoy a poll lead. Are you seriously suggesting it was anything other than that? That actually, it was all because the nation had finally started to see SKS in his true light that Labour finally started to gain traction against the Tories in the opinion polls?! Seriously?

People just don't take to him. He only became palatable to the general population when the Tories hit the self destruct button. And against Liz Truss's Tory Party, I think a Labour Party led by Joey Essex would be smashing it up in the polling.

There comes a point at which people vote for the opposite of what they've had.

Cameron was bone idle, May was a coward, Johnson a lying charlatan, and Tuss has already plumbed barely believable depths of flip-flopping incompetence.

Starmer is a workaholic who showed political bravery by facing down and effectively side-lining Momentum, and as far as any politician can be seems truthful, as well as appearing steadily competent.

Given the current mess created by 12 years of Tory misrule those are not just virtues by way of being the polar opposite of what has gone before but virtues in themselves.

[horsefly 4,318]

31 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

). It was until the back end of 2021 with the nation finally getting sick to death of Johnson and partygate rumours started to emerge that Labour started to enjoy a poll lead. Are you seriously suggesting it was anything other than that? That actually, it was all because the nation had finally started to see SKS in his true light that Labour finally started to gain traction against the Tories in the opinion polls?! Seriously?

Oh dear! Try taking your own advice and get serious about the analysis of Labour's lead. The idea that the answer is an exclusive disjunctive choice between Johnson's/Truss'/Tory's failures OR Starmer's unique personal impact is frankly childish. Quite obviously there is a complex mix of many factors. What is clear is that every poll in recent months concerning who would make the best PM puts Starmer streets ahead of the opposition. I know Corbynites are a dedicated mob, and there is almost something endearing in such loyalty, but it doesn't alter the fact that Corbyn's poll ratings as potential PM were truly appalling (despite the massive gift of Tory chaos over Brexit, and Johnson's corruption).

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

At this moment in time, with a written press that has a notable right-wing bias and indeed where the readership has it also, it makes far more sense for a centre/centre-left party to have a leader in place that doesn't give said media much room to attack, especially when the Tories seem busy on literally going for broke as such vulnerabilities would be manna from heaven to defend the party in power.

Corbyn always had plenty of available spots to attack. The fact Starmer's followed lockdown rules far better than the shambles that was Johnson (and Cummings) and is on much more centrist ground compared to the kerfuffle we've recently seen from Truss and Kwarteng means he's less likely to spook swing voters. But he's essentially had to disassociate from Momentum - maybe it was similar to Kinnock having to stare down the Militant tendency back in the day? Or indeed Blair scrapping Clause Four?

Which brings me to what I really want to say, I think England's populace is, in the most general of terms, naturally relatively centre-right on social matters.

Edited October 14, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! Try taking your own advice and get serious about the analysis of Labour's lead. The idea that the answer is an exclusive disjunctive choice between Johnson's/Truss'/Tory's failures OR Starmer's unique personal impact is frankly childish. Quite obviously there is a complex mix of many factors. What is clear is that every poll in recent months concerning who would make the best PM puts Starmer streets ahead of the opposition. I know Corbynites are a dedicated mob, and there is almost something endearing in such loyalty, but it doesn't alter the fact that Corbyn's poll ratings as potential PM were truly appalling (despite the massive gift of Tory chaos over Brexit, and Johnson's corruption).

I'm not sure you've been paying attention. I've already said on this thread that Corbyn was an awful leader.

And you're sooooo close to getting it. Every poll in "recent months" puts Labour streets ahead of the Tories. Throughout 2021, despite all that had gone on, the nation still rated Johnson as likely to be a better PM than Starmer. Let that sink in. It wasn't until Partygate really hit home that Starmer was able to overtake him. And you're genuinely going to tell me that now he's in the lead it's because he's such an effective leader but when he was behind it had nothing to do with "a complex mix of many factors"?!

[canarydan23 4,060]

21 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Which brings me to what I really want to say, I think England's populace is, in the most general of terms, naturally relatively centre-right on social matters.

I think this is generally true; however, I equally think that they are generally left economically but just don't realise it. 

[sonyc 5,541]

25 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

At this moment in time, with a written press that has a notable right-wing bias and indeed where the readership has it also, it makes far more sense for a centre/centre-left party to have a leader in place that doesn't give said media much room to attack, especially when the Tories seem busy on literally going for broke as such vulnerabilities would be manna from heaven to defend the party in power.

Corbyn always had plenty of available spots to attack. The fact Starmer's followed lockdown rules far better than the shambles that was Johnson (and Cummings) and is on much more centrist ground compared to the kerfuffle we've recently seen from Truss and Kwarteng means he's less likely to spook swing voters. But he's essentially had to disassociate from Momentum - maybe it was similar to Kinnock having to stare down the Militant tendency back in the day? Or indeed Blair scrapping Clause Four?

Which brings me to what I really want to say, I think England's populace is, in the most general of terms, naturally relatively centre-right on social matters.

Yes, just look at the voting history for decades. We live in a conservative country (small c and big C). You know that, when in over 100 years Labour has barely been in power for a third of that time.

Starmer, like Blair is a version of a conservative to me. It's not ideal, but as Yellow Fever stated, politics is about compromise. It's about mediating between positions and how well you manage to do that. It has to be because of numerous interest groups in society.

Though I know I prefer more centrist policies and values to the last few administrations - Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss - all directed policies towards protecting the interests of the rich. We've witnessed and lived through a very poor period in national administration  for over a decade. We've seen reducing life chances (Reference Marmot), life expectancy fall and public services attacked and denuded, all kinds of services we all use every day. We've seen our national health service tip towards breakdown. Very few policies appear to have tackled any of this. The shadow of these administrations will be long lasting.

And in Truss recently, who can honestly claim that her actions have been FOR the country? Clearly they are not. Who can honestly say Brexit is for the country? Clearly, it has been for the benefit of capital.

A good start would be ANY administration that puts the majority of people of the country first. Not for financiers, not for individuals to make even higher profits.

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by sonyc

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

I think this is generally true; however, I equally think that they are generally left economically but just don't realise it. 

Could agree re. northern England (although I'd probably say centrist if pushed - I do think we have a notion of the "American Dream" in our heads to some extent, which even Toby Young has derided as a 'noble lie' in How To Lose Friends and Alienate People), I did explicitly say social matters to deliberately leave economics as a separate matter.

[horsefly 4,318]

10 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I'm not sure you've been paying attention. I've already said on this thread that Corbyn was an awful leader.

And you're sooooo close to getting it. Every poll in "recent months" puts Labour streets ahead of the Tories. Throughout 2021, despite all that had gone on, the nation still rated Johnson as likely to be a better PM than Starmer. Let that sink in. It wasn't until Partygate really hit home that Starmer was able to overtake him. And you're genuinely going to tell me that now he's in the lead it's because he's such an effective leader but when he was behind it had nothing to do with "a complex mix of many factors"?!

Ahhhh! How nobly resilient trying to cling on to your same old tired and discredited lines. We were still under Covid restrictions in 2021, and virtually every one of the Tory dominated press attempted to lionise Johnson as the country's saviour. Starmer was only able to attend his first conference as leader this year, and absolutely stamped his authority over the party to great acclaim. Despite all the disadvantages he suffered by being hampered by Covid restrictions, and the appalling inheritance from Corbyn of a divided party devastated by the worst election results since 1935, he nonetheless leads a party 30 points ahead in the polls.

As for your last sentence, it seems you are incapable of reading simple English. The WHOLE point of my post was to point out the childish stupidity of claiming that Labour's current poll lead is down entirely to Starmer's effective leadership. Do try to pay attention to what I actually said rather than what you want me to have said. As for the second clause in that sentence, it bears no logical relation to the first clause, so you'll have to put that into intelligible English first.

[canarydan23 4,060]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Do try to pay attention to what I actually said rather than what you want me to have said.

Oh well that's just swell; I'm now going to have to spend the rest of the morning fixing my irony-meter.

"Toward the back on end of 2020 Labour started to enjoy something close to parity with the Tories, but throughout 2021 the Tories stretched out to a significant lead again (which kind of rains on your theory that the Tory lead was down to Covid and lack of campaign time for Starmer)."

Happy to elaborate on this point if you need me to? I kinda thought it was self explanatory.

Edited October 14, 2022 by canarydan23

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

I've openly said before that I was generally a Tory voter but saw myself on the left-wing of the Tories and was fundamentally in alignment with the likes of Rory Stewart, Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry, and Kenneth Clarke before them (being pro-Europe also). Think Cameron had a tough job in there as he was essentially the first to start reaping the UKIP wave to his party's right and Europe has always been a major sticking point amongst the Tories in general.

He had some backbone about him - I'll give him credit for going in hard on gay marriage (I have a very unusual stance on why I think he made a minor mistake here, but it would be a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good) against a lot of opposition from his party members, but he couldn't stem that anti-Europe wave.

But essentially, a lot of voters like me are possibly going to be the prime target market in just over a year's time.

Edited October 14, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

In summary on SKS I would go so far to say he's barely put a foot wrong in his leadership of the Labour party. That's why at their latest conference there was barely a murmur of discontent. Even the awkward squad are mute. 

Of course, as any general trying to win a war and not just a battle,  he has to choose which battles to fight and which not too. Some are traps.

As all have pointed out - despite Covid and then Ukraine, giving the incumbent party every advantage in 'rallying to the flag' and stifling all oxygen of publicity, he has emerged as stronger and more liked & respected than ever.  

I find it sad that only those on far left still seem to want to attack his competence or leadership. Even the right have given up on that now.

[canarydan23 4,060]

If the Tories pull the trigger on Truss, we'll get to see how effective SKS really is. He struggled against Johnson until Partygate. And I find this revisionist nonsense about how Covid helped Johnson quite funny; at the time the line was (correctly) how awful he was handling it, look at all these avoidable deaths, why are more Brits dying than other EU nations. Now it suits the SKS argument, Covid was suddenly the reason why the nation preferred Johnson to Starmer at that time?! Johnson undoubtedly got a boost by Ukraine, but the fact is before Partygate the nation generally saw Johnson as a preferred choice as PM to Starmer. Despite all the buffoonery, lying, cheating and swindling.

Fortunately for him, the Tories have replaced him with someone even less capable. I never thought that imaginable, but here we are. 

The worry is they get shot of Truss and put someone like Morduant in charge, if SKS continues to pursue this a-little-less-Tory-than-the-Tories agenda then that poll lead will evaporate overnight. Less **** than Liz Truss will only works if you go into an election against Liz Truss. 

[sonyc 5,541]

11 hours ago, Mr Apples said:

Kwarteng out, Javid in...could it happen?🤔😱🤣

Apples

 

😅

[horsefly 4,318]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Oh well that's just swell; I'm now going to have to spend the rest of the morning fixing my irony-meter.

"Toward the back on end of 2020 Labour started to enjoy something close to parity with the Tories, but throughout 2021 the Tories stretched out to a significant lead again (which kind of rains on your theory that the Tory lead was down to Covid and lack of campaign time for Starmer)."

Jesus! It does nothing of the sort. Are you really so simplistic that you can't understand how polls alter according to a complex range of contingencies contemporary to the time they are taken? I've not seen a single respected political commentator of any political persuasion who has not acknowledged that Starmer has been a very important factor in Labour's revival and massive poll lead. That may cause you and die-hard Corbynites enormous anxiety, but I'm afraid you will just have to suck it up, as it is a fact that is revealed in every poll on who would make best PM. Those of us who acknowledge that fact are not so stupidly naive as to think that Labour's lead is all down to Starmer. How many times does one have to say that a whole range of factors contribute to that lead, not the least of which is the Tory Party's addiction to incompetent leaders and suicidal policies. Is it really so painful to admit that Starmer might just be contributing to Labour's rise because the general public have come to see him as a person of integrity and competence, something they have found missing in the last two Tory PMs?

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

6 minutes ago, sonyc said:

 

😅

Could it also be diverted....

[horsefly 4,318]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Could it also be diverted....

Downwards, rapidly!

[horsefly 4,318]

11 minutes ago, sonyc said:

 

😅

Ah! I assume it's been diverted on grounds of posing a threat to UK national security.

Edited October 14, 2022 by horsefly

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

Kwarteng sacked !?

[canarydan23 4,060]

20 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Jesus! It does nothing of the sort. Are you really so simplistic that you can't understand how polls alter according to a complex range of contingencies contemporary to the time they are taken? I've not seen a single respected political commentator of any political persuasion who has not acknowledged that Starmer has been a very important factor in Labour's revival and massive poll lead. That may cause you and die-hard Corbynites enormous anxiety, but I'm afraid you will just have to suck it up, as it is a fact that is revealed in every poll on who would make best PM. Those of us who acknowledge that fact are not so stupidly naive as to think that Labour's lead is all down to Starmer. How many times does one have to say that a whole range of factors contribute to that lead, not the least of which is the Tory Party's addiction to incompetent leaders and suicidal policies. Is it really so painful to admit that Starmer might just be contributing to Labour's rise because the general public have come to see him as a person of integrity and competence, something they have found missing in the last two Tory PMs?

Every poll? Or just the ones you like the look of? As I've acknowledged, toward the back of end 2021 he started to overtake Johnson as the best PM in the public's eyes. After Partygate. Yes, there are other factors at play in the decision-making process, but thousands of people didn't suddenly open their eyes after nearly two years of Starmer's opposition and think, "You know what? This guy is full of integrity and competence, I suddenly think he would make a better PM than Johnson". Similarly, when the mini-budget came out and the Labour poll lead increased massively, that wasn't become people suddenly thought, "Woah, he's got even more integrity and competence, count me in!"

It's so simple that it shouldn't even need saying.

For sure, there will be some people who after more exposure to him have increased their opinion of him (they shouldn't dig too deeply mind you, as the integrity thing is a tough sell when you consider his now undeniable duplicitousness in the course of the Labour leadership election that was part-funded by a man who defends the use of tax loopholes by the wealthy). But that's one of the minor "whole range of factors" to which you refer.

The key reason behind the return of a Labour polling lead was Partygate. The key reason behind the widening chasm that now exists between Tory and Labour's polling numbers is Truss and Kwasi's economic suicide. You can kid yourself that isn't the case if you wish, and by all means enjoy it if it means it increases your chances of experiencing a "win" at the next general election. But I'll reiterate, for the people who need radical policies to improve their current grim prospects or for the people who long for a modern, fair and properly democratic political system, these latest numbers and the prospect of a Starmer premiership are of little cause for excitement. More of a case of plus ca change...

Edited October 14, 2022 by canarydan23

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Kwarteng sacked !?

Brutal. I'm not sure it will help Truss. This was both their mini-budget, these were ideas out of a book they both co-authored. The idea that Kwarteng carries the can for it and Truss meekly went along with his plan is for the dogs. Chucking a friend under the bus like this might turned the few supporters she has left against her.

[horsefly 4,318]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

. Similarly, when the mini-budget came out and the Labour poll lead increased massively, that wasn't become people suddenly thought, "Woah, he's got even more integrity and competence, count me in!"

It's so simple that it shouldn't even need saying.

Oh dear! After the Labour conference Labour were already at least 16 points ahead. Quite remarkable margin especially after sustaining a record defeat in 2019. But that's so simple it shouldn't even need saying.

[ricardo 7,411]

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

 But I'll reiterate, for the people who need radical policies to improve their current grim prospects or for the people who long for a modern, fair and properly democratic political system, these latest numbers and the prospect of a Starmer premiership are of little cause for excitement. More of a case of plus ca change...

You are probably right, a Starmer government will be more left wing Conservative than anything radical.

From your exchanges with YF and others I can only conclude that if Labour wins it will soon resume its favourite pastime. Internal warfare.