God I’m getting a panic attack just imagining how GB news would review this film.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
That last bit is key.
If there's any positives we can take from these torturous, calamitous 14 years is that it's finally put to bed this notion of the Tories being the party of the economy and responsible spending. That was the only crutch they had going for them every election. Add to that their failed pledges on crime and immigration.
With a generation of voters who've now been shafted by them, I hope it keeps them out of power indefinitely or at the very least for a generation.
Look at what happened to the Lib Dem’s off of one failed coalition. The tories have done far more to disillusion and disenfranchise a much wider section of the voter base. There are a lot of people now (and I include myself in this) who can confidently say they will never vote Tory after this.
I don’t see how their party recovers from here other than increasingly leverage right wing media propaganda, and hoping for a war (and being able to successfully pitch themselves as the strong tough leaders needed in wartime)
Tories lose Kingswood to Labour in a 16% swing. Turnout 37%. Reform took over 10% of the vote, Lib Dems lost their deposit:
Gossip also suggests Labour have beaten the Tories in Wellingborough
Gossip also suggests Labour have beaten the Tories in Wellingborough
Tories took an absolute pasting in Wellingborough, losing nearly 40% of their vote. Labour wins handsomely. Lib Dems and Greens lost their deposit, Reform did fairly well again. Turnout was 38%:
Edit: Sir John Curtice reckons it's the "biggest ever drop in Tory support in a post-war by-election...second biggest post-war swing Tory>Labour (28.5%)"
Edit: Sir John Curtice reckons it's the "biggest ever drop in Tory support in a post-war by-election...second biggest post-war swing Tory>Labour (28.5%)"
Last edited:
Congratulations to all parties for inspiring 63% of voters to stay at home.
Thank you and yes we have both voted for the successful labour candidate who has won Kingswood from the Tories.
Honestly. Seeing that pr1ck JRM trying to justify why these latest 2 Tory by-election defeats were 'not as bad as they could have been'.
The country is in a mess.
It is in a recession.
Nothing works properly.
Trying to get a GP appointment is getting more and more difficult.
The Tories have now lost 9 by-elections in a row.
And JRM thinks it could have been worse...
The country is in a mess.
It is in a recession.
Nothing works properly.
Trying to get a GP appointment is getting more and more difficult.
The Tories have now lost 9 by-elections in a row.
And JRM thinks it could have been worse...
By elections never have the same turnout at general elections.
Nothing will please me more than that Cnut losing his seat in a general election.
He attended the by election as a representative for GB News and not the Tories. Says it all
As a non-Brit I need to ask this. What can trigger an election if a government doesn't call one by dissolving Parlament? Can Sunak and his Eton boys just squat on Nr 10 until the 5 years are up? Is there nothing the opposition can do to trigger one? More than anything I'm curious as to how much longer Britons have to endure this state of affairs.
Yes, they can squat until the 5 years are up. Only the Government has the legal power to call an election.
If they lose a vote of confidence (almost impossible) they still have no legal duty to call an election.
That's pretty sad. So basically, unless there's huge protests with outbreaks of civil unrest, you're stuck with the Tories until they want to lose their jobs, right?
Yes and given their majority they can give all their mates knighthoods, tax cuts, jobs on the board of the BBC etc before they go.
A government is elected for a certain time span. If the opposition had the power to call a new election whenever they wanted it would be hard to govern in a meaningful way ( seems like it is hard in the uk anyway...)
Yeah but the problem is it’s not a fixed date; if they want to call a snap election because the polls, by some miracle, suggests they might win they can. And then we end up stuck with them until they decide it’s in their interest to call another one (within five years)
I guess you can argue that an democratic elected government have a mandate to govern, for 5 years in this case, or until the next election. But I don't know, where I live a government is elected for 4 years, with a set date for the next election.
Oh I absolutely agree with that on principle. It's more about how much mismanagement and bad governance you can have before some instance/law steps in and tries to bring about meaningful change. In some countries the head of state can step in and call for a new government to be formed.
The FPTP system is what straddles UK politics and is self perpetuating.
A Tory government with a large majority of 80+ seats is coming to an end and is likely to be replaced by a Labour Government with a similar large majority. The hope is Labour will do a better job for the majority of the populace, but there is no guarantee.
'Events' (outside the governments control) as Harold Macmillan explained can be instrumental in ruining everything; as Suez did for Eden, Iraq for Blair (although he got 3 terms), Financial Crisis did for Brown, Brexit for Cameron and May, Covid for Boris; Liz Truss (for herself really) Money Markets; Small Boats for Sunak.
When Starmer takes over there are no shortage of internal issues, like cost of living, housing, NHS waiting lists/dentistry etc., but there are enormous external 'events,' Wars, those continuing (or further likely to break out) in eastern Europe, Middle-East, etc. mass migration on a hitherto unimaginable level, and of course dealing with climate change.
Why do we persist with a FPTP system? Because there is a 'gut' feeling, than when the country is facing crisis, or when sh** lands from a great height and we didn't see it coming (you can ask why again some other time), the government has to be able to act quickly and it is only with an overall majority (gained by FPTP) can this happen.
Where does this 'gut' feeling come from... law making based for centuries, mainly on precedent.
A Tory government with a large majority of 80+ seats is coming to an end and is likely to be replaced by a Labour Government with a similar large majority. The hope is Labour will do a better job for the majority of the populace, but there is no guarantee.
'Events' (outside the governments control) as Harold Macmillan explained can be instrumental in ruining everything; as Suez did for Eden, Iraq for Blair (although he got 3 terms), Financial Crisis did for Brown, Brexit for Cameron and May, Covid for Boris; Liz Truss (for herself really) Money Markets; Small Boats for Sunak.
When Starmer takes over there are no shortage of internal issues, like cost of living, housing, NHS waiting lists/dentistry etc., but there are enormous external 'events,' Wars, those continuing (or further likely to break out) in eastern Europe, Middle-East, etc. mass migration on a hitherto unimaginable level, and of course dealing with climate change.
Why do we persist with a FPTP system? Because there is a 'gut' feeling, than when the country is facing crisis, or when sh** lands from a great height and we didn't see it coming (you can ask why again some other time), the government has to be able to act quickly and it is only with an overall majority (gained by FPTP) can this happen.
Where does this 'gut' feeling come from... law making based for centuries, mainly on precedent.
Certainly.
The issue here however is that there's a conveyor belt of ever changing Tory PM's, with different agendas and representing different factions of the party. They aren't governing on the mandate from 2019. They are clinging on and squeezing every last penny they can before they're booted out.
Yes indeed. But he is already on a reputed £500k with GB News.
Rats leaving the sinking ship, or better the stinking ship.
I can't see the FPTP changing, certainly not in my lifetime because the British people like to know the result of the election almost immediately. And who has won. It is engrained in our psyche. And the most recent Tory/Liberals coalition was a disaster, especially for the liberals.
At least he's wasting those cnuts' money
Good point.
In a working democracy with independent press coverage, that sort of behavior should mean that said party will be out of government for a long period.
With how the uk looks from the outside I wouldn't be surprised to see the tories back in government before long though.
How was Iraq outside Blair's control? If you genuinely believe that you're unhinged. Same goes for Cameron with Brexit and Truss with whatever the feck that was. A competent and/or non-criminal leader doesn't make those mistakes. Problems of their own making. Small boats too tbh, shockingly enough closing the legal migration routes leads to illegal migration. He didn't start the calamitous handling of immigration but he is steering his small boat over the same cliff.
It shows the state of British politics can get a job like that on top of their MPs salary. Absolute joke.
My thoughts exactly. Cameron is the architect of Brexit, all because he knew that without that on the ballot, the Tories would lose seats to UKIP, split the vote and let in a Labour government. Suicidal recklessness.
So Labour will win the GE (because they're not quite the Tories). Tories will not win (because they're so awful) and Reform gain some Tory voters (because they're even worse than the Tories).
Exciting, isn't it?
Exciting, isn't it?
If you genuinely believe these matters were in the control of these people, then its you who are unhinged.
Blair got suckered into Iraq via Bush and WMD's, Cameron thought he was in control of both his party EU dissidents, and the country, until the Brexit result came in, and Truss thought she had got into her full blown Conservatism stride, only to find it was the money markets who were in control.
Unhinged is a good film.
Blair had to doctor an intelligence dossier to be released to the public to justify (a second!) illegal war FFS. There's also accounts of him being the one that persuaded Bush to go to war. It's a bit of an "I slipped over and fell arse first on to the ketchup bottle...again" to claim you had no agency in that!
Last edited:
So true.
No, neither can I, unless the transient nature of recent elections i.e. large majority's for the winner followed by what is expected to be another wide range swing toward the former loser in the next GE. If this has a lasting effect in destabilizing then subsequent decoupling of elements within both of the larger parties, then who knows.
In the run up to 2019 GE the Labour move to the left with Corbyn coupled with Boris's success in the red wall areas on Brexit gave the Tories a 80+ majority. Then (in some cases almost immediately) the internal bickering, heightened by how Covid was tackled, raised old 'one nation conservatism' standards and now the 'pro-con' movement has raised it's flag and the subsequent internal divisions led to two new leaders, both elected by internal means only.
In a new Labour government with a similar large majority, the same sort of internal disputes may well arise, if particular groups hold sway. However it would appear that Starmer can see the dangers in this and is already taking action and perhaps he is preparing for his own 'night of the long knives' (made famous by Harold Macmillan in 1962).
Only time will tell.
Behave yourself!
Please tell me after WW2, the last time a UK PM persuaded a US President to go to War
At the age of 36, the Tories have been in power since the minute I really started to care about politics. I did beforehand and voted but I’m talking meaningful interest.
I'm going to stay up, watch and enjoy every single second of the next general election coverage. What a night that will be.
I'm going to stay up, watch and enjoy every single second of the next general election coverage. What a night that will be.