David O'Day
Well-Known Member
He's the main reason they lost Tiverton according to polling.
He's that much of any electoral drag opposition parties must secretly want him to lead the tories at the next GE
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (89 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
He's the main reason they lost Tiverton according to polling.
He's that much of any electoral drag opposition parties must secretly want him to lead the tories at the next GE
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
No FPN, Johnson stays until next election, I think a competent if dull man in a suit plays well against him. No FPN, Johnson leaves and, say, Jeremy Hunt takes over, voters tend to go for the blue man in a suit vs the red one. FPN, Starmer leaves, Labour get new leader bounce regardless of whether Johnson stays or goes, so can ameliorate him going to a certain extent. There's also something to be said for a gritty northern leader in opposition to southern-based Tory.
Of course the danger is the membership elect Richard Burgon!
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Because Starmer resigning would be the perfect distraction from the by election hammering.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Got to agree with shmmee unless the party turns itself upside down electing a new leader
…..and who new leader is. I might be wrong but I always thought Starmer (still might if rumours are wrong) would deliver proper policy plans nearer to election. In which case he would 100% be electable, especially if against Johnson. NWs right though, if Tories replace Johnson with a boring but competent (not a given !!), he’d be up against it
Grendel
Well-Known Member
how?
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Being emotive around veterans is yet another imported American culture war.
Last edited:
You don't think Starmer resigning would distract from by election defeats?!
It'd obviously be headline news, the by elections wouldn't even get a mention.
It doesn't matter how it would reflect on Johnson
duffer
Well-Known Member
I think you've mistaken the English electorate for people who give a fuck about policies. They don't.
Similarly, I think you've mistaken a man who looks half decent in a suit, with a tidy haircut, as someone fundamentally honest and trustworthy. He isn't.
What will do for the Tories is simply that the electorate (who primarily treat politics now as Love Island, but in formal dress), think it's time for a change.
On that basis it might be better for the Labour party to have a leader who actually stands for something and will genuinely drive change, rather than just another oily liar who will say anything to get himself elected.
I say this as a former Labour party member who voted for Starmer as the leader, and then watched him disregard every pledge that he made.
I'm glad that the Tories are getting a kicking at the moment, but anyone who thinks that the Labour party under Starmer will make any great difference to the direction of travel of this country is in for a bit of a surprise.
A new leader of the Tories without all of Johnson's baggage might be enough of a change for Tory voters to forget all of the shit things that their party does.
In that case Starmer is toast anyway; no one who's serious about politics can make a case based on non-existent policies, and he hasn't got enough charisma for the "game show" voters (who are in the majority anyway).
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
A little history lesson for those who weren't there 
Of course there were many reasons for Blair's landslide, not least the fact he was a great communicator and speach maker. But it was also disillusionment with the Tories and a desire for change. The same party had been in power for over a decade by that point, and they were seen as riddled with sleaze and corruption. Major tried to address that with his disastrous Back to Basics campaign, which just resulted in every Tory with a skeleton in their closet being outed!
The economy was actually doing reasonably well, but there was the impression, after the ERM fiasco, that control had been lost.
So, we don't have the good communicator and speach maker in opposition. We do have a party there for over a decade, and we do have said party riddled with sleaze and corruption. Johnson staying merely highlights that, you can't brush it under the carpet. *If* Starmer were to resign after an FPN, it would serve to put the spotlight on that. Starmer going isn't a distraction, it would put the emphasis on the difference between the parties as they stand, and show how changing the government refreshes such a thing.
And of course there are the micro climates where there's corruption in Labour yadda yadda, but it's the popular narrative that counts. Despite everything, people like to think the government's got your back - it's how Johnson ended up there in the first place.
Now, the perception is that he doesn't, and everything that highlights that is a bad thing for the Conservatives' electoral chances.
As has just been shown.
Of course there were many reasons for Blair's landslide, not least the fact he was a great communicator and speach maker. But it was also disillusionment with the Tories and a desire for change. The same party had been in power for over a decade by that point, and they were seen as riddled with sleaze and corruption. Major tried to address that with his disastrous Back to Basics campaign, which just resulted in every Tory with a skeleton in their closet being outed!
The economy was actually doing reasonably well, but there was the impression, after the ERM fiasco, that control had been lost.
So, we don't have the good communicator and speach maker in opposition. We do have a party there for over a decade, and we do have said party riddled with sleaze and corruption. Johnson staying merely highlights that, you can't brush it under the carpet. *If* Starmer were to resign after an FPN, it would serve to put the spotlight on that. Starmer going isn't a distraction, it would put the emphasis on the difference between the parties as they stand, and show how changing the government refreshes such a thing.
And of course there are the micro climates where there's corruption in Labour yadda yadda, but it's the popular narrative that counts. Despite everything, people like to think the government's got your back - it's how Johnson ended up there in the first place.
Now, the perception is that he doesn't, and everything that highlights that is a bad thing for the Conservatives' electoral chances.
As has just been shown.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Lord Frost all over the details as usual
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
If the Tories get a new leader it’ll be game over for Starmer. They’re good at creating a narrative where they distance themselves from the previous administration, almost as though they’re a separate party…and depressingly people fall for it.
Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
Rubbish. Why does anyone buy a house or flat rather than rent ? To better themselves.
So perhaps for every £1 I give my kids I should give £1 to 10 strangers . That would be better for everyone.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It's where Jeremy Hunt is high on the list of future leaders - has a profile, but not been in this cabinet so is a 'fresh start' even though he's caused a lot of the mess himself anyway!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
It’s been funny watching Mick Lynch deal with these idiots and he has a tremendous way of putting them in their place.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by better themselves? I bought a house as I need somewhere to live.
My rent was £950 a month for a house that was in a shit state of repair, I moved to an identical house on the same road, well actually not identical as this one has an extension, and the mortgage is £510 a month. The laughable part is how much trouble I had getting a mortgage as I kept being told £510 a month wasn't affordable.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Lynch just highlights how low are expectations are these days. When you break it down he just has a handle on the basic facts of what he's dealing with and nobody seems able to cope with that.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The property will ultimately increase in value and as the capital is paid down the property value in real terms becomes higher
Yep when I bought my first house I was paying £1300 a month in rent!! Yet only one provider would give me a £600/month mortgage.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Hold up a moment here. I'm not for a moment saying what you did was wrong, but what you actually did was took advantage of an opportunity to buy publicly provided housing on the cheap, and then sell it later for a substantial profit.
Individually that might be fair enough, but if that housing stock isn't replenished (it wasn't) then it makes it harder for everyone else looking for a place to live. The flaw was in the policy rather than what you did, and it's about to be repeated if Johnson gets his way.
I also, politely, don't exactly see it as bettering yourself as much as being smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity. Not everyone has that chance, it doesn't mean that they don't want to 'better themselves' too.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Tom Harwood bang on the button
Although ignoring the real issue. Boris couldn’t do any better either. Just consider that. There’s no one better in the Conservative party than the ironically named James Cleverly. What a time to be alive.
Although ignoring the real issue. Boris couldn’t do any better either. Just consider that. There’s no one better in the Conservative party than the ironically named James Cleverly. What a time to be alive.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of that but that wasn't my motivation for buying a house hence why I queried the assertion that people only buy property to 'better themselves'.
In any case how does the property value increasing actually benefit me? I can't realise that value without selling it and then I have nowhere to live, I've got no kids so leaving an inheritance is a non issue.
In other countries I've lived the differential between renting and purchasing has been much smaller which gives you more flexibility. For example if I need to move for my job its a lot harder when it involves selling and buying rather than just renting yet we're regularly told people should just move to where the jobs are.
I said electable, not trustworthy and honest !
Also, I’ve already said he could struggle without policies especially if against a new, perceived more competent, Tory leader
We’re on a similar page other than I do think some key policies would be useful and will get a hearing from the public