Who will be the next permanent manager of the Conservatives?

[velo army]

19 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

 

It’s all a matter of conjecture but I think the absolute best the Tories can hope for at the next GE is to be the largest party.  Even then I think they would be well short of a majority.  Equally they could get annihilated.

By whom?

I don't see people coming out in droves to vote for the most milquetoast labour party there's ever been, and I don't think people will be sufficiently motivated by hatred of the Tories to come out in numbers to tactically vote them out either.

I reckon folk have become inured to Tory awfulness and we'll see an apathetic electorate turn out in low numbers, paving the way for another Conservative victory.

I'd love to be wrong, obviously, and it could be that my hangover combined with the dreich weather is fuelling my pessimism. I just don't currently see Labour exciting the electorate enough to win.

 

[Cairn Terrier]

By whom?
I don't see people coming out in droves to vote for the most milquetoast labour party there's ever been, and I don't think people will be sufficiently motivated by hatred of the Tories to come out in numbers to tactically vote them out either.
I reckon folk have become inured to Tory awfulness and we'll see an apathetic electorate turn out in low numbers, paving the way for another Conservative victory.
I'd love to be wrong, obviously, and it could be that my hangover combined with the dreich weather is fuelling my pessimism. I just don't currently see Labour exciting the electorate enough to win.
 

Greenie for the use of “milquetoast “, genuinely had never seen that word before. Had to Google it.

[Granny Danger]

25 minutes ago, velo army said:

By whom?

I don't see people coming out in droves to vote for the most milquetoast labour party there's ever been, and I don't think people will be sufficiently motivated by hatred of the Tories to come out in numbers to tactically vote them out either.

I reckon folk have become inured to Tory awfulness and we'll see an apathetic electorate turn out in low numbers, paving the way for another Conservative victory.

I'd love to be wrong, obviously, and it could be that my hangover combined with the dreich weather is fuelling my pessimism. I just don't currently see Labour exciting the electorate enough to win.

 

Failing a significant shift, which is unlikely, or Truss being a gigantic failure, which is possible, I think annihilation is unlikely but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility.  Folk vote against governments as much as they vote for oppositions.

Whereas most posters on here are politically engaged and aware the overwhelming majority of the electorate take little interest in what’s happening.  I see Starmer as bland and lacking in serious policies, many folk might regard him as ‘boring but a safe pair of hands’.

As for the Tories losing overall control people don’t need to come out in droves.  Just some changed votes and some Tory voters who are not hardliners staying at home will change things.

I’m not as pessimistic as some posters on here seem to be; I hope that’s not a misplaced judgement.

[williemillersmoustache]

Starmer is definitely running the risk of trying to be all things to all men, in an English not Scottish context you understand, and offering nothing to nobody.

His policy platform is so unimaginative and non engaging it's bordering on voter suppression.

[Mark Connolly]

14 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Starmer is definitely running the risk of trying to be all things to all men, in an English not Scottish context you understand, and offering nothing to nobody.

His policy platform is so unimaginative and non engaging it's bordering on voter suppression.

Is it too late for him to stand in the Tory leadership election?

[Monkey Tennis]

27 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Starmer is definitely running the risk of trying to be all things to all men, in an English not Scottish context you understand, and offering nothing to nobody.

His policy platform is so unimaginative and non engaging it's bordering on voter suppression.

All true, but he's scared to do otherwise.

it's thoroughly uninspiring, but I absolutely understand the fear.  He felt that, electorally, he really needed to bury Corbyn.  He knows what the Tory press would do to him if he didn't.  For Christ's sake, we now live in a world where Sunak can be called a socialist.

It's extremely depressing, but I do get why Starmer is so, frustratingly, cagey about every bloody thing.

He's maybe misreading things, but I don't feel certain that he is.

[williemillersmoustache]

27 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

All true, but he's scared to do otherwise.

it's thoroughly uninspiring, but I absolutely understand the fear.  He felt that, electorally, he really needed to bury Corbyn.  He knows what the Tory press would do to him if he didn't.  For Christ's sake, we now live in a world where Sunak can be called a socialist.

It's extremely depressing, but I do get why Starmer is so, frustratingly, cagey about every bloody thing.

He's maybe misreading things, but I don't feel certain that he is.

Agreed and if I look really really really hard i might even find a picogram of sympathy for his position, hidden way way deep down in the pit of my psyche.

However, his stance is a conscious choice, it carries risk in the same way taking even a slightly more radical or principled stance on multiple topics would. 

You ask what it is that Labour stand for right now and the answer isn't social justice, it isn't workers rights, it isn't even democracy or the right for a people to choose the form of government best suited to their needs wants and aspirations. It is, at best "Growth + Flag"

"You must stand up for what you believe but first by God, believe in something." 

The only thing I'm sure Keir Starmer believes in is that he would like to be power, and that he doesn't much care how he gets there or what damage he causes along the way. 

And that's the most Tory fucking thing there is. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

I have the distinct feeling that Starmer's problem is pretty simple, but that doesn't mean that there is an equally simple solution. 

When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s,the political battle lines were pretty clearly, if somewhat simplistically, drawn. The Tories were the toffs and stood for the toffs and those who wanted to be toffs, with odd Alf Garnett sort thrown in. Labour were for 'the workers', bearded academics and perhaps some younger toffs embarrassed by the obvious social inequalities. The Liberals tried to occupy the middle ground and the SNP only won the occasional by-election. 

Now, the Labour Party is faced with a fractured political system and, in parts, a deeply hostile press.  They can't scare 'the south' with anything remotely left-leaning or too pro-trades unions, they can't frighten 'the north' with things that look too right-leaning, or in any way being seen to be pro-EU. They face a deeply sceptical Scottish electorate some of whom look on in disbelief at Labour's views on the EU. 

He has to present a seemingly unified policy outlook and platform to the distinct electorates in England, Wales and Scotland and I'm not convinced it is achievable.

The Tories have no such problem. They know that they (National Liberal and Conservative/ Unionist)  haven't returned a majority of Scottish seats in a general election since 1955 so, for them, Scotland is a lost cause. They punt the risible 'lower tax and better public services', dodgy views on asylum seekers/immigration, levelling up, 'Laura Norder' and taking back control apparently by handing control of Channel crossings and the road network around Dover to six French blokes who work on customs who might not turn up for work. Their base loves it and laps it up. 

Yet some try to claim that this is a "united" Kingdom.  Even the late Frank Carson couldn't sell that with a "it's the way I tell them". 

[Mark Connolly]

4 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I have the distinct feeling that Starmer's problem is pretty simple, but that doesn't mean that there is an equally simple solution. 

When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s,the political battle lines were pretty clearly, if somewhat simplistically, drawn. The Tories were the toffs and stood for the toffs and those who wanted to be toffs, with odd Alf Garnett sort thrown in. Labour were for 'the workers', bearded academics and perhaps some younger toffs embarrassed by the obvious social inequalities. The Liberals tried to occupy the middle ground and the SNP only won the occasional by-election. 

Now, the Labour Party is faced with a fractured political system and, in parts, a deeply hostile press.  They can't scare 'the south' with anything remotely left-leaning or too pro-trades unions, they can't frighten 'the north' with things that look too right-leaning, or in any way being seen to be pro-EU. They face a deeply sceptical Scottish electorate some of whom look on in disbelief at Labour's views on the EU. 

He has to present a seemingly unified policy outlook and platform to the distinct electorates in England, Wales and Scotland and I'm not convinced it is achievable.

The Tories have no such problem. They know that they (National Liberal and Conservative/ Unionist)  haven't returned a majority of Scottish seats in a general election since 1955 so, for them, Scotland is a lost cause. They punt the risible 'lower tax and better public services', dodgy views on asylum seekers/immigration, levelling up, 'Laura Norder' and taking back control apparently by handing control of Channel crossings and the road network around Dover to six French blokes who work on customs who might not turn up for work. Their base loves it and laps it up. 

Yet some try to claim that this is a "united" Kingdom.  Even the late Frank Carson couldn't sell that with a "it's the way I tell them". 

It has never been more obvious that the current "two party system" (in reality, 2 slightly different versions of the same party) is unfit for purpose, and yet it has also probably never been more obvious that there is f**k all chance of it being changed.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

It has never been more obvious that the current "two party system" (in reality, 2 slightly different versions of the same party) is unfit for purpose, and yet it has also probably never been more obvious that there is f**k all chance of it being changed.

This is an area in which I find Starmer's timidity particularly annoying.

The system needs to change.

[Academically Deficient]

10 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I have the distinct feeling that Starmer's problem is pretty simple, but that doesn't mean that there is an equally simple solution. 

When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s,the political battle lines were pretty clearly, if somewhat simplistically, drawn. The Tories were the toffs and stood for the toffs and those who wanted to be toffs, with odd Alf Garnett sort thrown in. Labour were for 'the workers', bearded academics and perhaps some younger toffs embarrassed by the obvious social inequalities. The Liberals tried to occupy the middle ground and the SNP only won the occasional by-election. 

Now, the Labour Party is faced with a fractured political system and, in parts, a deeply hostile press.  They can't scare 'the south' with anything remotely left-leaning or too pro-trades unions, they can't frighten 'the north' with things that look too right-leaning, or in any way being seen to be pro-EU. They face a deeply sceptical Scottish electorate some of whom look on in disbelief at Labour's views on the EU. 

He has to present a seemingly unified policy outlook and platform to the distinct electorates in England, Wales and Scotland and I'm not convinced it is achievable.

The Tories have no such problem. They know that they (National Liberal and Conservative/ Unionist)  haven't returned a majority of Scottish seats in a general election since 1955 so, for them, Scotland is a lost cause. They punt the risible 'lower tax and better public services', dodgy views on asylum seekers/immigration, levelling up, 'Laura Norder' and taking back control apparently by handing control of Channel crossings and the road network around Dover to six French blokes who work on customs who might not turn up for work. Their base loves it and laps it up. 

Yet some try to claim that this is a "united" Kingdom.  Even the late Frank Carson couldn't sell that with a "it's the way I tell them". 

Good post. The part that jumped out was that the Tories see Scotland as a lost cause (think they realised this a while ago). Labour may well feel the same - assuming they had the humility to understand that. What is the logical conclusion of the main UK parties being incapable of winning seats in Scotland and only focussing on English voters? I’d like to think that an amicable divorce settlement would be the end-point, but neither party will ever concede that. 

[Clown Job]

11 minutes ago, Academically Deficient said:

Good post. The part that jumped out was that the Tories see Scotland as a lost cause (think they realised this a while ago). Labour may well feel the same - assuming they had the humility to understand that. What is the logical conclusion of the main UK parties being incapable of winning seats in Scotland and only focussing on English voters? I’d like to think that an amicable divorce settlement would be the end-point, but neither party will ever concede that. 

English Labour have realised that, Scottish Labour are still seething at being replaced by the SNP

[Clown Job]

I’m just watching for a pledge of allegiance to the flag in schools being proposed next 

[Granny Danger]

25 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

It has never been more obvious that the current "two party system" (in reality, 2 slightly different versions of the same party) is unfit for purpose, and yet it has also probably never been more obvious that there is f**k all chance of it being changed.

We’ve not quite reached the Republican/Democrat situation but we’re not too far off it.

Sad really given that prior to Starmer the last Labour leader was an avowed socialist and despite Corbyn’s failings it’s testimony to activists and trade union members wanting such a leader and being able to elect one.  Pity there hadn’t been a more credible alternative.

Starmer is definitely wanting to purge the left but his actions (or inactions) may yet lead to the unions withdrawing financial support.

Of course there are still options for Scotland…

[williemillersmoustache]

28 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

This is an area in which I find Starmer's timidity particularly annoying.

The system needs to change.

Not for Labour it doesn't, it suits them just fine. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Not for Labour it doesn't, it suits them just fine. 

I don't think it does anymore.

Historically, it favoured the two biggest parties, but it's not helping Labour now and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future.

[vikingTON]

45 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

The Tories have no such problem. They know that they (National Liberal and Conservative/ Unionist)  haven't returned a majority of Scottish seats in a general election since 1955 so, for them, Scotland is a lost cause. They punt the risible 'lower tax and better public services', dodgy views on asylum seekers/immigration, levelling up, 'Laura Norder' and taking back control apparently by handing control of Channel crossings and the road network around Dover to six French blokes who work on customs who might not turn up for work. Their base loves it and laps it up. 

The Tories absolutely do face a similar problem, as their pledges to level up shithole towns in northern England do not tally with the foaming at the mouth tax cuts agenda favoured by their traditional base in the southern English shires. That's why Truss was forced to U-turn on her regional pay policy within 24 hours: the northern Tories were appalled by that seeming betrayal. 

The Tories cannot both fund investment in the north and reduce taxes in the south while plunging headfirst into the middle of an economic shitstorm. 

[Fullerene]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't think it does anymore.

Historically, it favoured the two biggest parties, but it's not helping Labour now and is unlikely to in the foreseeable future.

There are a lot of people in the Labour Party who struggle to understand that.

FPTP is supposedly more likely to give them a working majority but what is the point of that if you have to water down your beliefs so much that it is no better than a coalition government?

Also, what can a Labour majority government do that cannot be undone by a subsequent Tory majority government?

FTFP ensures you either have a Labour Party drifting rightwards or a Labour Party seen as too left wing to be electable.

[101]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

The Tories absolutely do face a similar problem, as their pledges to level up shithole towns in northern England do not tally with the foaming at the mouth tax cuts agenda favoured by their traditional base in the southern English shires. That's why Truss was forced to U-turn on her regional pay policy within 24 hours: the northern Tories were appalled by that seeming betrayal. 

The Tories cannot both fund investment in the north and reduce taxes in the south while plunging headfirst into the middle of an economic shitstorm. 

Tbh all they have to do is keep their pals in the media blaming Labour, remember that boy blaming the Labour party for the illfortunes of hellholes like Hartlepool when they haven't been in power for so long.

[scottsdad]

I have said in the past that Labour agonise over stuff that the Tories never bother with. The Tories (until now) have been happy to simply be in power. From within power they can come up with policies, flip-flop, do whatever they like.

Labour, on the other hand, always agonise over the purity of the offering from opposition. Labour will fight itself over and over again on the radical/centrist/electable/unelectable/red tory/hard left nonsense. Always they agonise about who they are and as a result, they stay in opposition. 

Only now are we seeing some of this from the Tories. Sunak being called a socialist is just like Starmer being called a Tory.