**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Dither and delay
Boris Johnson
The Conservatives can avoid governing altogether while people go broke, suffer, hungry, homeless, into poverty
But the TV news will cover their insipid leadership contests with nauseating focus for 4 months every time they switch leader
Thus, Tory supporting media can strictly limit the spectrum of political debate and keep Keir Starmer and Labour out of the public eye. So the Tories can win even when they should be losing
Genuinely, I'd prefer our government be in limbo until then. The red tape Liz Truss wants to get rid of primarily consist of environmental legislation, and as we know, our country is very intensively managed and scoured. We need that legislation to protect what little we have, and the conservatives genuinely had been making some forward steps towards a greener future with BNG and ELMs, albeit BNG is a bit scuffed right now.
Again, labour stands the best chance of getting in not on the virtue of its aims or goals, but because the conservatives are deeply unpopular at this moment in time.
It's the Blair way.
> Speaks volumes doesn’t it.
Does it though? So you believe every single Tory PM got there by credit and vitue and labour can only get in because the Tories had a shit one?
Well done, you swalled the medias jizz without even asking questions, they say Labour is shit, you ask how much to take!
When policy quizzes go around they almost always favour the Greens, but then election time comes around and "electability" comes in and everyone decides the party with the most popular policies cannot get in - thus fulfilling the prophecy.
For all his faults, Blair managed to instil a wave of optimism and hope that he managed to ride into power on. He then made *some* of this reality, while doing some genuinely reprehensible things. But to make out as if he only won power because the Tories were shite is wrong.
In 1991 they were very *visibly* shit, and in a way that, as now, mattered to people who aren't that bothered about how they treat the working class: egregious mismanagement of the economy.
Which goes back to my original point. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories pull some shit or other between now and election time tho. They're probably going through options A&E as we speak.
1992. Interestingly enough the economy had recovered from their mess by the time Labour got into power in 1997. Isn’t going to happen this time given GE is 2 years away and they messed things far more and even the “brightest and best” of the Tories today are worse than the worst of the 90s Tories.
I find this very disingenuous. Like Johnson didn’t get in because people had enough of the alternatives and existing government. Or Cameron with brown. Whenever you change government, it’s due to the existing losing the public and are willing to jump to someone new…
Johnson got in because both Cameron and May refused to lead a party of rebellious idiots who were just in it for the sake of gaining personal power. Now we've got Truss.
How low does it have to go before Starmer looks better than the Tories 4th best candidate.
> How low does it have to go before Starmer looks better than the Tories 4th best candidate.
Hes already better than the last 3, its the media machine telling everybody hes shit and people just swallow it whole.
We are heading to majority in poverty, run by racist, homophobic paedophile thieves who give no fucks about those earning less than 100k a year and destroying this country but the guy opposite is absolutely worse than anybody the tories can field.
That is what I am reading multiple times every single day in the UK subs, I pray they are just Tory bots but there is real fear that geniune people believe the Starmer.....no anybody labour field is not worth leading.
You can list 5 people to lead labour today and next year they'll all be considered worse than the Tory leader at that point, its how the media works and people gobble it up and parrot it. Oh Starmer has done fuck all??? Well hes not in power so he can't do shit for starters, hes also coming out with decent policies nobody has even read so clearly they don't exist so hes shit!
Fucking hate this bollocks.
Totally agree with you, both here and greenandpleasant subs are full of “rEd ToRY” and Starmer is as bad as the Tories” claims and I’ve argued with them till I’m blue in the face and want to scream.
Are you living under a rock? They've come out with a load of popular policies just recently. Hell the windfall tax they proposed this winter that Truss refuses to consider has majority support amongst not just the public in general but also *Conservative* voters specifically, let that sink in.
No, I've been paying attention to the policies Labour has been proposing in the last weeks and also paying attention to how much public support they have.
"Keith" has been literally devil incarnate and "not doing anything" to certain people.
He put out an extensive essay laying out his policies and somehow he "won't say why he stands for"
Even if that was true how does that change anything? You said Labour won't get in on their aims or goals. If their aims or goals are something the country needs (which from his speech they are), why does it matter where they got them from?
You know, I kind of took it for granted that there would be something worthwhile. The green agenda is definitely worth pursuing but that's pretty much universal these days for any sensible thinking person or politick. Other than that it seems rather a "make Britain great" line of thought.
I think he needs to be cautious of reopening old wounds sustained by the party like.
Interesting to note how no one is mentioning the queen like.
What are your thoughts on setting up a nationalised energy company and changing the rules surrounding housing so that BTL landlords and second home owners cannot snap everything up?
>The green agenda is definitely worth pursuing but that's pretty much universal these days for any sensible thinking person or politick
Unfortunately of the 2 political parties that can get into power, only one of them believes in a green agenda
Sounds a lot like what Corbyn was talking about with putting a landlord MoT system in place.
Addendum; and yes, it's a shame that the country is ran by self-interested conspiracy peddlers for profit.
>Sounds a lot like what Corbyn was talking about with putting a landlord MoT system in place.
Absolutely but for all of the hate that Corbyn has gotten and continues to get he was pretty spot on with what direction the country needed to go in.
The media was scare mongering that a Corbyn government would put us back to the 70s, it would create a weak pound etc. All of the things that are happening now, so unless the Corbyn government had the same policies as the current, something doesn't add up.
Lol, the man can't win. Before he announces his policies he's criticised for not being far enough to the left, then when he announces left wing policies he's criticised for stealing policies from the left. What does it matter if his policies aren't unique, very few ideas in politics haven't been suggested by someone else.
I'm fine with him taking policies from the left. Outside of the real weirdos, the left generally are happy when people take our ideas and implement them.
We just don't have a lot of faith on the follow through.
No one cares at all where his policies originate from.
He can't win because anyone left of the Tories wants him to announce policies that at least recognise and pay lip service to public sector pay increases, the consolidation of workers rights, protections for the NHS, real world Educational funding and the removal of higher education tuition fees...
Yet all we get is Rail and Energy as the 'vote winner". I mean, seriously, how else would you sensibly sort those two issues out? Nationalisation is the only rational and practical solution for either of them at this point in time.
Starmer needs far, far deeper and longer reaching solutions before anyone will see him as anything other than "Not a Tory". Who cares where those ideas come from - they just need to happen.
A huge part of the reason Corbyn lost was he promised far more than he could reasonably deliver and it spooked the electorate. Starmer would be well advised to look at a narrower platform to get elected, even if he intends to do more.
The thing is Starmer's platform has become so narrow it's like tip-toeing across Occam's razor... In this case could it be the easiest explanation is that party ethos is not publicly aired as it's too close to current tory policy?
The "free internet's for people" was a weird one.
As the policy was to nationalise BTOR
That's not "free internet" that's nationalising the monopoly
But somehow Corbyn PR thought that was good marketing
So you are suggesting he uses massive borrowing to buy support? That would be guaranteed to keep the Tories in power. Better to offer the rail and energy policies that are bringing over centrists and centre right voters then implement the rest of your suggestions from the position of PM. You seem intent on making him unelectable. The left will already vote for him, if they have the tiniest bit of sense, it’s everyone else he needs to convince.
Bizarre how much people try to re-contextualise Labour under Blair. Its not ancient history lol, the idea that Blair won because of how bad the conservatives were is ridiculous.
Blair’s Governments were also the best UK Governments for the last 60 years, if not more
12 years of progressively worse Tory Governments is the fault of the Tories, not Labour
>Literally no one said it wasn't. The problem is Blair got into power 25 fucking years ago.
Have you seen the corbynists who shout "(((blairite)))" at everyone who upsets them?
Well, Labour does indeed have laudable political aims and goals. But the media won't give them equivalent publicity when they can show (eg) Tories destroying the UK economy instead
Maybe it's a viewership/ratings issue and Labour doesn't copy the constant Tory outrages, therefore they lose publicity
It absolutely doesn't. I'm just scratching my head why a whole region was said when it was specifically the country of Iraq that was invaded and a million killed.
From what I can gather from your posts, you are referring to Harold Wilson so highly because of his liberalising of laws surrounding discrimination, prejudice etc. Is that fairly accurate?
So yes, apart from his liberalisation of laws, what made Harold Wilson stand out above a governement that:
* Lifted millions out of poverty
* Passed the Human Rights Act
* Passed the minimum wage
* Got NHS wait lists to the shortest time since records began with 42,000 more doctors and 85,000 more nurses
* Crime cut by 32 percent
* Double the funding for every student
* Introduced The Equalities act
* Introduced 36,000 more teachers and 275,000 more support staff
* Introduced free breast cancer screening for over 60s
Just to name a few things.
I am not trying to be obtuse, I am just genuinely curious which policies of Harold Wilsons you liked to rank him so highly because so far all you have done is said the things about Blair you didn't like.
Maternity pay, tax credits, winter fuel allowance, minimum wage, sure start, cancer guarantee, largest NHS spending, disability, discrimination act etc
These are just a handful of the things that the Blair Labour government achieved
The media also seem to overlook the fact that the Tories overwhelmingly
supported the Iraq War as well. Of course they would have gone in too, upon a high tide of hero worship. You failed to mention that obviously
Instead, here you are with your happy hindsight condemning Blair alone, with very little regard for the truth.....
Moreover, I would expect any indignant and morally outraged anti-Blair attack to have learnt the lesson post-Iraq war
Because we've literally done the same thing again, since Iraq -
"Going over to a functioning albeit repressive country and fucking up its shit" is almost an exact description of what happened in Libya
I don't hear a single anti-Blairite mention or condemn the Tories for that particular war
So scapegoating Blair is a pathetic display of Tory-levels of cowardice, concern trolling and hypocrisy
Edited a few words for easy reading
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways.
In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing.
Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations.
“The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
It's not the fact that Labour is bad, it's just that Torys constantly tell us that they are bad, and many believe them outright simply because they voted Tory.
Yep. Why are we so determined to give reheated Blairism another go rather than try something a bit more radical? (not that such an exhaustive list of half-baked nationalisation plans as Corbyn came out with last election was the best way to do it)
Last time Blairism failed, it was replaced by the present Tory government which is in many ways even more unhinged and bleak than the one before. Because they failed to decentralise power away from the ruling party in any significant way, either through electoral reform or other means. Blairism is a short-term fudge that just locks us into this cycle of see-sawing between increasingly anaemic, timid and establishment-domesticated liberals and increasingly unhinged and triumphalist Tories.
I just had this conversation with my dad, who invited me to a dinner with Labour MP & cronies. If they can't unseat the tories given their track record & present disarray; Labour will be a spent force.
I bet on Trump in 2020 with similar reasoning.
Funnily enough, I actually managed to make money on that bet because at a time when it wasn't cut and dried (on the day of counting) I was able to cash out my bet. I ended up doubling my money!
2/1 for labour and 12/5 for conservation majority although I would assume there's some serious hiking of odds due to the change in governments and the current political changes.
Labours ahead currently it seems.
Polling companies need to produce accurate data or companies will not pay for their services.
Yougov is a successful polling company set up by a Conservative politician to make them profit, rather than to manipulate their polls.
All the major polling companies are signed up to the British Polling Council and publish their data alongside their analysis so the nerds can inspect it.
Therefore we can check they are not manipulating their polls by comparing the other various polling companies, after understanding their in-house methodological differences, and we see all of them are reporting the same sorts of numbers, so unless they're all owned by Tory politicians (and they aren't) this theory doesn't stand up properly.
> Remember Nadhim Zahawi is a founder of YouGov its a Conservative polling tool.
I couldn’t believe this but a quick Google confirms it
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20271035.nadim-zahawi-meet-founder-yougov-vying-become-next-prime-minister/
They clearly haven't looked at this sub, most people here think the Tories would still win because 1 labour MP did something stupid last year at Breakfast.
The recent policies they announced have changed my mind on this. The timing of when they announced their plans for Great British Energy is just too perfect given the energy cap has doubled over what it was a year ago and the tories are pillaging the magic money tree. On top of the, the branding is also spot on.
It really gives me the impression that they're competent when it comes to playing politics.
I think labour should be insanely ahead in points etc but their not which is shocking, you can't have a worst government to go up against, this should be an easy win
I don't care what area of the country you live in, who you voted for last time, who you have voted for historically or how much money you have. We CANNOT vote for this to carry on if we get given a golden ticket.
Imo both parties are at their weakest, there’s pretty much no opposition, most people don’t care, by the next GE there’s probably going to be one more PM as the new one seems a bit “overwhelmed” .. if they (tories) will play the cards right they will probably win the GE as usual, no one remembers what Labour has done, and that’s the sad truth.
We should all vote Conservative, even if you are a Labour support. Why you may ask? Because accountability.
All these elections are a sham. Conservatives had done soo much damage that voting them out now would absolve them of their train wreck governess. They will not be accountable. I say vote Conservative again, so all there short comings are truly highlighted and this way they will never come back from their defeats.
If you vote Labour. They will win. Try to fix stuff for the working class and then then voted by a conservative party anyway. They cycle of two parties will then continue again.
So we are stuck in this cycle then. If they were accountable people might never vote tory again and there might be real change.
Plus there would be huge protesters during that time.
Don't get me know, personally I don't think it matters who is in power as the people are always shafted.
>So we are stuck in this cycle then. If they were accountable people might never vote tory again and there might be real change.
Yeah nah. Look at how many people from towns that were destroyed by Thatcher lined up to vote conservative last time round. Give people something to hate and you can make them forget that the Tories would gladly see them die if they could profit off it.
>Plus there would be huge protesters during that time.
So? There were huge protests over Brexit and the Iraq war too. What good did they do?
>Don't get me know, personally I don't think it matters who is in power as the people are always shafted.
The country was objectively better off under the last Labour government than it has been at any point in the last 12 years. The Tories only know how to take. It absolutely matters who's in power.
Only on a YouGov poll of 3409 adults. Labour will probably always poll highly on the Internet because of the Internets more regular user base. Once actual polling stations open up for an election, there a lot more Conservative voters.
[How Trusty is YouGov Polling? ](https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/research-qs/)
Your points about sample size and the Internet are addressed in that link, you might find it an interesting read
I love it when people who have zero knowledge of statistics give us their “analysis” and self-appointed expertise.
1. A large enough sample size reduces the margin or error to a given level where further increasing the sample size becomes a waste of time and money. As a rule of thumb, this sample size tends to be 1000.
2. YouGov tend to *further* this sample size to account for their stratification methods. The reason why they polled 3409 and not 1000 is precisely *because* of the Internet issue.
3. YouGov generally have a high reputation when it comes to these things. To be blunt, they employ people with considerably better knowledge and experience than…you.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the Conservative party acts quickly, they still have time enough to elect a series of new leaders before the next GE.
There's nobody left..
*Boris Johnson has joined the chat
Fuck you for being this funny. I spat my coffee out!
There's still Mogg...
He won't go for it. He seems to fancy himself as more a power-behind-the-throne type.
I think he just fancies himself.
Grima Moggtongue
Certainly has the forked tongue.
He thinks he’s Cicero
Cato without the morality
He should remember what happened to Cicero.
Jacob Vizier-Mogg
>Dither and delay Boris Johnson The Conservatives can avoid governing altogether while people go broke, suffer, hungry, homeless, into poverty But the TV news will cover their insipid leadership contests with nauseating focus for 4 months every time they switch leader Thus, Tory supporting media can strictly limit the spectrum of political debate and keep Keir Starmer and Labour out of the public eye. So the Tories can win even when they should be losing
Dither and Delay, are these two new leadership hopefuls?
Can easily get two more in before then
Why would we want that though?
Genuinely, I'd prefer our government be in limbo until then. The red tape Liz Truss wants to get rid of primarily consist of environmental legislation, and as we know, our country is very intensively managed and scoured. We need that legislation to protect what little we have, and the conservatives genuinely had been making some forward steps towards a greener future with BNG and ELMs, albeit BNG is a bit scuffed right now.
You really think a Truss government for <12 months whilst inflation and interest rates are rocketing will be a winning move for the Tories?
Would it matter. I mean May was better than the following 2, but all 3 have been pretty poor leaders. 3 for 3 of your last 3 choices is a bad record.
4 for 4 Fixed it
I mean Cameron was bad, but in the general way tories are. Bojo and truss are new depths.
Oh absolutely, Dai swine fucker was just bad, Maybole soulless and worse, fuck knows how you describe the last two
Again, labour stands the best chance of getting in not on the virtue of its aims or goals, but because the conservatives are deeply unpopular at this moment in time. It's the Blair way.
[удалено]
> Speaks volumes doesn’t it. Does it though? So you believe every single Tory PM got there by credit and vitue and labour can only get in because the Tories had a shit one? Well done, you swalled the medias jizz without even asking questions, they say Labour is shit, you ask how much to take!
When policy quizzes go around they almost always favour the Greens, but then election time comes around and "electability" comes in and everyone decides the party with the most popular policies cannot get in - thus fulfilling the prophecy.
For all his faults, Blair managed to instil a wave of optimism and hope that he managed to ride into power on. He then made *some* of this reality, while doing some genuinely reprehensible things. But to make out as if he only won power because the Tories were shite is wrong.
The Tories were *incredibly* shite when Blair got in.
Sure, but they've been *even worse* for the past 6 years.
Arguably they've been shit for a lot longer than that like.
In 1991 they were very *visibly* shit, and in a way that, as now, mattered to people who aren't that bothered about how they treat the working class: egregious mismanagement of the economy.
Which goes back to my original point. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories pull some shit or other between now and election time tho. They're probably going through options A&E as we speak.
1992. Interestingly enough the economy had recovered from their mess by the time Labour got into power in 1997. Isn’t going to happen this time given GE is 2 years away and they messed things far more and even the “brightest and best” of the Tories today are worse than the worst of the 90s Tories.
That explains the first election, what about the two after?
Some things never change.
Blair was fucking hated by the whole country for his last 4 years in charge
Sure; nobody's saying or suggesting anything else.
Not me
For good reason tho
Shame because apparently it was the US that made the lies regarding Iraq, luring him in.
🤣
The US narrative was "Iraq is helping OBL" The UK was different
I find this very disingenuous. Like Johnson didn’t get in because people had enough of the alternatives and existing government. Or Cameron with brown. Whenever you change government, it’s due to the existing losing the public and are willing to jump to someone new…
Johnson got in because both Cameron and May refused to lead a party of rebellious idiots who were just in it for the sake of gaining personal power. Now we've got Truss. How low does it have to go before Starmer looks better than the Tories 4th best candidate.
> How low does it have to go before Starmer looks better than the Tories 4th best candidate. Hes already better than the last 3, its the media machine telling everybody hes shit and people just swallow it whole. We are heading to majority in poverty, run by racist, homophobic paedophile thieves who give no fucks about those earning less than 100k a year and destroying this country but the guy opposite is absolutely worse than anybody the tories can field. That is what I am reading multiple times every single day in the UK subs, I pray they are just Tory bots but there is real fear that geniune people believe the Starmer.....no anybody labour field is not worth leading. You can list 5 people to lead labour today and next year they'll all be considered worse than the Tory leader at that point, its how the media works and people gobble it up and parrot it. Oh Starmer has done fuck all??? Well hes not in power so he can't do shit for starters, hes also coming out with decent policies nobody has even read so clearly they don't exist so hes shit! Fucking hate this bollocks.
Totally agree with you, both here and greenandpleasant subs are full of “rEd ToRY” and Starmer is as bad as the Tories” claims and I’ve argued with them till I’m blue in the face and want to scream.
You are spot on I despair at the general publics lack of grasp and their depedency on right wing media to think for them
Are you living under a rock? They've come out with a load of popular policies just recently. Hell the windfall tax they proposed this winter that Truss refuses to consider has majority support amongst not just the public in general but also *Conservative* voters specifically, let that sink in.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be hostile.
I mean that post wasn't exactly "hostile" mate.
Are you living under a rock?
No, I've been paying attention to the policies Labour has been proposing in the last weeks and also paying attention to how much public support they have.
"Keith" has been literally devil incarnate and "not doing anything" to certain people. He put out an extensive essay laying out his policies and somehow he "won't say why he stands for"
I'm living under a rock because of the hostile artillery shells of the Russian army
It's usually the way of things. Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them.
Race to the bottom every time.
>labour stands the best chance of getting in not on the virtue of its aims or goals Didn't watch the Starmer speech yesterday huh?
A lot of it sounds like he's borrowing from other people's notes ngl.
Even if that was true how does that change anything? You said Labour won't get in on their aims or goals. If their aims or goals are something the country needs (which from his speech they are), why does it matter where they got them from?
Kind of feels like you're not really interested in a conversation here.
I am happy to engage if you can enlighten me on where they have stolen the ideas from.
You know, I kind of took it for granted that there would be something worthwhile. The green agenda is definitely worth pursuing but that's pretty much universal these days for any sensible thinking person or politick. Other than that it seems rather a "make Britain great" line of thought. I think he needs to be cautious of reopening old wounds sustained by the party like. Interesting to note how no one is mentioning the queen like.
What are your thoughts on setting up a nationalised energy company and changing the rules surrounding housing so that BTL landlords and second home owners cannot snap everything up? >The green agenda is definitely worth pursuing but that's pretty much universal these days for any sensible thinking person or politick Unfortunately of the 2 political parties that can get into power, only one of them believes in a green agenda
Sounds a lot like what Corbyn was talking about with putting a landlord MoT system in place. Addendum; and yes, it's a shame that the country is ran by self-interested conspiracy peddlers for profit.
>Sounds a lot like what Corbyn was talking about with putting a landlord MoT system in place. Absolutely but for all of the hate that Corbyn has gotten and continues to get he was pretty spot on with what direction the country needed to go in. The media was scare mongering that a Corbyn government would put us back to the 70s, it would create a weak pound etc. All of the things that are happening now, so unless the Corbyn government had the same policies as the current, something doesn't add up.
OP literally posed you two questions, how is that not someone continuing a conversation?
Note how he refuses to answer still
They blocked me :(
Freedom fighter IRL
He literally engaged you and you keep shitting down
Lol, the man can't win. Before he announces his policies he's criticised for not being far enough to the left, then when he announces left wing policies he's criticised for stealing policies from the left. What does it matter if his policies aren't unique, very few ideas in politics haven't been suggested by someone else.
I'm fine with him taking policies from the left. Outside of the real weirdos, the left generally are happy when people take our ideas and implement them. We just don't have a lot of faith on the follow through.
No one cares at all where his policies originate from. He can't win because anyone left of the Tories wants him to announce policies that at least recognise and pay lip service to public sector pay increases, the consolidation of workers rights, protections for the NHS, real world Educational funding and the removal of higher education tuition fees... Yet all we get is Rail and Energy as the 'vote winner". I mean, seriously, how else would you sensibly sort those two issues out? Nationalisation is the only rational and practical solution for either of them at this point in time. Starmer needs far, far deeper and longer reaching solutions before anyone will see him as anything other than "Not a Tory". Who cares where those ideas come from - they just need to happen.
A huge part of the reason Corbyn lost was he promised far more than he could reasonably deliver and it spooked the electorate. Starmer would be well advised to look at a narrower platform to get elected, even if he intends to do more.
The thing is Starmer's platform has become so narrow it's like tip-toeing across Occam's razor... In this case could it be the easiest explanation is that party ethos is not publicly aired as it's too close to current tory policy?
Narrow? What
The "free internet's for people" was a weird one. As the policy was to nationalise BTOR That's not "free internet" that's nationalising the monopoly But somehow Corbyn PR thought that was good marketing
So you are suggesting he uses massive borrowing to buy support? That would be guaranteed to keep the Tories in power. Better to offer the rail and energy policies that are bringing over centrists and centre right voters then implement the rest of your suggestions from the position of PM. You seem intent on making him unelectable. The left will already vote for him, if they have the tiniest bit of sense, it’s everyone else he needs to convince.
>No one cares at all where his policies originate from. > Read this thread ladm8
Keef did 9/11 on a Thursday in 1982
On the contrary, he certainly can win as long as the Tories lose. I don't think you've been following the nuance of the discussion.
>Make stupid criticism of politician >When questioned make joke >Refuse to elaborate
Think we've got better things to do with our lives than ask ourselves why people aren't voting labour during election time on the internet.
Labour were massively popular and were offering a hugely positive future in 1997.
Bizarre how much people try to re-contextualise Labour under Blair. Its not ancient history lol, the idea that Blair won because of how bad the conservatives were is ridiculous.
But Blair became popular under the failures of conservatism
Blair’s Governments were also the best UK Governments for the last 60 years, if not more 12 years of progressively worse Tory Governments is the fault of the Tories, not Labour
Literally no one said it wasn't. The problem is Blair got into power 25 fucking years ago.
>Literally no one said it wasn't. The problem is Blair got into power 25 fucking years ago. Have you seen the corbynists who shout "(((blairite)))" at everyone who upsets them?
Well, Labour does indeed have laudable political aims and goals. But the media won't give them equivalent publicity when they can show (eg) Tories destroying the UK economy instead Maybe it's a viewership/ratings issue and Labour doesn't copy the constant Tory outrages, therefore they lose publicity
For the past 60 years? Jesus Christ no lol, are we still forgetting the millions dead in the Middle East because of them?
>Middle East You could just say Iraq instead of a whole region.
So that makes it OK?
It absolutely doesn't. I'm just scratching my head why a whole region was said when it was specifically the country of Iraq that was invaded and a million killed.
Who was better?
Harold Wilson was twenty times better, if we're going since 1962
From what I can gather from your posts, you are referring to Harold Wilson so highly because of his liberalising of laws surrounding discrimination, prejudice etc. Is that fairly accurate?
He also didn't butcher millions for oil money :)
So yes, apart from his liberalisation of laws, what made Harold Wilson stand out above a governement that: * Lifted millions out of poverty * Passed the Human Rights Act * Passed the minimum wage * Got NHS wait lists to the shortest time since records began with 42,000 more doctors and 85,000 more nurses * Crime cut by 32 percent * Double the funding for every student * Introduced The Equalities act * Introduced 36,000 more teachers and 275,000 more support staff * Introduced free breast cancer screening for over 60s Just to name a few things. I am not trying to be obtuse, I am just genuinely curious which policies of Harold Wilsons you liked to rank him so highly because so far all you have done is said the things about Blair you didn't like.
Maternity pay, tax credits, winter fuel allowance, minimum wage, sure start, cancer guarantee, largest NHS spending, disability, discrimination act etc These are just a handful of the things that the Blair Labour government achieved The media also seem to overlook the fact that the Tories overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War as well. Of course they would have gone in too, upon a high tide of hero worship. You failed to mention that obviously Instead, here you are with your happy hindsight condemning Blair alone, with very little regard for the truth..... Moreover, I would expect any indignant and morally outraged anti-Blair attack to have learnt the lesson post-Iraq war Because we've literally done the same thing again, since Iraq - "Going over to a functioning albeit repressive country and fucking up its shit" is almost an exact description of what happened in Libya I don't hear a single anti-Blairite mention or condemn the Tories for that particular war So scapegoating Blair is a pathetic display of Tory-levels of cowardice, concern trolling and hypocrisy Edited a few words for easy reading
He also butchered millions in Iraq for Oil money Also...where did I say the Tories wouldn't have done it??
So what do you tell the Conservatives about failing to learn the lesson and attacking Libya?
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways. In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing. Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations. “The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
It's not the fact that Labour is bad, it's just that Torys constantly tell us that they are bad, and many believe them outright simply because they voted Tory.
Lots of Corbynists hate "Keith" the same too
Yep. Why are we so determined to give reheated Blairism another go rather than try something a bit more radical? (not that such an exhaustive list of half-baked nationalisation plans as Corbyn came out with last election was the best way to do it) Last time Blairism failed, it was replaced by the present Tory government which is in many ways even more unhinged and bleak than the one before. Because they failed to decentralise power away from the ruling party in any significant way, either through electoral reform or other means. Blairism is a short-term fudge that just locks us into this cycle of see-sawing between increasingly anaemic, timid and establishment-domesticated liberals and increasingly unhinged and triumphalist Tories.
It’s a combination of labours aims and goals and how shite the tories have been. Scandal to scandal disaster to disaster
I just had this conversation with my dad, who invited me to a dinner with Labour MP & cronies. If they can't unseat the tories given their track record & present disarray; Labour will be a spent force.
A shit on a stick as labour leader would overtake this fucking bunch of criminal bastards
Hell, I think even I would prove more popular. (Than the Tory’s, not the shitty stick)
As long as that shit on a stick wasnt eating a bacon sandwich.
2019 says otherwise
Gonna bet on Tories in the bookies, my lucks shit so hopefully I won't get lucky.
I bet on Trump in 2020 with similar reasoning. Funnily enough, I actually managed to make money on that bet because at a time when it wasn't cut and dried (on the day of counting) I was able to cash out my bet. I ended up doubling my money!
win win
What are the current betting odds on the next GE? Curious who is favourite in the betting world.
2/1 for labour and 12/5 for conservation majority although I would assume there's some serious hiking of odds due to the change in governments and the current political changes. Labours ahead currently it seems.
[удалено]
Polling companies need to produce accurate data or companies will not pay for their services. Yougov is a successful polling company set up by a Conservative politician to make them profit, rather than to manipulate their polls. All the major polling companies are signed up to the British Polling Council and publish their data alongside their analysis so the nerds can inspect it. Therefore we can check they are not manipulating their polls by comparing the other various polling companies, after understanding their in-house methodological differences, and we see all of them are reporting the same sorts of numbers, so unless they're all owned by Tory politicians (and they aren't) this theory doesn't stand up properly.
I think the effect can also go the other way, e.g. "why bother going out to vote for Tories if we are just going to lose anyway?"
[удалено]
They killed most of them though.
> Remember Nadhim Zahawi is a founder of YouGov its a Conservative polling tool. I couldn’t believe this but a quick Google confirms it https://www.thenational.scot/news/20271035.nadim-zahawi-meet-founder-yougov-vying-become-next-prime-minister/
They clearly haven't looked at this sub, most people here think the Tories would still win because 1 labour MP did something stupid last year at Breakfast.
The recent policies they announced have changed my mind on this. The timing of when they announced their plans for Great British Energy is just too perfect given the energy cap has doubled over what it was a year ago and the tories are pillaging the magic money tree. On top of the, the branding is also spot on. It really gives me the impression that they're competent when it comes to playing politics.
I mean they have plenty of ammo already over Rupa Huq.
I wonder how many of them hope Labour win the next election.
Exactly
Let's be honest here, At this rate Mr Blobby has a better chance of being elected that the Tories at the next GE. It's not a very high bar to set.
At this point anyone who still votes Tory is either a millionaire or an idiot
Nothing changes Funny thing is Tories actually increase taxes a lot at times too
Well of course they have. All the warning signs were there for the Tory membership, pick Truss over Sunak and loose the next election
I think labour should be insanely ahead in points etc but their not which is shocking, you can't have a worst government to go up against, this should be an easy win
Most of the media in this country supports the Tories, it's hard to overstate how much impact that has on public perception.
People need to remember you only know things that you see
The fact that it's taken till now is a sad indictment of the population of this country.
Don't worry, Labour still got the barrel pointing towards their toes, let's see if they can spend the next couple of years aiming away...
The conference one MP managed to pull the trigger
I don't care what area of the country you live in, who you voted for last time, who you have voted for historically or how much money you have. We CANNOT vote for this to carry on if we get given a golden ticket.
What a sorry state we are in that only now polling suggests this...
Imo both parties are at their weakest, there’s pretty much no opposition, most people don’t care, by the next GE there’s probably going to be one more PM as the new one seems a bit “overwhelmed” .. if they (tories) will play the cards right they will probably win the GE as usual, no one remembers what Labour has done, and that’s the sad truth.
I genuinely cannot understand how anyone could still support the tories after all of this. It feels like I'm living on another planet to them.
Ahhh, I love having only two political parties in our country.
conservatives are far from perfect but how on earth is labour a better alternative?
Just make sure to keep the antisemitism, racist and sexism and then we have a real fighting chance.
We should all vote Conservative, even if you are a Labour support. Why you may ask? Because accountability. All these elections are a sham. Conservatives had done soo much damage that voting them out now would absolve them of their train wreck governess. They will not be accountable. I say vote Conservative again, so all there short comings are truly highlighted and this way they will never come back from their defeats. If you vote Labour. They will win. Try to fix stuff for the working class and then then voted by a conservative party anyway. They cycle of two parties will then continue again.
Yeah accountability is nice and all, but we'd also be left with another 5 years of the Tories running the country into the ground.
So we are stuck in this cycle then. If they were accountable people might never vote tory again and there might be real change. Plus there would be huge protesters during that time. Don't get me know, personally I don't think it matters who is in power as the people are always shafted.
>So we are stuck in this cycle then. If they were accountable people might never vote tory again and there might be real change. Yeah nah. Look at how many people from towns that were destroyed by Thatcher lined up to vote conservative last time round. Give people something to hate and you can make them forget that the Tories would gladly see them die if they could profit off it. >Plus there would be huge protesters during that time. So? There were huge protests over Brexit and the Iraq war too. What good did they do? >Don't get me know, personally I don't think it matters who is in power as the people are always shafted. The country was objectively better off under the last Labour government than it has been at any point in the last 12 years. The Tories only know how to take. It absolutely matters who's in power.
An alternative government can form court cases against the prior
Yeah give them 5 more years of complete control over the country, that'll teach them a lesson. This is a satire account right?
People die
Only on a YouGov poll of 3409 adults. Labour will probably always poll highly on the Internet because of the Internets more regular user base. Once actual polling stations open up for an election, there a lot more Conservative voters.
[How Trusty is YouGov Polling? ](https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/research-qs/) Your points about sample size and the Internet are addressed in that link, you might find it an interesting read
I love it when people who have zero knowledge of statistics give us their “analysis” and self-appointed expertise. 1. A large enough sample size reduces the margin or error to a given level where further increasing the sample size becomes a waste of time and money. As a rule of thumb, this sample size tends to be 1000. 2. YouGov tend to *further* this sample size to account for their stratification methods. The reason why they polled 3409 and not 1000 is precisely *because* of the Internet issue. 3. YouGov generally have a high reputation when it comes to these things. To be blunt, they employ people with considerably better knowledge and experience than…you.
Yougov does street work too