2024 Election thread

13567…197

Comments

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,103
    tailwindhome said:

    Said it before and I'll say it again.
    For the the 100 year history of the Irish state either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail have been in power. In the last election they had to form a coalition to keep Sinn Fein out. They are now, even combined, behind on the opinion polls

    The biggest issue is housing. An entire generation has been locked out of the housing market both buying and renting

    The point?

    It would be foolish of either Labour or Conservative to think that this can only happen in Ireland, and that if they don't do something to sort out the UK housing market it won't happen to them.

    They may find that Corbyn was a decade early.

    How does the demographics of Ireland compare to GB? Feel like a party going all in on housebuilding would clean up with the under 40s but struggle with the over 50s. I'm not sure a big demographic divide in parliament would be good for the country either.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,541
    tailwindhome said:

    Said it before and I'll say it again.
    For the the 100 year history of the Irish state either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail have been in power. In the last election they had to form a coalition to keep Sinn Fein out. They are now, even combined, behind on the opinion polls

    The biggest issue is housing. An entire generation has been locked out of the housing market both buying and renting

    The point?

    It would be foolish of either Labour or Conservative to think that this can only happen in Ireland, and that if they don't do something to sort out the UK housing market it won't happen to them.

    They may find that Corbyn was a decade early.

    What's the problem with house building in Ireland?
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    tailwindhome said:

    pblakeney said:

    tailwindhome said:

    So, when's the election going to be?

    Political pundits seem to think end of October/start of November.
    I'm not that optimistic.
    I thought it was nuts to start with, but I'm starting to think he may go in the spring
    Possibly mitigates a miserable winter election I guess.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,162
    rick_chasey said:

    Ok so what do voters apparently think is most important?

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/publicopinionsandsocialtrendsgreatbritain/11to22january2023#:~:text=living (93%)-,the NHS (89%),and the environment (59%)


    the cost of living (93%)
    the NHS (89%)
    the economy (76%)
    climate change and the environment (59%)
    Crime (50%)
    Industrial action (45%)

    So err, how are the Tories gonna make an inroads on any of those?

    I assume that’s missing

    Stopping small boats (100%)

    Or was that only on the draft version sent to Tory HQ?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,762
    tailwindhome said:

    pblakeney said:

    tailwindhome said:

    So, when's the election going to be?

    Political pundits seem to think end of October/start of November.
    I'm not that optimistic.
    I thought it was nuts to start with, but I'm starting to think he may go in the spring
    I agree with the September 2024 theory. He's going to lose, so will hang on for as long as possible, but won't want to annoy his canvassers/party workers too much by having them go out once it's dark and cold.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,541
    kingstongraham said:

    tailwindhome said:

    pblakeney said:

    tailwindhome said:

    So, when's the election going to be?

    Political pundits seem to think end of October/start of November.
    I'm not that optimistic.
    I thought it was nuts to start with, but I'm starting to think he may go in the spring
    I agree with the September 2024 theory. He's going to lose, so will hang on for as long as possible, but won't want to annoy his canvassers/party workers too much by having them go out once it's dark and cold.
    Are people who won't vote when it is cold more or less likely to vote Tory?
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    tailwindhome said:

    pblakeney said:

    tailwindhome said:

    So, when's the election going to be?

    Political pundits seem to think end of October/start of November.
    I'm not that optimistic.
    I thought it was nuts to start with, but I'm starting to think he may go in the spring
    I agree with the September 2024 theory. He's going to lose, so will hang on for as long as possible, but won't want to annoy his canvassers/party workers too much by having them go out once it's dark and cold.
    Are people who won't vote when it is cold more or less likely to vote Tory?
    They are more likely to postal vote.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    tailwindhome said:

    pblakeney said:

    tailwindhome said:

    So, when's the election going to be?

    Political pundits seem to think end of October/start of November.
    I'm not that optimistic.
    I thought it was nuts to start with, but I'm starting to think he may go in the spring
    I agree with the September 2024 theory. He's going to lose, so will hang on for as long as possible, but won't want to annoy his canvassers/party workers too much by having them go out once it's dark and cold.
    Are people who won't vote when it is cold more or less likely to vote Tory?
    Consensus view is it's easier to get your "base" out in the May you have more motivated party helpers to go knock on doors, ferry people to voting booths etc.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,762
    edited September 2023
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    tailwindhome said:

    pblakeney said:

    tailwindhome said:

    So, when's the election going to be?

    Political pundits seem to think end of October/start of November.
    I'm not that optimistic.
    I thought it was nuts to start with, but I'm starting to think he may go in the spring
    I agree with the September 2024 theory. He's going to lose, so will hang on for as long as possible, but won't want to annoy his canvassers/party workers too much by having them go out once it's dark and cold.
    Are people who won't vote when it is cold more or less likely to vote Tory?
    People who aren't motivated to vote need someone to go and knock on their door. Also, in October everything feels generally a bit shit, so that can't be good for the incumbent.

    Thinking about it, universities aren't back in September as well.
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 1,951
    It depends what his plans are post election IMO. If he has other ambitions and is going to move away from politics I suspect he calls an early election, otherwise I agree he will hang on for as long as possible.

    I have seen a few political journos pushing the theory that all the Net Zero stuff is a last gasp effort to try and turn things around, Sunak thinking he can still win an election if he distances himself from the actual Tory track record and focusses on holding together the so called red wall. I can see the argument for that theory, but if true, I think Sunak is completely off his head.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

    It depends what his plans are post election IMO. If he has other ambitions and is going to move away from politics I suspect he calls an early election, otherwise I agree he will hang on for as long as possible.

    I have seen a few political journos pushing the theory that all the Net Zero stuff is a last gasp effort to try and turn things around, Sunak thinking he can still win an election if he distances himself from the actual Tory track record and focusses on holding together the so called red wall. I can see the argument for that theory, but if true, I think Sunak is completely off his head.

    My Truss supporting Tory dyed-in-the-wool boss seems to think pushing back net zero is a political masterstroke.
    _
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 1,951
    Oh dear, and you have to take instruction from this person RC? ;)

    Of course, there will be a number of DITW Tories who will lap this stuff up as you say, but the last election was won off the back of Brexit which galvanised labour heartlands. They are not going to have the same sway with this guff next time around.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,762
    rick_chasey said:

    MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

    It depends what his plans are post election IMO. If he has other ambitions and is going to move away from politics I suspect he calls an early election, otherwise I agree he will hang on for as long as possible.

    I have seen a few political journos pushing the theory that all the Net Zero stuff is a last gasp effort to try and turn things around, Sunak thinking he can still win an election if he distances himself from the actual Tory track record and focusses on holding together the so called red wall. I can see the argument for that theory, but if true, I think Sunak is completely off his head.

    My Truss supporting Tory dyed-in-the-wool boss seems to think pushing back net zero is a political masterstroke.
    The messaging seems to have worked somewhat, as they aren't pushing back net zero.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,103
    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

    It depends what his plans are post election IMO. If he has other ambitions and is going to move away from politics I suspect he calls an early election, otherwise I agree he will hang on for as long as possible.

    I have seen a few political journos pushing the theory that all the Net Zero stuff is a last gasp effort to try and turn things around, Sunak thinking he can still win an election if he distances himself from the actual Tory track record and focusses on holding together the so called red wall. I can see the argument for that theory, but if true, I think Sunak is completely off his head.

    My Truss supporting Tory dyed-in-the-wool boss seems to think pushing back net zero is a political masterstroke.
    The messaging seems to have worked somewhat, as they aren't pushing back net zero.
    Or even materially changed the phasing out of ICE production.

    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Tashman
    Tashman Posts: 3,479
    focuszing723 said:

    The Tories were shocking during Covid, Labour and the Libs, meh.

    The Green party, give then a shot see want happens.

    Take a quick poll in Brighton of what they feel about the Greens.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Greens are so delusional they make Corbyn's manifesto look incredibly sober.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    SC’s favourite topic.

    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    Yeah. Academics. Don't get me started on their understanding of the value of their own pensions and terms and conditions of employment.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,162
    It's the problem with the Greens. A lot of people probably support the general idea, fewer are prepared to accept policies that require them to make sacrifices and the Party seems to come from a point of view of being anti business / economy which makes them like the loony left.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    Pross said:

    It's the problem with the Greens. A lot of people probably support the general idea, fewer are prepared to accept policies that require them to make sacrifices and the Party seems to come from a point of view of being anti business / economy which makes them like the loony left.

    Sorry, but they really are the loony left a lot of the time. They are, at least here, big government, low on practicality, anti wealth. And they virtue signal far beyond what is, or is not, "green".
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,162
    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    It's the problem with the Greens. A lot of people probably support the general idea, fewer are prepared to accept policies that require them to make sacrifices and the Party seems to come from a point of view of being anti business / economy which makes them like the loony left.

    Sorry, but they really are the loony left a lot of the time. They are, at least here, big government, low on practicality, anti wealth. And they virtue signal far beyond what is, or is not, "green".
    Yep, that's what I was saying. To get the Green aims you really have to work with business and capitalism to make them practical not work against them so there's not the economy to fund change.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    It's the problem with the Greens. A lot of people probably support the general idea, fewer are prepared to accept policies that require them to make sacrifices and the Party seems to come from a point of view of being anti business / economy which makes them like the loony left.

    Sorry, but they really are the loony left a lot of the time. They are, at least here, big government, low on practicality, anti wealth. And they virtue signal far beyond what is, or is not, "green".
    Yep, that's what I was saying. To get the Green aims you really have to work with business and capitalism to make them practical not work against them so there's not the economy to fund change.
    Okay, yes. The issue is that the Greens we have understand that being green is expensive, but proposes policies that mean there's less available to spend. It is counter productive.

    Does anyone have a clue why it is necessary to be overtly woke in order to be green though?

    That one has me stumped.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,926
    The people who hit the headlines are doing it to get publicity for their cause so it just goes hand in hand doesn't it? I'm sure a good percentage of the population agree things need to change/be done to reduce global warming, pollution...
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    It's the problem with the Greens. A lot of people probably support the general idea, fewer are prepared to accept policies that require them to make sacrifices and the Party seems to come from a point of view of being anti business / economy which makes them like the loony left.

    Sorry, but they really are the loony left a lot of the time. They are, at least here, big government, low on practicality, anti wealth. And they virtue signal far beyond what is, or is not, "green".
    Yep, that's what I was saying. To get the Green aims you really have to work with business and capitalism to make them practical not work against them so there's not the economy to fund change.
    Okay, yes. The issue is that the Greens we have understand that being green is expensive, but proposes policies that mean there's less available to spend. It is counter productive.

    Does anyone have a clue why it is necessary to be overtly woke in order to be green though?

    That one has me stumped.
    Because there's lots of overlap in why you'd be "woke" and why you'd be "green".
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,703
    Jezyboy said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    It's the problem with the Greens. A lot of people probably support the general idea, fewer are prepared to accept policies that require them to make sacrifices and the Party seems to come from a point of view of being anti business / economy which makes them like the loony left.

    Sorry, but they really are the loony left a lot of the time. They are, at least here, big government, low on practicality, anti wealth. And they virtue signal far beyond what is, or is not, "green".
    Yep, that's what I was saying. To get the Green aims you really have to work with business and capitalism to make them practical not work against them so there's not the economy to fund change.
    Okay, yes. The issue is that the Greens we have understand that being green is expensive, but proposes policies that mean there's less available to spend. It is counter productive.

    Does anyone have a clue why it is necessary to be overtly woke in order to be green though?

    That one has me stumped.
    Because there's lots of overlap in why you'd be "woke" and why you'd be "green".
    Is there a link between gender identity or self determination and CO2 emissions?
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,395
    rick_chasey said:

    SC’s favourite topic.

    Salary related pension schemes are very expensive for the employer. And for clarity, the universities scheme is funded, so it isn't just the retired lecturers that receive the benefits of the cost.....

    Back in the early 2000s I was involved in the winding up of a FS scheme for non-academic staff at a private school. It was costing the school 23% of payroll.

    At the same time, over 60% of some fire brigade budgets was going on their pension scheme.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,537
    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    It's the problem with the Greens. A lot of people probably support the general idea, fewer are prepared to accept policies that require them to make sacrifices and the Party seems to come from a point of view of being anti business / economy which makes them like the loony left.

    Sorry, but they really are the loony left a lot of the time. They are, at least here, big government, low on practicality, anti wealth. And they virtue signal far beyond what is, or is not, "green".
    Yep, that's what I was saying. To get the Green aims you really have to work with business and capitalism to make them practical not work against them so there's not the economy to fund change.
    Okay, yes. The issue is that the Greens we have understand that being green is expensive, but proposes policies that mean there's less available to spend. It is counter productive.

    Does anyone have a clue why it is necessary to be overtly woke in order to be green though?

    That one has me stumped.
    Because there's lots of overlap in why you'd be "woke" and why you'd be "green".
    Is there a link between gender identity or self determination and CO2 emissions?
    I think people are attracted to the causes for similar reasons. Whilst I hate the phrase virtue signaling...I'm struggling to think of a better one.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,103
    Dorset_Boy said:

    rick_chasey said:

    SC’s favourite topic.

    Salary related pension schemes are very expensive for the employer. And for clarity, the universities scheme is funded, so it isn't just the retired lecturers that receive the benefits of the cost.....

    Back in the early 2000s I was involved in the winding up of a FS scheme for non-academic staff at a private school. It was costing the school 23% of payroll.

    At the same time, over 60% of some fire brigade budgets was going on their pension scheme.
    Notwithstanding that these schemes are just consuming the organisations they are supposed to support, if they are brought to an end, there will be almost inevitably a demand for salaries to rise accordingly so that employees at least have the option to make up the difference. Would this actually save anyone any money
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • joeyhalloran
    joeyhalloran Posts: 1,080
    Jezyboy said:


    Because there's lots of overlap in why you'd be "woke" and why you'd be "green".

    Is there?!

    Are there any countries out there that have a hard environmental, yet right wing, party?

  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,926

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/aqvhqm/uk_prime_ministers_lifespans_terms_oc/
    I like this

Categories