Tories on course to WIN Hartlepool by-election

[anonguest]

31 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

When the population has increased by twenty percent in as many years?

Yes, it's that simple.

 

Nothing to do with socio-economic deprivation (e.g lack of job opportunities, etc) ? Just, simplistically, people numbers.

I would argue that people numbers could have doubled BUT IF quality of life remained unchanged then they would have still been voting the same.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Didn't Corbyn win it... then Starmer and his ilk make out that Corbyn was the problem... I don't think so! Centrist bilge, which offers people no solution is the issue - leaving the gap open to hardline British nationalists (the Tories) to fill the void. 

I actually view the Tories as an extremist party these days. 

[markyh]

15 hours ago, Warlord said:

Has been Labour since 1964!

Starmer is hopeless.  If he cannot win Hartlepool he should resign immediately and let someone else have a go.

Poll gives Boris Johnson’s Conservatives 17-point lead in crucial Hartlepool by-election

 

Well, they did hang a monkey as a Spy, didn't they? 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

3 hours ago, anonguest said:

It makes me laugh that a common, modern, comeback you will hear struggling/defeated politicans spout when questioned by journos about their poor performance is something along the lines of "we are not gettng/need to get our message across better..." etc.

Such a stupid response.

Firstly, IF (and I say with big IF) that is the sole problem for their poor performance/election loss/etc then it speaks volumes as to their general incompetence - especially since they likely have legions of professional communicators/advertising experts/etc to help them.  IF they can't even manage a communications campaign how will they do when in power??!!

Second, is the 'arrogance' of that type of response. Because it implies that there's actually not much wrong with their ordinary messaging it's just that voters are too stupid to understand all the complexities and subtleties of their policies, etc - and so they have to make extra special effort for us poor thicko voters who don't have a PPE from Oxford.  When in actual fact the reason is much simpler.  The voters hear and understand the messages (policies) loud and clear - and just plain and simple don't like them!

Very very very rarely, after a defeat/poor performance, will you hear a politico say honestly that it must be because the public weighed it all up - and just didn't want what we are selling, etc.  Strangely enough, my estimation and opinion of such honest speakers immediately goes skywards after hearing that sort of rare admission - and almost makes me wish I'd voted for them!

Reminds me very much of the old Labour trope trotted out on here recently that "Labour lost because of the right wing press".

The problem is blaming them is just a convenient excuse for not getting their policies correct and being able to pile the blame on something that is out of their control, rather than actually addressing the real issues that people didn't want to vote for them.

 

[zugzwang]

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Nothing to do with socio-economic deprivation (e.g lack of job opportunities, etc) ? Just, simplistically, people numbers.

I would argue that people numbers could have doubled BUT IF quality of life remained unchanged then they would have still been voting the same.

 

It's the immigration numbers that have driven the inequality agenda. I would argue that working people have seen a marked deterioration in their quality of life, especially when it comes to housing.

Starmer appears to be offering the same shit sandwich as Johnson but with slightly thicker bread, hence no takers.

[scottbeard]

1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Reminds me very much of the old Labour trope trotted out on here recently that "Labour lost because of the right wing press".

The problem is blaming them is just a convenient excuse for not getting their policies correct and being able to pile the blame on something that is out of their control, rather than actually addressing the real issues that people didn't want to vote for them.

+1

Labour don't even have to be good, they just need to be better than the Tories, and they still have been nowhere close for a decade.

59 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

It's the immigration numbers that have driven the inequality agenda. I would argue that working people have seen a marked deterioration in their quality of life, especially when it comes to housing.

Starmer appears to be offering the same shit sandwich as Johnson but with slightly thicker bread, hence no takers.

For working class people, definitely.   People coming over from Romania don't put Tristan the lawyer out of work, but they can put Dave the painter out of work.

The same tired old arguments about racism and xenophobia keep being trotted out but at the end of the day it IS numbers problem.  No-one had an issue when in their workplace of 30 people there were a couple from overseas (usually from Australia or other Commonwealth places).  When suddenly 23 are from Eastern Europe, and the supervisor begins to give instructions for some shifts in Polish, then yes, people do have a problem with that, and I don't blame them. 

[anonguest]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

 

It's the immigration numbers that have driven the inequality agenda. I would argue that working people have seen a marked deterioration in their quality of life, especially when it comes to housing.

Starmer appears to be offering the same shit sandwich as Johnson but with slightly thicker bread, hence no takers.

I know what you're saying, but.....I'm not sure that was the correct analogy to use?  Since, when it comes to Sh*t Sandwiches surely thicker/more bread helps?   😉

[zugzwang]

20 minutes ago, anonguest said:

I know what you're saying, but.....I'm not sure that was the correct analogy to use?  Since, when it comes to Sh*t Sandwiches surely thicker/more bread helps?   😉

Not enough to make it digestible.

[Trump Invective]

The slogan of a party in crisis: "we are listening"

[Trump Invective]

Had a quick look for "who should I vote for for lower house prices"

Tumbleweed of course. But this interesting quote from the tories in 1966:

The Conservative party manifesto made a promise. A Tory government would "get the houses up and keep the prices down".

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

1 hour ago, Trump Invective said:

A Tory government would "get the houses up and keep the prices down".

At least consistent, lying generation to generation.

 

[LandOfConfusion]

1 hour ago, Trump Invective said:

The Conservative party manifesto made a promise. A Tory government would "get the houses up and keep the prices down".

And what to the recipients / voters of then do now? And don't tell me they complain about the young frittering their money away as a reason for not being able to buy themselves a home, that would be hypocritical.

[winkie]

2 hours ago, Trump Invective said:

The slogan of a party in crisis: "we are listening"

...but we cannot hear.

[LandOfConfusion]

1 minute ago, winkie said:

...but we cannot hear.

Oh they can. Just not to you! 😏

A few years ago I read a paper which talked abut the Palestinian conflict and it wasn't until I finished and went back up to the top that I realised it was written in the mid-late 1960's(!). You could have written it yesterday.

From that manifesto:

Quote

Just look at their record. The Labour leaders have failed to tackle the fundamental economic and social problems at home. Abroad Britain's reputation has declined under their clumsy and uncertain touch.

[...]

It is a depressing catalogue. It is hard to see how any one of us, whatever our job or whatever our attitude to politics, can be satisfied with the situation into which we have now drifted. Nor can anyone be content to let this sort of thing go on. This is not the kind of Britain we want.

"History does not repeat, but it rhymes."

[dugsbody]

2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

+1

Labour don't even have to be good, they just need to be better than the Tories, and they still have been nowhere close for a decade.

For working class people, definitely.   People coming over from Romania don't put Tristan the lawyer out of work, but they can put Dave the painter out of work.

The same tired old arguments about racism and xenophobia keep being trotted out but at the end of the day it IS numbers problem.  No-one had an issue when in their workplace of 30 people there were a couple from overseas (usually from Australia or other Commonwealth places).  When suddenly 23 are from Eastern Europe, and the supervisor begins to give instructions for some shifts in Polish, then yes, people do have a problem with that, and I don't blame them. 

Actually, people did have a problem with commonwealth immigrants. It's always been immigration, always will be.

Brexit is nothing new.

[steve99]

17 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

These are not Conservatives, they are "NuLabour 2" and BJ is the heir to Blair.

?   NuLabia was ToryLite 1.   Better social policy but Tory economic policy.  Boris and chums are conservatives in the way they siphon off public money into the hands of cronies, and lets face it, covid has been very profitable for them and their conduits to the offshore tax havens.  Sold off royal mail cheap, also to their cronies(ie a cost to us, the owners of the post office). Help to buy helped builders to mega bonuses Yes they are Conservatives, cause that's what conservatives do. 

[scottbeard]

44 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Actually, people did have a problem with commonwealth immigrants. It's always been immigration, always will be.

Brexit is nothing new.

I guess so, but I'm saying the disquiet about immigration in the last 15 years has been largely down to the sheer numbers, not about where they have come from.

There was disquiet before, but it didn't influence national elections in the same way because it was so much lower and so much more localised.

[dugsbody]

36 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I guess so, but I'm saying the disquiet about immigration in the last 15 years has been largely down to the sheer numbers, not about where they have come from.

There was disquiet before, but it didn't influence national elections in the same way because it was so much lower and so much more localised.

I'm sorry but you're not correct. Enoch Powell? Aliens Act 1905? 

Everyone always associates higher importance to stuff going on in their own time, but like I say, anti-immigration sentiment is common, always has been, always will be. Brexit is nothing new.

[dryrot]

Hi

not sure if this has been posted... A journalists take on Hartlepool.. er..

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-woodfired-brick-wall/

"Five years ago, London was a Conservative city. But the party has written off its chances of winning there this week or in the foreseeable future. How have the Tories lost touch with a place that in in living memory voted for both Boris Johnson and Margaret Thatcher?

That’s the question I’m trying to answer in my forthcoming book The Lost City: How London Fell Out Of Love With The Tories (9 Sept., Pundit Press). I’ve spent more than a year living among the “Cockneys”, as Londoners are known, and coming to understand their ways, from their love of flat white coffees and IPA beer to their tiny, expensive housing."

[LandOfConfusion]

3 hours ago, steve99 said:

Sold off royal mail cheap, also to their cronies(ie a cost to us, the owners of the post office). Help to buy helped builders to mega bonuses Yes they are Conservatives, cause that's what conservatives do. 

Going to have to agree with you there. Taking a loss on bailing out the banks, helping out BTL'ers, making the UK the only country in the world with privatised water (great profits to be had!), repeatedly re-privatising some rail services even though it was run cheaper and better when it defaulted to public hands and then there's the CAA's drone flier database. £9 per entry and registration enforced by law.

Just imagine doing consulting and telling your client it'll cost £900,000 for a simple database (consisting of name, address & employee number) of your of your 100,000 employees. Looks like someone made a lot of money out of that one but of course there's no oversight nor justification.

 

[Young Turk]

13 hours ago, btl_hater said:

Given the combined Brexit party and Tory vote figures at the last GE, how on earth is a Tory win a surprise to anyone?

A popular theory shortly after the general election was that lots of traditional Labour voters who voted either Conservative or Brexit Party would return to the Labour party after Brexit.

[Huggy]

10 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

A popular theory shortly after the general election was that lots of traditional Labour voters who voted either Conservative or Brexit Party would return to the Labour party after Brexit.

A popular theory shortly before the general election was that Labour might not get the biggest kicking this great country had ever seen with the leader of the 'Lib' 'Dems' actually losing it's seat 😂

I like popular theories. They give great laughs months and even years after.

[Young Turk]

6 minutes ago, Huggy said:

A popular theory shortly before the general election was that Labour might not get the biggest kicking this great country had ever seen with the leader of the 'Lib' 'Dems' actually losing it's seat 😂

I like popular theories. They give great laughs months and even years after.

It's difficult to make comparisons between years because in some elections third parties take more, but 2019 was far from the worst election for Labour.

In 2019 they received 32% of the vote. They have had a lower vote share in ten previous general elections:

2015 (30%), 2010 (29%), 1983 (28%), 1923 (31%), 1922 (30%), 1918 (21%), December 1910 (6%), January 1910 (7%), 1906 (5%), 1900 (1%)

[reddog]

41 minutes ago, Young Turk said:

It's difficult to make comparisons between years because in some elections third parties take more, but 2019 was far from the worst election for Labour.

In 2019 they received 32% of the vote. They have had a lower vote share in ten previous general elections:

2015 (30%), 2010 (29%), 1983 (28%), 1923 (31%), 1922 (30%), 1918 (21%), December 1910 (6%), January 1910 (7%), 1906 (5%), 1900 (1%)

Its interesting in 2010 they got 29% and there was a hung parliament, no doubt due to the lib Dems.  I don't think the 1918 and before votes count as they were getting established.

[reddog]

Personally I am not sure who to vote for next time.  Don't want to vote Tory, labour, lib dem or green.

 

Incidentally, have they made it harder for small parties to exist?  I am sure in the last election I only had about 4 choices.