I'm not a Tory, but I donn't think all Tories are extremists.
No but recent PMs have either been one of the extremists or afraid to grow a spine and face them down.
This is true, and there's also the fact that the majority of tories - some of whom could well be moderates - supported Johnson, as well as Truss, and are therefore responsible for the enormities foisted upon us all...
I suppose the irony is lost on Sunak, and many Tories, that they are the extremists. I also found his speech rather pleading and pathetic. As John Crace says, he's looking for a Daddy to put it all right.
Wishi-Washi is no doubt rather cross tonight, as extremist mob rule has overwhelmed the House of Lords, and frustrated (for the time being) The Will Of The People™:
Is it just me or does 'Will of the People' smack of totalitarian dictatorship?
I recall a rather fetching film called 'Triumph of the Will'. It could perhaps be remade with Rishi arriving in his helicopter to be saluted by the masses of Chipping Sodbury.
Is it just me or does 'Will of the People' smack of totalitarian dictatorship?
I recall a rather fetching film called 'Triumph of the Will'. It could perhaps be remade with Rishi arriving in his helicopter to be saluted by the masses of Chipping Sodbury.
Actually sounds more Communist to me. The Great Hall of the People is an example.
Is it just me or does 'Will of the People' smack of totalitarian dictatorship?
I recall a rather fetching film called 'Triumph of the Will'. It could perhaps be remade with Rishi arriving in his helicopter to be saluted by the masses of Chipping Sodbury.
I always imagine the sound of marching jackboots when I hear that phrase.
Is it just me or does 'Will of the People' smack of totalitarian dictatorship?
I recall a rather fetching film called 'Triumph of the Will'. It could perhaps be remade with Rishi arriving in his helicopter to be saluted by the masses of Chipping Sodbury.
Actually sounds more Communist to me. The Great Hall of the People is an example.
Pretty sure the PRC is an example of a totalitarian dictatorship,
The police (especially perhaps the Met) have a lot of issues to contend with, and to overcome, but this sort of thing must really piss them off.
Classic case of being between a rock and a hard place. On one side there's a large number of people who see the right to peacefully protest as sacrosanct, and who are deeply angered by global events (the current phase of the war in Palestine, the war in Ukraine, the collapsing climate etc) and want to express that by walking through city streets chanting and waving banners. On the other there's a government who sees these marches as deeply critical of their policy (and, in some cases that's probably an accurate assessment) and a threat to their power and try to pass legislation to make them unlawful, supported by people who are happy to issue death threats against police officers who don't enforce laws that exist only in their heads and riot on Armistice Day.
Actually, it's not that much of a dilemma - when given a choice between supporting peaceful protestors where the police presence is only needed to control traffic so that cars and lots of pedestrians are kept safely apart and lunatics who threated police for allowing peaceful marches I'm sure their sympathy is with those who don't cause them trouble. The problem being that makes them appear to be political as they're not towing the government line that legal is illegal.
Is it just me or does 'Will of the People' smack of totalitarian dictatorship?
Totally is. A phrase used to pretend that there is no choice, and the people want it. They don't.
Dictatorships can come from any political wing.
"Will of the People" is a very convenient phrase, you can apply it to any policy and no one can say you're wrong - because actually determining what the overwhelming majority of people think on any single policy is practically impossible to know. Anyone fancy trying to get large number of people to engage in several days of listening to experts (with different views) and discussions in smallish groups where everyone can have their say to determine what the people think about (say) immigration? And, to repeat that process regularly.
Without the vast majority of the population spending significant amount of time involved in thinking about a policy issue then an election for candidates which include variations on that issue in their manifesto, or even a binary referendum, is largely meaningless as a way to take even a snap shot of what the people thought at one point in time, much less whether that's what they still think some time afterwards.
Usually "the will of the people" means nothing more than what a small number of people want the majority of people to want.
Ah but. People like Patel and Braverman don't need to do any research into what 'the People' might really will, because they already know. Their guts tell them.
Is it just me or does 'Will of the People' smack of totalitarian dictatorship?
Actually sounds more Communist to me.
Both Marxism and fascism are inspired by Rousseau who was responsible for making the idea a major part of political theory.
Although he may not have invented it, I think it comes more or less direct from Rousseau. He conjured up a phrase, 'the General Will' which was supposed to embody where 'the nation' wanted or was meant to go, irrespective and quite independently of whether the majority of its public wanted it or even knew of it.
Ever since, it has been a staple of the degraded currency of every other second rate self-appointed political thaumaturge whether of left or right.
Ah but. People like Patel and Braverman don't need to do any research into what 'the People' might really will, because they already know. Their guts tell them.
Is that what they're calling 55 Tufton Street these days?
I wonder if Wishi-Washi will manage to implement his Evil Plot for the transportation of convicts vulnerable people to Rwanda in time for spring?
The Lords aren't too keen, and so presumably the Bill has to go back to the Commons for yet more ping-ponging. British Summer Time begins on 31st March...
On the other hand, it being blocked by the Lords would provide the Tories with an easy “elect us so we can get it done” slogan. It worked with Brexit five years ago…
On the other hand, it being blocked by the Lords would provide the Tories with an easy “elect us so we can get it done” slogan. It worked with Brexit five years ago…
Yeah but that had substantial support and the feeling that following the referendum it had to be done one way or another. The Rwanda scheme can be immediately hoofed into the stands and it's done.
Christ, imagine a scenario where Reform become the Opposition 😖
Can I avoid imagining such a horrendous idea?
I'm hoping that Reform simply don't have the people to stand in 650 constituencies, and if they do the vast majority are names on a paper without any campaigning. That would leave them standing and campaigning in a few seats so that even though they might have a lot of support in the polls they won't get as many MPs as that support would suggest. Which is a reflection of the piss-poor electoral system we have, and if they can genuinely pick up 15% of the vote then they should get about 80MPs under a rational system (much as I'd hate them having that much influence in Parliament I'd still have to accept that as the "will of the people"). Mostly I'm hoping that the Cons-Reform vote split would put both parties out of the running in a very large number of constituencies and let Labour, LibDem, Green and (where appropriate) SNP or PC candidates in. I'm realistic enough to know that if there's a real danger of a Conservative voter swing to Reform meaning neither getting near being elected then the usual swing behind the Conservative will happen and Reform will get a lot less votes.
Yes. That seems a more realistic scenario, but O! what state we've come to, if Reform do get a number (any number) of seats...but it'll be The Will Of The People™, I suppose, or some of them, at least.
The good news is that the Cons are split into three rough groups.
First the right wing who could change to Reform.
Second the central group who is seen as unsure.
Three the centre right group often called One Nation Conservatives who would definitely not join Reform.
Even if all the far right MPs moved to Reform, Reform has not the money or people to stand in all constituencies
The good news is that the Cons are split into three rough groups.
First the right wing who could change to Reform.
Second the central group who is seen as unsure.
Three the centre right group often called One Nation Conservatives who would definitely not join Reform.
Even if all the far right MPs moved to Reform, Reform has not the money or people to stand in all constituencies
If you are a Conservative supporter, how is this good news ?
If you are a Conservative supporter, how is this good news ?
If you are a Conservative supporter, then it's not any kind of news. Although perhaps the question would be "what kind of Conservative party do you want to support? A Thatcherite one? A "one-nation Tory" one? The populist outpourings of people like Nadine Dorries or 30p Lee? Whatever Rishi Sunak is?
The walls of the Conservative big tent have become rather overstretched of late. It's probably time for the party to agree on what it is again (and not just "not the Labour party").
The good news is that the Cons are split into three rough groups.
First the right wing who could change to Reform.
Second the central group who is seen as unsure.
Three the centre right group often called One Nation Conservatives who would definitely not join Reform.
Even if all the far right MPs moved to Reform, Reform has not the money or people to stand in all constituencies
If you are a Conservative supporter, how is this good news ?
You may not have noticed @Telford, but @Hugal is not a Conservative supporter.
Consequently he sees it as good news as it means the Conservatives could split.
Personally, I'd rather Conservative MPs and supporters would either stay where they are or disappear altogether than defect to Deform.
The Lib Dems have received plenty of Tory defectors before now but it's never done them much good given the current electoral system.
Whatever the case, I think it's wise not to underestimate the resilience of the Conservative Party. It always seem to be able to survive whatever is thrown at it or its own internal wranglings. That would be impressive if it wasn't also so unspeakably sad.
The good news is that the Cons are split into three rough groups.
First the right wing who could change to Reform.
Second the central group who is seen as unsure.
Three the centre right group often called One Nation Conservatives who would definitely not join Reform.
Even if all the far right MPs moved to Reform, Reform has not the money or people to stand in all constituencies
If you are a Conservative supporter, how is this good news ?
You may not have noticed @Telford, but @Hugal is not a Conservative supporter.
Consequently he sees it as good news as it means the Conservatives could split.
I assumed that he thought he was speaking for everyone.
No one here speaks for everyone. Sometimes we might speak on behalf of a small group. Most of the time we speak for no one except ourselves, and maybe find others agreeing with us.
No one here speaks for everyone. Sometimes we might speak on behalf of a small group. Most of the time we speak for no one except ourselves, and maybe find others agreeing with us.
I was answering the previous post which was speculating on Reform taking over. Saying it can’t happen.
Net having a far right group in charge is good news for centre right Cons.
Be a bit careful in attempting to distinguish different degrees of 'rightness'. There was once a time when it was fairly clear what 'centre right' meant. It was the pink end of their party, somewhere round where Cameron was in 2015. These days, though, Farage whitewashes himself and his ilk by describing himself as 'we on the centre right'. That's linguistic abuse. Farage is full-on right and populist.
If 'centre right' means anything at all, it's the politically homeless ones whom Johnson kicked out in the autumn of 2019, and of those that are still there, a few people who might just be hoping that one day the rag-tag collection of loonies that have high-jacked the wagon might one day calm down or disappear.
If 'centre right' means anything at all, it's the politically homeless ones whom Johnson kicked out in the autumn of 2019, and of those that are still there, a few people who might just be hoping that one day the rag-tag collection of loonies that have high-jacked the wagon might one day calm down or disappear.
They're not "politically homeless" they've hijacked the Labour Party.
If 'centre right' means anything at all, it's the politically homeless ones whom Johnson kicked out in the autumn of 2019, and of those that are still there, a few people who might just be hoping that one day the rag-tag collection of loonies that have high-jacked the wagon might one day calm down or disappear.
They're not "politically homeless" they've hijacked the Labour Party.
Sorry, @Arethosemyfeet but that's just sour grapes and political rhetoric.
I recognise that you don't like the tenor of the dominant group in the Labour Party at the moment. Much though this may go against your convictions, I can't off hand think of any of their key players who were Conservatives until 2019. I can't even think of any who haven't got deep rooted personal and often family credentials in the parts of the Labour Party that don't think like you and that you don't agree with.
There are two groups of the traditional "centre right". One are party activists, including those elected as MPs and councillors etc, of whom very few have jumped ship to a different party even after being driven out of front line politics by Johnson and Truss and Sunak. The other group are the ordinary party members and the non-members who voted Conservative under the leadership of Cameron or May, many of whom now appear to be quite happy to vote Labour rather than continuing to support the far right in the Conservative Party with their votes.
If 'centre right' means anything at all, it's the politically homeless ones whom Johnson kicked out in the autumn of 2019, and of those that are still there, a few people who might just be hoping that one day the rag-tag collection of loonies that have high-jacked the wagon might one day calm down or disappear.
They're not "politically homeless" they've hijacked the Labour Party.
Sorry, @Arethosemyfeet but that's just sour grapes and political rhetoric.
I recognise that you don't like the tenor of the dominant group in the Labour Party at the moment. Much though this may go against your convictions, I can't off hand think of any of their key players who were Conservatives until 2019. I can't even think of any who haven't got deep rooted personal and often family credentials in the parts of the Labour Party that don't think like you and that you don't agree with.
My point is that you can't claim to be "politically homeless" if your views are reflected in the leadership of the main opposition party that is likely to soon become the government. Seriously, what is there about Starmer et al that a Cameronite tory could possibly object to other than the colour of the rosette? I wasn't saying that Cameronite tories were the people in charge of Labour right now, only that the centre-right are, which is pretty obviously the case, and therefore those "homeless" tories have a home. It's those of us on the left who are left, again, without a political home. Some of those "centre-right" tories, like Rory Stewart, have expressed interest in serving in Starmer's government, which rather supports my view.
They're not "politically homeless" they've hijacked the Labour Party.
Still sorry, @Arethosemyfeet, I'm not letting you get away with that.
"Hijacked the Labour Party" doesn't mean being prepared to vote for its candidates. It doesn't even mean expressing a willingness to get involved with it. It means taking it over and running away with it. You may object to the present team at the top of the Labour Party as not the ones you would like to see there, or even that the Labour Party is not the pure, true Labour Party as you'd like to see it, but the present leadership are not a clique of disgruntled ex-Conservative entryists who have sneaked in and taken it over.
It would be very odd if it didn't gladden a party leadership to have more people voting for them who last time voted for someone else. That's what a swing is. Parties need those to succeed against other parties. The notion that there should be a sector of a party's membership that regarded this as in some way bad form, a diminution of the true vision, is pretty odd. That sort of resentment really is a 'no true Scotsman' attitude.
People on the left feel disgruntled, because Labour has swerved to the right. No doubt this will mop up ex-Tories and others, but you may end up with Tory-lite, no, you will end up there. I'm not sure that even traditional Labour policies such as helping NHS, will survive. I feel too old in any case, I remember bloody Gaitskell. "We can run capitalism better", and so on.
With the way the tories are going, ISTM that we'd all be better off with the Monster Raving Loony Party*, though I think Labour (whatever one's own views may be as to its current state) is probably the only viable alternative.
I'd prefer a Green government, but I know that's unlikely...
(*not to be confused with the Monster Raving Fascist Party, which is how I view the tories).
Comments
No but recent PMs have either been one of the extremists or afraid to grow a spine and face them down.
This is true, and there's also the fact that the majority of tories - some of whom could well be moderates - supported Johnson, as well as Truss, and are therefore responsible for the enormities foisted upon us all...
Setting the scene for further clampdowns on free speech and the right to protest, probably.
Very likely.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/labour-lead-economy-and-public-services-conservative-share-falls-record-low
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/lords-pass-five-amendments-to-rwanda-bill-in-heavy-defeat-for-rishi-sunak
I recall a rather fetching film called 'Triumph of the Will'. It could perhaps be remade with Rishi arriving in his helicopter to be saluted by the masses of Chipping Sodbury.
No, that thought has also occurred to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/05/met-chief-mark-rowley-defends-policing-anti-war-protests-rishi-sunak-criticism
The police (especially perhaps the Met) have a lot of issues to contend with, and to overcome, but this sort of thing must really piss them off.
Actually sounds more Communist to me. The Great Hall of the People is an example.
I always imagine the sound of marching jackboots when I hear that phrase.
Pretty sure the PRC is an example of a totalitarian dictatorship,
Actually, it's not that much of a dilemma - when given a choice between supporting peaceful protestors where the police presence is only needed to control traffic so that cars and lots of pedestrians are kept safely apart and lunatics who threated police for allowing peaceful marches I'm sure their sympathy is with those who don't cause them trouble. The problem being that makes them appear to be political as they're not towing the government line that legal is illegal.
Totally is. A phrase used to pretend that there is no choice, and the people want it. They don't.
Dictatorships can come from any political wing.
Voting intentions in the Blue Wall.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-blue-wall-voting-intention-3-march-2024/
Without the vast majority of the population spending significant amount of time involved in thinking about a policy issue then an election for candidates which include variations on that issue in their manifesto, or even a binary referendum, is largely meaningless as a way to take even a snap shot of what the people thought at one point in time, much less whether that's what they still think some time afterwards.
Usually "the will of the people" means nothing more than what a small number of people want the majority of people to want.
Ever since, it has been a staple of the degraded currency of every other second rate self-appointed political thaumaturge whether of left or right.
Is that what they're calling 55 Tufton Street these days?
The Lords aren't too keen, and so presumably the Bill has to go back to the Commons for yet more ping-ponging. British Summer Time begins on 31st March...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/06/rwanda-deportation-bill-set-back-again-after-house-of-lords-votes
If (as some predict) the General Election is called for May, it seems unlikely that the Evil Plot will go ahead. Another tory promise unfulfilled.
Yeah but that had substantial support and the feeling that following the referendum it had to be done one way or another. The Rwanda scheme can be immediately hoofed into the stands and it's done.
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 46% (+1)
CON: 18% (-2)
REF: 13% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (-)
via
@PeoplePolling
, 07 Mar
Chgs. w/ Jan
This is the latest I have seen. Reform is getting dangerously near to the Tories. A perfect right-wing vote split.
I'm hoping that Reform simply don't have the people to stand in 650 constituencies, and if they do the vast majority are names on a paper without any campaigning. That would leave them standing and campaigning in a few seats so that even though they might have a lot of support in the polls they won't get as many MPs as that support would suggest. Which is a reflection of the piss-poor electoral system we have, and if they can genuinely pick up 15% of the vote then they should get about 80MPs under a rational system (much as I'd hate them having that much influence in Parliament I'd still have to accept that as the "will of the people"). Mostly I'm hoping that the Cons-Reform vote split would put both parties out of the running in a very large number of constituencies and let Labour, LibDem, Green and (where appropriate) SNP or PC candidates in. I'm realistic enough to know that if there's a real danger of a Conservative voter swing to Reform meaning neither getting near being elected then the usual swing behind the Conservative will happen and Reform will get a lot less votes.
We live in Interesting Times.
First the right wing who could change to Reform.
Second the central group who is seen as unsure.
Three the centre right group often called One Nation Conservatives who would definitely not join Reform.
Even if all the far right MPs moved to Reform, Reform has not the money or people to stand in all constituencies
If you are a Conservative supporter, how is this good news ?
If you are a Conservative supporter, then it's not any kind of news. Although perhaps the question would be "what kind of Conservative party do you want to support? A Thatcherite one? A "one-nation Tory" one? The populist outpourings of people like Nadine Dorries or 30p Lee? Whatever Rishi Sunak is?
The walls of the Conservative big tent have become rather overstretched of late. It's probably time for the party to agree on what it is again (and not just "not the Labour party").
You may not have noticed @Telford, but @Hugal is not a Conservative supporter.
Consequently he sees it as good news as it means the Conservatives could split.
Personally, I'd rather Conservative MPs and supporters would either stay where they are or disappear altogether than defect to Deform.
The Lib Dems have received plenty of Tory defectors before now but it's never done them much good given the current electoral system.
Whatever the case, I think it's wise not to underestimate the resilience of the Conservative Party. It always seem to be able to survive whatever is thrown at it or its own internal wranglings. That would be impressive if it wasn't also so unspeakably sad.
I totally agree.
Net having a far right group in charge is good news for centre right Cons.
If 'centre right' means anything at all, it's the politically homeless ones whom Johnson kicked out in the autumn of 2019, and of those that are still there, a few people who might just be hoping that one day the rag-tag collection of loonies that have high-jacked the wagon might one day calm down or disappear.
They're not "politically homeless" they've hijacked the Labour Party.
I recognise that you don't like the tenor of the dominant group in the Labour Party at the moment. Much though this may go against your convictions, I can't off hand think of any of their key players who were Conservatives until 2019. I can't even think of any who haven't got deep rooted personal and often family credentials in the parts of the Labour Party that don't think like you and that you don't agree with.
My point is that you can't claim to be "politically homeless" if your views are reflected in the leadership of the main opposition party that is likely to soon become the government. Seriously, what is there about Starmer et al that a Cameronite tory could possibly object to other than the colour of the rosette? I wasn't saying that Cameronite tories were the people in charge of Labour right now, only that the centre-right are, which is pretty obviously the case, and therefore those "homeless" tories have a home. It's those of us on the left who are left, again, without a political home. Some of those "centre-right" tories, like Rory Stewart, have expressed interest in serving in Starmer's government, which rather supports my view.
"Hijacked the Labour Party" doesn't mean being prepared to vote for its candidates. It doesn't even mean expressing a willingness to get involved with it. It means taking it over and running away with it. You may object to the present team at the top of the Labour Party as not the ones you would like to see there, or even that the Labour Party is not the pure, true Labour Party as you'd like to see it, but the present leadership are not a clique of disgruntled ex-Conservative entryists who have sneaked in and taken it over.
It would be very odd if it didn't gladden a party leadership to have more people voting for them who last time voted for someone else. That's what a swing is. Parties need those to succeed against other parties. The notion that there should be a sector of a party's membership that regarded this as in some way bad form, a diminution of the true vision, is pretty odd. That sort of resentment really is a 'no true Scotsman' attitude.
Equally, back at you, in what sense are they 'politically homeless' if there's a party they are prepared to vote for and get involved with?
I'd prefer a Green government, but I know that's unlikely...
(*not to be confused with the Monster Raving Fascist Party, which is how I view the tories).