Our Prime Minister...

Foxy_Dread

space not contesting elections against each other in a pre election coalition, when was that, my knowledge pre 1970 is a bit sketchy.

space

Foxy_Dread not contesting elections against each other in a pre election coalition, when was that, my knowledge pre 1970 is a bit sketchy.

An official coalition hasn't happened but tactical voting and local gentlemans agreements for candidates not to stand certainly has. They've not worked.

For a coalition to work it would first need a Labour party that other parties prefered to the Tories. As the other minority parties are made from people who have either left labour due to irreconcilable differences or who are diametrically opposed to Labour I don't see how the maths would work, but I'm all ears if someone wants to explain why I'm wrong.

But going back to the main point made, how about winning an election by having policies, campaigning on those policies and convincing people that they are the best policies for the country, rather than negative campaigning that hasn't worked in the last 4 elections.

Foxy_Dread

space Labour cannot win an election. The Tories are playing the racist card more openly than ever before costing Labour a sizable chunk of their vote. If they want to get elected they need to out Tory the Tories and sidle up to Murdoch etc.

Out of interest when was the last time Murdoch backed a general election loser?

Under-the-ground

Foxy_Dread don’t think they have. Did you see that murdoch dynasty thing on tv. That was fucking depressing

space

Foxy_Dread Out of interest when was the last time Murdoch backed a general election loser?

Is it a case of them choosing which horse wins, or hitching their waggon to the horse most likely to win?

CharlieG

More slash and burn. The eldest's research is under threat...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/14/uk-scientists-attack-reckless-tory-cuts-to-international-research

Foxy_Dread

space Since 79, i'm not sure about the 74s, this question only really applies to Blair in 97, Murdoch and the Tories are natural bedfellows. I'd suspect there was a degree of horse trading between the two parties in the year or two leading up to 97. Murdoch knew Blair was the likeliest winner and Blair knew he would be the winner with Murdoch's backing. So they probably both entered into discussions with equal zest, Murdoch trading his empire's support and Blair agreeing to sideline some of the stuff Murdoch found less palatable.

Just to add, If I recall correctlty it's widely known they did meet prior to the election.

heyho

I have filtered out the likes of the Independent, Guardian, Express, Mail, Sun, Mirror form my electronic news feeds.

Although now I mainly get sport, science (the universe, dinosaurs) stuff which I devour like a nice beef burger it also leaves me susceptible to stuff like Princess Eugenies first mothers day, who is James hewitt, Kate Middleton etc etc.

Oh and an interesting one titles 'what happened to Blessing Olusegum'. Takes the Sarah Everar5d murder for it to resurface.

cordshoes

Foxy_Dread what about in 2001 and 2005?

Under-the-ground

Foxy_Dread yes they did. Plus the twat (Blair) is god father to his ex 2nd wife’s kid. Nepotism at its best.

it’s a fucking joke. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Reggie_Perrin

cordshoes Tories in disarray, shit leaders, Blair seemingly smashing it out of the park.

Foxy_Dread

cordshoes I didn't feel it needed explanation, no shocks to the system, governing in a Tory lite manner. Carry on Tony. And as Reg points out the Tories were in a bad way.

cordshoes

Foxy_Dread I was merely asking for confirmation that the Murdoch rags did back Labour in those 2 elections.

space

Could that just be a case of the Sun backing the winning horse? In most cases, the party the Sun supported was well ahead in the polls at the time.

The 1992 election is an exception. Here Labour were very slightly ahead on the eve of the election – when the Sun’s sub-editors would have been putting the finishing touches to their Kinnock-bashing front page.

But as the New Statesman’s election website May2015 points out, Labour had been losing ground in the last 100 days before the election and the momentum in the polls was with the Tories.

So this could have been a clever punt on the nation’s mood by the Sun rather than evidence of its editors swaying voters’ opinions.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-sun-win-elections

Foxy_Dread

space
The above's focus is on the election itself, the election cycle is five years and the groundwork the Sun puts in over those five years cannot be overlooked. 1992 Labour was losing momentum in the last 100 days, what was the Sun's stance over those last 100 days?

There are some weak arguments in the piece overall, for example stating that Labour dropped from 57% in opinion polls in 1996 to 43% at the election in 97 with the Sun's support is a superficial argument, there are several counter points that spring to mind. Not that I can be arsed devoting the time to raising them as they are only counters and would require a lot of digging to flesh out.

space

Foxy_Dread Not that I can be arsed devoting the time to raising them as they are only counters and would require a lot of digging to flesh out.

That was also my exit point.

Reggie_Perrin

Reading Oborne’s book it seems our lying prime minister has a lot of outstanding corrections to sort out for Hansard. Potential dynamite for Starmer to list and ask when he’s going to correct the statements.

cordshoes

Anything on any major news sources about the expenses of Priti Patels department?

Kevin_Stapleton

cordshoes The people have a right to know!

...How the fuck do you spend 5 grand at Primark?

CharlieG

Kevin_Stapleton You buy all of the Norwich store's stock?

space

Kevin_Stapleton The people have a right to know!

…How the fuck do you spend 5 grand at Primark?

Buying clothing for a refuge centre apparantly.

« Previous Page Next Page »