Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

Ok, I take your point, but in my seat, hell would freeze over before the seat changed hands

One question - does your MP do a decent job of representing the constituency?

 

[takno]

Ok, I take your point, but in my seat, hell would freeze over before the seat changed hands

Even then, the national vote share lends legitimacy to both the winning party and to the first past the post system. Even if you only vote against the dominant candidate to demonstrate the flaws in the first past the post system, that is still worth half an hour

 

[The Ham]

Even in the least interesting elections there are rarely less than a couple of hundred seats in play, which is rather more than 8 or 9. Taking a longer view there are only perhaps 200 seats which haven't changed over the past 25 years. If you stay at home because the result of this election is a foregone conclusion then you are dooming yourself to being in the same position at the next election, where voting may lead to a heavily reducesd majority and a greater chance of the seat being in play at the next election.

Half an hour every 4 years or so doesn't seem like a massive amount of time, even if it is "wasted"

Indeed, I live in a location where there is little chance of the seat and I do view every time.

It wasn't that long ago when the MP had a >50% majority (i.e. they got 75% or more of the vote and everyone else got 25% or less), over time that's shifted so it's much closer.

Even if it carries on shifting it'll take several more electrons before it gets close. However it's still worth voting as the more who vote the more likely that it's be that those who want someone other would see the vote share change and so may be more inclined to vote.

One other thing to note, as long as a party has 1MP there's a finding mechanism which means more votes equals more money. As such even if it makes no difference to who you have as an MP it would aid the political party you vote for (although the value per vote is very small).

 

[jon0844]

So why not change the rules to make it as difficult as possible for people who don’t support you to vote? So much easier than actually solving problems.

We live in a democracy, so people can vote for whoever they want and everyone should be registered and remember to vote - either in person or by post. The point was that a party that lurches to the right usually finds that the whole country isn't behind them.

 

[Enthusiast]

The generations that have had most or all of their adult life under the post 2010 tories have had deal with overpriced/unaffordable housing, essentially useless DC pensions, numerous "once in a generation" economic events, the downsides of Brexit and of course the climate crisis, so it's not surprising that they are largely not buying what the tories are offering. We reminisce about how things seemed to be less broken in the Labour years. Among my friends, even those who have overcome some of these problems (ie own a house) won't be giving the tories a look in - it's a choice between Labour or Lib Dem.

What they haven't learnt, however (and it's not their fault because they haven't had the chance) is that it is foolish to believe that any of those problems will be addressed if a Labour government is elected. Those of us with experience of such things can tell them that those problems won't get any better and if anything will be exacerbated. Couple this with the fact that His Majesty's Opposition has shown very little sign of opposing much (of any significance) at all - which is hardly surprising since, far from being "Right Wing" the current administration is largely Labour with a blue rosette - and they may be even more disappointed.

I would also hope the calls for an election grow as we reach/go past May, as that's what the fixed term parliaments act originally mandated. Now repealed but it doesn't seem right to just add more months onto parliament by executive fiat.

The FTPA mandated a five year fixed period between GEs (though possibly less - depending on timings - if the previous Parliament had been cut short under one of its provisions). It was a badly thought out Act, easily circumvented (as was demonstrated) and was designed solely to provide Nick Clegg with the spare keys to No.10 for a guaranteed five years. Now it is repealed there is no minimum period for a Parliament but only a maximum period of five years. So a Parliament's duration can only be shortened and no additional time can be added to its existence by executive fiat. What you are asking for is a shortening of the current Parliament's duration - something which has attracted criticism when earlier Prime Ministers have called elections at a time they believe they can best win.

Interestingly, the Labour Party manifesto of 2019 stated that, if elected, a Labour government would repeal the FTPA as well, so they had no stomach for it either.

 

[najaB]

Those of us with experience of such things can tell them that those problems won't get any better and if anything will be exacerbated.

It would take some skill to do worse managing the UK economy than the governments of 2010 to 2023.

 

[The Ham]

Those of us with experience of such things can tell them that those problems won't get any better and if anything will be exacerbated.

Whilst there's certainly a risk of them not having experience in government and how things are run, I'm not sure that the housing issue would get worse.

For example the Tories are talking about not having house building targets and other things which could make it harder for now houses to be built.

Locally there's a lot said about only building on brownfield sites, yet when challenged about that they don't give examples of future locations where this could happen, rather pointing to a site of (which a report states could be large enough, but only ever was suggested for 5,000) 10,000 homes - only even at the highest rate of building it would only need to have 5,000 homes built on it by 2050!!!

far from being "Right Wing" the current administration is largely Labour with a blue rosette

Labour is in favour of Rwanda rather than dealing with the cases faster?

Labour was going to cut HS2, only the Tories got there first?

Labour is in favour of encouraging car use on our already congested roads?

I must have missed those, maybe I'll be better educated after this week's party conference.

 

[jon0844]

I would accept Labour spent a lot of money in its last term, and can see how some could see some of that as wasteful if they're of the opinion that we don't need X, Y or Z.

However, most of the money spent was to line the pockets of dodgy companies getting awarded dodgy contracts, or to allow big corporations to make record profits during tough times through blatant profiteering - and allowed to do so thanks to toothless regulators.

The Tories have spent as much, or more likely more, than Labour so I think I'd rather take my chances that if we're going to spend money it at least goes to more worthy causes.

 

[Enthusiast]

Whilst there's certainly a risk of them not having experience in government and how things are run, I'm not sure that the housing issue would get worse.

Labour is in favour of Rwanda rather than dealing with the cases faster?

Labour was going to cut HS2, only the Tories got there first?

Labour is in favour of encouraging car use on our already congested roads?

I must have missed those, maybe I'll be better educated after this week's party conference.

You need to wait for them to gain power rather than rely on what they pledge.

Unless people are to be accommodated in multi story rabbit hutches there is no way that any government will meet this country's housing requirements as there is simply too much demand. Governments do not build houses, they only facilitate their construction.

The Rwanda scheme is hare brained and will never be executed. But that said, unless a general asylum amnesty is declared there is no way that any government will clear the backlog during the life of a Parliament. Over 91,000 people lodged claims last year and that is simply unsustainable.

Labour has announced it would not reinstate the parts of HS2 that have recently been cancelled (one of the reasons for my contention that they do not do much "opposing").

As far as car use is concerned, wait for their manifesto, and better still, wait for them to form a government and do anything about it.

 

[takno]

Unless people are to be accommodated in multi story rabbit hutches there is no way that any government will meet this country's housing requirements as there is simply too much demand. Governments do not build houses, they only facilitate their construction.

The last decent effort at solving a housing crisis in this country was of course primarily done by government, and arguably one of the leading causes of the current housing crisis developing over 30 years was the sale of those government houses to the private sector

 

[Yew]

You need to wait for them to gain power rather than rely on what they pledge.

Unless people are to be accommodated in multi story rabbit hutches there is no way that any government will meet this country's housing requirements as there is simply too much demand. Governments do not build houses, they only facilitate their construction.

That's odd, we used to build thousands of the things every year.

 

[nw1]

What they haven't learnt, however (and it's not their fault because they haven't had the chance) is that it is foolish to believe that any of those problems will be addressed if a Labour government is elected. Those of us with experience of such things can tell them that those problems won't get any better and if anything will be exacerbated. Couple this with the fact that His Majesty's Opposition has shown very little sign of opposing much (of any significance) at all - which is hardly surprising since, far from being "Right Wing" the current administration is largely Labour with a blue rosette - and they may be even more disappointed.

You are joking, right?

Constantly ranting on about immigrants and people with "woke" views?
Questionable LGBT views exhibited by the likes of Braverman (enough to make Tory Andrew Boff upset, certainly)?
Cuts left, right and centre?
Councils in financial problems widely (and not just the publicised cases, there was something on the radio this morning suggesting a wide range of councils of all colours might be in trouble, which suggests a common source - now I wonder what that would be)?

I have a political memory going back to Thatcher and this one is, by some way, the most right wing of that period. If this administration is not right wing, I shudder to think what a government you would personally consider as right wing would be like. One which bans strikes or mass protests? One which monitors people for anti-government activity via the internet? One which introduces legislation on "Anti-British Activities", to include such things as criticism of the Prime Minister, Government policy, or Brexit, sympathy towards asylum-seekers, and a desire to rejoin the EU?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The last decent effort at solving a housing crisis in this country was of course primarily done by government,

Agreed.

and arguably one of the leading causes of the current housing crisis developing over 30 years was the sale of those government houses to the private sector

Uh? That makes no sense to me. We have a housing crisis because - quite simply - we do not have enough houses in the places people want to live in. Transferring houses from the public to the private sector does not at all change the number of houses, nor does it change where the houses are. It is therefore most likely to have zero impact on whether we have a housing crisis (It may change which people are the lucky ones who manage to get a house, but it won't change the fact that there aren't enough houses for everyone).

If you'd instead said that one of the causes of the housing crisis was previous Governments restricting the ability of local authorities to build more houses, then I'd agree with you.

 

[takno]

Agreed.



Uh? That makes no sense to me. We have a housing crisis because - quite simply - we do not have enough houses in the places people want to live in. Transferring houses from the public to the private sector does not at all change the number of houses, nor does it change where the houses are. It is therefore most likely to have zero impact on whether we have a housing crisis (It may change which people are the lucky ones who manage to get a house, but it won't change the fact that there aren't enough houses for everyone).

If you'd instead said that one of the causes of the housing crisis was previous Governments restricting the ability of local authorities to build more houses, then I'd agree with you.

My thinking was more that the glut of former council houses in the private sector has deformed the market and reduced the return for housebuilding 10-15 years ago. Certainly it's possible that selling and replacing would have been as positive or more positive in terms of housing availability.

 

[156421]

Even if it carries on shifting it'll take several more electrons before it gets close.

There's no shortage of electrons!!

 

[skyhigh]

Ok, I take your point, but in my seat, hell would freeze over before the seat changed hands

A couple of years ago I would have said the same here - this seat has been Conservative for decades.

But looking at one of the current predictions, Conservatives are predicted to win with 32.9% of the vote. Lib Dem second with 29.7% and Labour in third with 22%. If those percentages are realistic, just a small element of tactical voting from Labour to Lib Dem would be enough to lose the seat for the Conservatives. And as I've mentioned before, the Lib Dem candidate has been very vocal over the last few months - whereas I haven't heard a thing from the Labour candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if the seat changes hands.

(For what it's worth the incumbent MP would not be a loss - he is generally inoffensive but also totally ineffective).

 

[DC1989]

I think it's understated just how badly the tories could do in the 'Blue Wall' type places. Some of the rabid Essex and Kent seats will love the culture war, immigration rhetoric stuff but your well to do middle England voter prefers a less brusque form of conservatism

 

[skyhigh]

I think it's understated just how badly the tories could do in the 'Blue Wall' type places. Some of the rabid Essex and Kent seats will love the culture war, immigration rhetoric stuff but your well to do middle England voter prefers a less brusque form of conservatism

I would agree. My parent's constituency (Hitchin and Harpenden) has been Conservative since it was created in 1997. It is being reshaped at the next election but Electoral Calculus currently predicts 31.7% of the vote would go to the Conservatives, 30.7% to Labour if the boundaries weren't changed. Lib Dem predicted 26.4% - tactical voting could easily wipe the Tories out of the seat.

The Conservative majority in 2015 for the seat was 36.3%.

 

[uglymonkey]

The problem is very rarely do people vote tactically ( or a party withdraws and tells its faithful to vote for the other opposition candidate) . People staying their tribes, in the above exam 56% odd didn't vote conservative, but because the votes split, the conservatives always win.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem is very rarely do people vote tactically ( or a party withdraws and tells its faithful to vote for the other opposition candidate) . People staying their tribes, in the above exam 56% odd didn't vote conservative, but because the votes split, the conservatives always win.

It's getting more common, as seen in the recent by-elections. A bit less likely in a general election because each constituency is less in the limelight, but someone who has enough motivation to find and look up a website can get a recommendation by constituency on who to vote for to unseat the Tory.

 

[Typhoon]

It's getting more common, as seen in the recent by-elections. A bit less likely in a general election because each constituency is less in the limelight, but someone who has enough motivation to find and look up a website can get a recommendation by constituency on who to vote for to unseat the Tory.

However, in General Election, there is a competition for resources. I suspect that some parties make rather less of an effort in particular constituencies. In mine, it is rare to receive anything from the LibDems (where once they had a number of active councillors) in any election - local or General. In other areas close by the Labour campaign tends towards the lethargic. As the Conservatives hold all except one parliamentary constituency in the ceremonial county, they have to put up a fight everywhere while the other parties can pick and chose and are hardly likely to pick constituencies where it may just be a question of third or fourth when there is the prospect of kicking out the sitting MP in the constituency next door. And I suspect the next election will be more about who people don't want.

The problem is very rarely do people vote tactically ( or a party withdraws and tells its faithful to vote for the other opposition candidate) . People staying their tribes, in the above exam 56% odd didn't vote conservative, but because the votes split, the conservatives always win.

But it may also be about not who someone votes for but whether they vote. If one the predominant tribe only get two-thirds of their vote out, but the secondary party gets all their vote out, they may well win.

(For what it's worth the incumbent MP would not be a loss - he is generally inoffensive but also totally ineffective).

I suspect these will be the most vulnerable, there will be people who vote for a candidate simply because they have been active, maybe not in a party political way, but have 'got things done' and are seen around. even though they are less keen on what their party has done. On the other hand, those that just cut-and-paste the party line in interviews, are 'all talk and no action' won't get the average voter out of the house if they are unenthusiastic about the party offer.

 

[Yew]

Agreed.



Uh? That makes no sense to me. We have a housing crisis because - quite simply - we do not have enough houses in the places people want to live in. Transferring houses from the public to the private sector does not at all change the number of houses, nor does it change where the houses are. It is therefore most likely to have zero impact on whether we have a housing crisis (It may change which people are the lucky ones who manage to get a house, but it won't change the fact that there aren't enough houses for everyone).

However as part of right-to-buy, councils were stopped from reinvesting the money into building more council houses.

 

[DC1989]

However, in General Election, there is a competition for resources. I suspect that some parties make rather less of an effort in particular constituencies. In mine, it is rare to receive anything from the LibDems (where once they had a number of active councillors) in any election - local or General. In other areas close by the Labour campaign tends towards the lethargic. As the Conservatives hold all except one parliamentary constituency in the ceremonial county, they have to put up a fight everywhere while the other parties can pick and chose and are hardly likely to pick constituencies where it may just be a question of third or fourth when there is the prospect of kicking out the sitting MP in the constituency next door. And I suspect the next election will be more about who people don't want.

Interestingly enough this could be another reason why the conservatives could be in wipeout territory. Apparently LibDem strategy is smartly focusing on 60 seats and want to fight '60 byelections' (In contrast to the last election where Jo Swinson said she could win). Apparently conservative strategy is going to be the 80/20 strategy (Hold 80 marginals, win 20 opposition seats) which (unless this is a form of psyops) means their resources will be spread thinly

 

[edwin_m]

However, in General Election, there is a competition for resources. I suspect that some parties make rather less of an effort in particular constituencies. In mine, it is rare to receive anything from the LibDems (where once they had a number of active councillors) in any election - local or General. In other areas close by the Labour campaign tends towards the lethargic. As the Conservatives hold all except one parliamentary constituency in the ceremonial county, they have to put up a fight everywhere while the other parties can pick and chose and are hardly likely to pick constituencies where it may just be a question of third or fourth when there is the prospect of kicking out the sitting MP in the constituency next door. And I suspect the next election will be more about who people don't want.

That's true but I don't believe it invalidates my point about tactical voting becoming more important. If you get lots of material from party X and not much from party Y then it's probably an indication that X considers they have the best chance of unseating incumbent party Z (and if you get a lot from Z then they probably consider themselves vulnerable). If you are bombarded with leaflets from both X and Y, particularly if it includes bar graphs attempting to demonstrate that party has the best chance of beating Z, then you are likely to be in a three-way marginal, and if you are anti-Z it may be worth looking at a tactical voting website.

 

[Snow1964]

Uh? That makes no sense to me. We have a housing crisis because - quite simply - we do not have enough houses in the places people want to live in. Transferring houses from the public to the private sector does not at all change the number of houses, nor does it change where the houses are. It is therefore most likely to have zero impact on whether we have a housing crisis (It may change which people are the lucky ones who manage to get a house, but it won't change the fact that there aren't enough houses for everyone).

If you'd instead said that one of the causes of the housing crisis was previous Governments restricting the ability of local authorities to build more houses, then I'd agree with you.

Actually the sell off policy killed building public (council) housing. Councils built for 2 reasons, to get a return (rental income), and meet statutory basic accommodation provision.

Building more homes became spend money, and after built, after a while will be forced to give it away at a discount, even if make a loss. Pretty good reason not to bother.

So transferring houses to private sector means replacements of public housing stock for rental won't be replaced. Council houses started as homes for heros after WW1, and had grown to about 6.5m homes by 1980. Including Housing Associations is now nearer 4.3m homes

What some don't get is Councils will build, but only when right to buy ends so they can keep what the build.

It makes no sense to subsidise rent (housing benefit etc) that goes to private landlords because not enough public houses. That seems to be current (short term) policy of both major parties.

 

[AM9]

Actually the sell off policy killed building public (council) housing. Councils built for 2 reasons, to get a return (rental income), and meet statutory basic accommodation provision.

Thatchers right to buy policy actually included a ruling that prevented more council houses being built using the proceeds from sales. The Thatcher Government's strategy was to force councils to sell their assets to reduce rates, - a key policy which benefitted private households more than less well-off tenants. When that policy was worked through, the next act was to introduce the Community Charge (aka Poll Tax) but luckily that wasn't tolerated by the public, and it rid us of Thatcher!

 

[The Ham]

There's no shortage of electrons!!

Indeed, in a recent District Council one it was a near 48/48 split with the main party winning with a handful of votes and the just recent District Council one the independent won comfortably (although I understand that local elections often have different outcomes to general elections).

 

[nw1]

The problem is very rarely do people vote tactically ( or a party withdraws and tells its faithful to vote for the other opposition candidate) . People staying their tribes, in the above exam 56% odd didn't vote conservative, but because the votes split, the conservatives always win.

I think people are getting smart to it now.

A fair-sized demographic is Anything But Tory now that the Tories have become seriously right-wing, and I suspect they will vote tactically.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2023 ==

Interestingly enough this could be another reason why the conservatives could be in wipeout territory. Apparently LibDem strategy is smartly focusing on 60 seats and want to fight '60 byelections' (In contrast to the last election where Jo Swinson said she could win). Apparently conservative strategy is going to be the 80/20 strategy (Hold 80 marginals, win 20 opposition seats) which (unless this is a form of psyops) means their resources will be spread thinly

Win 20 opposition seats? Absolutely no chance of that! Everything they could win, they won in 2019.

 

[renegademaster]

Win 20 opposition seats? Absolutely no chance of that! Everything they could win, they won in 2019.

Probably hopium from the inroads they made in some urban places that turned against the trend in local elections like Croydon, Leicester and Enfield. However Croydon had the context of a really incompetent incumbent Lab council, and no real lib dem presence , wether it translate nationally is a another question

 

[takno]

Probably hopium from the inroads they made in some urban places that turned against the trend in local elections like Croydon, Leicester and Enfield. However Croydon had the context of a really incompetent incumbent Lab council, and no real lib dem presence , wether it translate nationally is a another question

They already have 2 of the 3 Croydon MPs, and the inroads they made were mostly in the south. They'll be lucky to keep Croydon central, particularly given how much of a useless wet blanket their mayor has already proved to be