Interesting that since the GE was announced I have spoken to 10 people on the phone who all voted Tory at the last election, and they all will change their vote. Problem is that they are not sure where to go. LibDems seem the likely winners from them. Four have actually donated to them. Could this be a big lift off for that party again?
and where 'Murica leads we usually follow. In this case off the metaphorical cliff, just like them. Utterly disheartening.
To be honest Brag it is very difficult to present yourself as a dynamic leader without having the media on your side. The main problem for Labour is that they are losing votes in all directions - remainers are going to the Lib Dems and, my suspicion is that, at the other end, Brexiters who went firstly to Ukip have either not returned or have moved on to the Tories. Many others are simply saying to the Tories 'You got us into this mess - you can get us out of it'. As always the Tory press, and others, will say that the reason for Labour's problems lies in their left wing policies but that is pure right wing propaganda. The real reason for Labour's demise is that they are being too honest - they were, are, and will be lukewarm remainers but without the convictions of the Liberals or the Greens, and that is clear for everyone to see. Nobody trusts Labour to really drive Brexit through, and nobody knows what would come out of it at the end. The Tories strength (if you can call it that) is that they have suppressed all dissention in their party - and, therefore, all appear to be driving in the one direction, at least for the moment. Their problems come later.I have to disagree with that statement, I believe it is coming from exatly the same place as the disbelief and denial of the Brexit vote, most of the people I know are fed up with British governments falling over themselves to appease someone or other. Perhaps if any of the opposition parties had a somewhat more dynamic leader we would not have the Conservatives driving all before them.
To be honest Brag it is very difficult to present yourself as a dynamic leader without having the media on your side. The main problem for Labour is that they are losing votes in all directions - remainers are going to the Lib Dems and, my suspicion is that, at the other end, Brexiters who went firstly to Ukip have either not returned or have moved on to the Tories. Many others are simply saying to the Tories 'You got us into this mess - you can get us out of it'. As always the Tory press, and others, will say that the reason for Labour's problems lies in their left wing policies but that is pure right wing propaganda. The real reason for Labour's demise is that they are being too honest - they were, are, and will be lukewarm remainers but without the convictions of the Liberals or the Greens, and that is clear for everyone to see. Nobody trusts Labour to really drive Brexit through, and nobody knows what would come out of it at the end. The Tories strength (if you can call it that) is that they have suppressed all dissention in their party - and, therefore, all appear to be driving in the one direction, at least for the moment. Their problems come later.
None of the recent political leaders have been dynamic, but if the Labour party had anyone half decent the BBC would fall in behind. I think with no real parliamentary opposition the Tories are more than likely going to have an internal conflict, as they did when Mrs Thatcher was PM. And look what happened then.
I don't think that 'uniting when necessary' is a particularly good quality SH. It means going against your own convictions for the sake of power. It means suppressing real debate within your ranks - it just means that the LP. is the more democratic of the two.Mrs Thatcher was leader of the Tories for a total of 15 years. The oddballs in the Tories are few and far between, Clark, Soubry etc. The Conservatives have a remarkable habit of uniting when necessary, in complete contrast to the LP.
It would not make any real difference who was leader of the Labour Party Brag. This election is being fought over Brexit (every other issue is being pushed under the carpet) and, however dynamic the leader was, he would still be faced with the fact that Labour has no tangible position on this. Ukip are the ' We want to leave immediately' party, the Tories are the 'We don't really want to but we're going to do it because that is the will of the people' party, Labour are the 'Soft Brexit (damage limitation) party - but the electorate doesn't know what that entails. The Lib Dems and the Greens are the 'let's vote again' parties. It doesn't really matter what other ideas the parties have - they will be judged on which one of these positions is closest to the man on the Clapham omnibus. I would like it to be Labour - but the problem is that Labour's position would be a complicated one which would have to be explained almost from zero.None of the recent political leaders have been dynamic, but if the Labour party had anyone half decent the BBC would fall in behind. I think with no real parliamentary opposition the Tories are more than likely going to have an internal conflict, as they did when Mrs Thatcher was PM. And look what happened then.
I don't think that 'uniting when necessary' is a particularly good quality SH. It means going against your own convictions for the sake of power. It means suppressing real debate within your ranks - it just means that the LP. is the more democratic of the two.
Maybe, maybe not - look at the way they are reporting today's election result in Scotland, where the SNP leader is most certainly far more than half decent.None of the recent political leaders have been dynamic, but if the Labour party had anyone half decent the BBC would fall in behind. I think with no real parliamentary opposition the Tories are more than likely going to have an internal conflict, as they did when Mrs Thatcher was PM. And look what happened then.
I have just been reading some comments in the French press about why people are choosing Macron over Le Pen. Before starting to read I would have guessed that it would have been related to unemployment, immigration, maybe even the EU. I would have been wrong. 80% of the people said it was because they liked his policies on education. They are to stop cutting the funding for schools that has resulted in class sizes increasing, employ more teachers and ensure that in primary schooling, learning to read is vital for the children. The people wanted the best for the children.
I hope that when the election campaign starts in the UK, people will think about the future of the children in 10-20 years time, and what the effect of the course the country is taking will have on them.
I have just been reading some comments in the French press about why people are choosing Macron over Le Pen. Before starting to read I would have guessed that it would have been related to unemployment, immigration, maybe even the EU. I would have been wrong. 80% of the people said it was because they liked his policies on education. They are to stop cutting the funding for schools that has resulted in class sizes increasing, employ more teachers and ensure that in primary schooling, learning to read is vital for the children. The people wanted the best for the children.
I hope that when the election campaign starts in the UK, people will think about the future of the children in 10-20 years time, and what the effect of the course the country is taking will have on them.
I hope that when the election campaign starts in the UK, people will think about the future of the children in 10-20 years time, and what the effect of the course the country is taking will have on them.
This should be on the French thread.
Which will be difficult, in Scotland anyway, given the nonsense peddled by the media in regard to Education.