Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How do the Tories need to change?
Comments
-
Esther McVey.......for f**ksake!2
-
I have to say I spent an afternoon in her company once and she was really nice, detested what she did politically though.Chaz Hill said:Esther McVey.......for f**ksake!
She was always going to work her way back eventually though as she fits/portrays many of the things the Tories want to portray themselves as.
Shame about Justine Greening going though, a far more authentic version of what the Tories really want.3 -
Rumour has it Justine Greening was offered the DWP and didn't want it. Can't say I blame her to be honest, but I'd rather have had her than McVile any day of the week.3
-
Stable and strong under Cameron to strong and stable under May.NapaAddick said:
That's a very Trump-style tweet, there.Callumcafc said:
Another Tory U turn.
3 -
-
He’s a Cnut. Glad he’s been forced to take responsibility for his, what were certainly heartfelt comments.
He’s a motormouth commentator who pushes the boundaries of what he can get away with.
Good riddance.4 -
Political correctness gone madShootersHillGuru said:He’s a Cnut. Glad he’s been forced to take responsibility for his, what were certainly heartfelt comments.
He’s a motormouth commentator who pushes the boundaries of what he can get away with.
Good riddance.0 -
Well I’m not sure what your post means but even Young has admitted albeit through clenched teeth no doubt he was totally wrong.holyjo said:
Political correctness gone madShootersHillGuru said:He’s a Cnut. Glad he’s been forced to take responsibility for his, what were certainly heartfelt comments.
He’s a motormouth commentator who pushes the boundaries of what he can get away with.
Good riddance.
2 -
Ken Loach is certainly going to have plenty of material now for a follow-up to I, Daniel Blake. Her record as disabilities Minister has to be one of the most shameful performances of any politician I can recall. It was an example of someone who will do absolutely anything to further their own career. Her close friendship with the vile Philip Davies MP is another example of the sort of person she is.Cordoban Addick said:
I have to say I spent an afternoon in her company once and she was really nice, detested what she did politically though.Chaz Hill said:Esther McVey.......for f**ksake!
She was always going to work her way back eventually though as she fits/portrays many of the things the Tories want to portray themselves as.
Shame about Justine Greening going though, a far more authentic version of what the Tories really want.4 -
I watched the emergency debate in the House of Commons (on TV) at 4.30pm yesterday regarding Toby Young.
The Tories defended him to a man and woman but his track record is very bad indeed. It would have been better had he not been appointed, or if he resigned days ago rather than after Parliamentary time was used, but at least he has resigned now which is to his credit...unless he didn't want to be kept to the vow of not repeating his behaviour.0 - Sponsored links:
-
To be fair (what am I saying?) several Tories have criticised his appointment, such as Sarah Wollaston. They are probably tearing their hair out that any efforts to brand themselves as being about decent "small c" conservative values are undermined by a man who has tweeted so many offensive things, and the resolute defence of him by the Party bigwigs.
3 -
Yes. There will be a few appalled Tories, not that you could tell by the debate yesterday where they painted Young as an everyman champion of choice, and tried to turn the debate as being about Labour. A good example of defending the indefensible no matter what, and a reminder that many politicians (of all persuasions) are dickheads.5
-
Irony?holyjo said:
Political correctness gone madShootersHillGuru said:He’s a Cnut. Glad he’s been forced to take responsibility for his, what were certainly heartfelt comments.
He’s a motormouth commentator who pushes the boundaries of what he can get away with.
Good riddance.0 -
I am hoping my "detested what she did politically" came through there.Chaz Hill said:
Ken Loach is certainly going to have plenty of material now for a follow-up to I, Daniel Blake. Her record as disabilities Minister has to be one of the most shameful performances of any politician I can recall. It was an example of someone who will do absolutely anything to further their own career. Her close friendship with the vile Philip Davies MP is another example of the sort of person she is.Cordoban Addick said:
I have to say I spent an afternoon in her company once and she was really nice, detested what she did politically though.Chaz Hill said:Esther McVey.......for f**ksake!
She was always going to work her way back eventually though as she fits/portrays many of the things the Tories want to portray themselves as.
Shame about Justine Greening going though, a far more authentic version of what the Tories really want.2 -
Dripping with said stuffCordoban Addick said:
Irony?holyjo said:
Political correctness gone madShootersHillGuru said:He’s a Cnut. Glad he’s been forced to take responsibility for his, what were certainly heartfelt comments.
He’s a motormouth commentator who pushes the boundaries of what he can get away with.
Good riddance.1 -
Lol. Sorry mate. Loud and clear. She is just an example of all I hate in people.Cordoban Addick said:
I am hoping my "detested what she did politically" came through there.Chaz Hill said:
Ken Loach is certainly going to have plenty of material now for a follow-up to I, Daniel Blake. Her record as disabilities Minister has to be one of the most shameful performances of any politician I can recall. It was an example of someone who will do absolutely anything to further their own career. Her close friendship with the vile Philip Davies MP is another example of the sort of person she is.Cordoban Addick said:
I have to say I spent an afternoon in her company once and she was really nice, detested what she did politically though.Chaz Hill said:Esther McVey.......for f**ksake!
She was always going to work her way back eventually though as she fits/portrays many of the things the Tories want to portray themselves as.
Shame about Justine Greening going though, a far more authentic version of what the Tories really want.
She did somekind presentation at my son’s school when she was first trying to get on the political ladder. She was a presenter on local TV at the time. Apparently asked the kids who would be voting Conservative when they were old enough! Much to her dismay, no doubt, not a single hand was raised. It was in Liverpool to be fair. But the posh bit though
1 -
The notion that it is appropriate to be considered to serve on a public body when you have written an article seemingly supporting a version of eugenics, repeatedly reduced women to a pair of breasts and on one infamous tweet suggested he had "stuck his di** up her ar**" is frankly unbelievable . Can you imagine the outcry if someone from the left had done all of these things. What was staggering to me was that May supported him on the AM show on Sundayholyjo said:
Dripping with said stuffCordoban Addick said:
Irony?holyjo said:
Political correctness gone madShootersHillGuru said:He’s a Cnut. Glad he’s been forced to take responsibility for his, what were certainly heartfelt comments.
He’s a motormouth commentator who pushes the boundaries of what he can get away with.
Good riddance.8 -
Pretty shocking reshuffle. I saw one minister talking up the junior ministers as a breath of fresh air, like anyone cares!
Going back to the original question of this thread, at what point do they change direction and how? Surely if they keep using May as shield before dumping her, they run the risk of permanent damage. The new conservative chairman did not challenge the figure of 70,000 members of the party, compared to over 500,000 labour members.
Are those 70,000 really going to vote for a reinvention of the party?1 -
No one apart from those furthest to the right of the party seem to want to serve this government, but they know for as long Brexit trundles along for they are guaranteed the support of everyone who thinks leaving the EU is worth cutting benefits, privatizing the NHS, public services getting worse and bringing back fox hunting.mcgrandall said:Pretty shocking reshuffle. I saw one minister talking up the junior ministers as a breath of fresh air, like anyone cares!
Going back to the original question of this thread, at what point do they change direction and how? Surely if they keep using May as shield before dumping her, they run the risk of permanent damage. The new conservative chairman did not challenge the figure of 70,000 members of the party, compared to over 500,000 labour members.
Are those 70,000 really going to vote for a reinvention of the party?1 -
Could do with a bit of fox hunting in my back garden the little blighters, especially the one who likes to lord it over me sitting on the shed roof basking in the sun
Don’t think party membership means a great deal, 95% of voters don’t sign up as members to a given party.0 - Sponsored links:
-
The comparative membership of both main parties cuts both ways.
70,000 might be easier to manipulate to a new place than 500,000.0 -
The significance is that whilst the Tories can outspend, Labour can out 'activist'.Rob7Lee said:Could do with a bit of fox hunting in my back garden the little blighters, especially the one who likes to lord it over me sitting on the shed roof basking in the sun
Don’t think party membership means a great deal, 95% of voters don’t sign up as members to a given party.
It is also a handy pointer to a parties popularity direction. In May 2010 they had 177,000* members meaning they have lost approx 65% in less than eight years.
*best estimates as rarely do they release actual numbers
0 -
I have no idea why anyone would become a member of a political party (unless they are an MP, local councillor etc).1
-
not sure a disparity of members matters so long as people vote for them.1
-
yet increased the number who voted for them by 27%. In 2010 the conservatives had 10.7m votes, 2017 13.6m despite the membership fall so I don't see it as much of an indicator of popularity direction In respect of the conservatives. They also got a greater percentage of the overall vote (42% v's 36%).Cordoban Addick said:
The significance is that whilst the Tories can outspend, Labour can out 'activist'.Rob7Lee said:Could do with a bit of fox hunting in my back garden the little blighters, especially the one who likes to lord it over me sitting on the shed roof basking in the sun
Don’t think party membership means a great deal, 95% of voters don’t sign up as members to a given party.
It is also a handy pointer to a parties popularity direction. In May 2010 they had 177,000* members meaning they have lost approx 65% in less than eight years.
*best estimates as rarely do they release actual numbers
Despite what we read I don't think the conservatives are any less popular than they were 7 years ago, the voting numbers indicate the opposite. What has changed is the parties outside of the top two have become less popular and more of those votes have gone to Labour than the conservatives. The lib dems 4.5m less votes for instance. In 2010 only around 65% of the votes went to Conservatives & Labour, 2017 it was over 80%.
I thought it was Momentum out spending
2 -
I don't disagree with much of what you say but think it is wrong to underplay the significance of membership and what that might mean for the future.Rob7Lee said:
yet increased the number who voted for them by 27%. In 2010 the conservatives had 10.7m votes, 2017 13.6m despite the membership fall so I don't see it as much of an indicator of popularity direction In respect of the conservatives. They also got a greater percentage of the overall vote (42% v's 36%).Cordoban Addick said:
The significance is that whilst the Tories can outspend, Labour can out 'activist'.Rob7Lee said:Could do with a bit of fox hunting in my back garden the little blighters, especially the one who likes to lord it over me sitting on the shed roof basking in the sun
Don’t think party membership means a great deal, 95% of voters don’t sign up as members to a given party.
It is also a handy pointer to a parties popularity direction. In May 2010 they had 177,000* members meaning they have lost approx 65% in less than eight years.
*best estimates as rarely do they release actual numbers
Despite what we read I don't think the conservatives are any less popular than they were 7 years ago, the voting numbers indicate the opposite. What has changed is the parties outside of the top two have become less popular and more of those votes have gone to Labour than the conservatives. The lib dems 4.5m less votes for instance. In 2010 only around 65% of the votes went to Conservatives & Labour, 2017 it was over 80%.
I thought it was Momentum out spending
It remains a fact that Labour can out mobilise the Tories.0 -
Completely agree, it was your point on declining membership being an indicator of popularity direction I disagreed with as the numbers I gave I feel showed, membership down popularity up (but I guess Labour is the opposite, membership up, popularity up).Cordoban Addick said:
I don't disagree with much of what you say but think it is wrong to underplay the significance of membership and what that might mean for the future.Rob7Lee said:
yet increased the number who voted for them by 27%. In 2010 the conservatives had 10.7m votes, 2017 13.6m despite the membership fall so I don't see it as much of an indicator of popularity direction In respect of the conservatives. They also got a greater percentage of the overall vote (42% v's 36%).Cordoban Addick said:
The significance is that whilst the Tories can outspend, Labour can out 'activist'.Rob7Lee said:Could do with a bit of fox hunting in my back garden the little blighters, especially the one who likes to lord it over me sitting on the shed roof basking in the sun
Don’t think party membership means a great deal, 95% of voters don’t sign up as members to a given party.
It is also a handy pointer to a parties popularity direction. In May 2010 they had 177,000* members meaning they have lost approx 65% in less than eight years.
*best estimates as rarely do they release actual numbers
Despite what we read I don't think the conservatives are any less popular than they were 7 years ago, the voting numbers indicate the opposite. What has changed is the parties outside of the top two have become less popular and more of those votes have gone to Labour than the conservatives. The lib dems 4.5m less votes for instance. In 2010 only around 65% of the votes went to Conservatives & Labour, 2017 it was over 80%.
I thought it was Momentum out spending
It remains a fact that Labour can out mobilise the Tories.
I do think party membership is something 95% of people would never consider but seems more labour voters do consider it than conservatives. Joining the revolution you might say...
Labour and momentum can out mobilise etc the tories, that's a given. But only time will tell if that's enough, it wasn't enough in 2017, it might be in 2022 or whenever the next election is, but it'll be nothing to do with the Conservative Party membership numbers.
Less than 2% of the electorate are members of ANY political party, Labour are still behind where they were in the late 70's for party membership but are slightly more popular in numbers of votes than the 1979 election. Through the Thatcher years membership of the Conservative party declined (as it had since the late 40's), didn't seem to do her any harm at elections.
0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42621425
PMSL when I read this. People getting fed up with the Tory propaganda machine!3 -
Why do the Daily Mail statements read exactly like Donald Trump's tweets?Chaz Hill said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42621425
PMSL when I read this. People getting fed up with the Tory propaganda machine!2 -
But what about The Guardian? What about antisemitism in the Labour Party? What about Princess Di?4
This discussion has been closed.
