Gransnet forums

News & politics

It is very difficult for a party to "oppose" a party in power that does not have any policies - and the New Tories don't.

(31 Posts)
PippaZ Tue 08-Jun-21 13:02:46

They may tell you they do but any policy is overturned if overturning it will get them enough votes in the right part of the country to help them win next time around. That's all Johnson wants to give his energy to - getting re-elected and having more power.

The government's "culture war" strategy is playing out for just this purpose. Watch Johnson. He decided to overturn a manifesto promise - why. Certainly not because we couldn't afford it - it's a percentage of GDP. So even those who are still working on the premise that M. Thatcher had it right with her handbag economy can see that if GDP goes down so does the amount we pay in aid. If the GDP is roughly the same or goes up - what's the problem?

The problem is that Johnson has been told he will appeal to enough of the right voters in the right places if he appeals to their self-serving baser instincts which have been stirred up by the far-right on the internet and in some of our news outlets. But it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong - or very wrong in this instance - their vote must be captured. Interestingly, this time even some in his own party seem to feel a little sick at this blatant manipulation.

And Johnson will act as the buffoon just to capture centre stage. He will play the fool, look like a scarecrow just as long as all the attention is on him. He truly is the British equivalent of Donald Trump; an out and out populist.

Why did he come out against the Football Super League? This truly deep thinkers answer was "it's unfair". The real answer is in our voting system. Those who also think it is unfair will be in the right numbers in the right places - it's well known he knows little or nothing about soccer! And the same goes for his comments about Ollie Robinson. When do PM's comment on sports decisions? When the right has stirred up the "anti-woke" voters and he wants those votes in that area.

And Brexit- where this all started. Do you really think he wrote two essays, one for leave and one for remain and what each would do for the county? Not on your life. I would bet a pound to a penny that they were one for leave and one for remain and how each could bring him power. I sincerely doubt he had any thoughts about what we would do after that as is not becoming blatantly obvious.

And how do countries end up getting rid of populists - well I can't remember when it has ended well, either for the person or more importantly for the country, can you?

varian Thu 10-Jun-21 18:57:30

We need a Public Inquiry ASAP.

PippaZ Wed 09-Jun-21 22:28:02

The High Court judgement can be read here

I know this has been mentioned elsewhere and I, personally, think it is a triumph for democracy. But the arrogance of Cummings has him tweeting: Court is telling SW1: even in a crisis like a once-a-century pandemic, your real focus shd ALWAYS be the paper trail. This is already a hugely destructive problem & today’s judgment will make it even worse. If covid doesn't justify focus on outcome>process, nothing will.

Anyone who has ever run anything knows that going into headless chicken mode when there is a crisis doesn't help - but that is exactly what they did and that is what they are still trying to justify!

That meant vast sums of money were given to peoples friends or to other spurious contacts for kit that didn't work, didn't meet the standards required or didn't arrive. This was a great mistake and the least they could do is admit it.

If they don't apologise to the nation, and to all those they put in danger and whose loved ones died because of this arrogant take over from those who know how to do these things, they do not deserve to be in power.

MayBee70 Wed 09-Jun-21 16:45:58

There have been a couple of cases recently where lies have been picked up on. I need to ask DH who told me about it. I think it was Kay Burley who’s now back on Sky.

MaizieD Wed 09-Jun-21 16:12:53

Trouble is, even though he doesn't answer the actual question he spouts a torrent of lies and he's never been asked to correct them. So they're on the record, too. God help the poor historians 50 years hence trying to make sense of his 'administration from the Hansard record.

MayBee70 Wed 09-Jun-21 14:58:08

Someone made an interesting point on Facebook just now that, even if Johnson doesn’t answer any questions at least the exchange will have been put on record. I hadn’t thought of that.

Nandalot Wed 09-Jun-21 14:53:04

They have a policy. To keep in power whatever the cost.

PippaZ Wed 09-Jun-21 14:34:52

Not derailing it at all Maizie. It is as I don't mind repeating, Another attempt to manipulate democracy and then tell us, with their smoke and mirrors, that we are wrong to think they are scamming us all. Brilliant result - well done The Good Law Project.

MayBee70 Wed 09-Jun-21 13:47:25

It’s the ability to get more laughs. And get members of your own party to ask silly time wasting questions (pretty please PM will you find time to visit my constituency to see the new sports centre)that are irrelevant when there are so many important issues that need discussing. Theresa May was very good again.

MaizieD Wed 09-Jun-21 13:41:18

MayBee70

As usual I watched PMQT and all Johnson did was play for laughs. Even during a world pandemic it’s all he can do. I do think the speaker, at one point, asked him to answer the question but I may have been dreaming it.

I didn't watch it, but followed some of the twitter comments.

Dan Hodges declared that Johnson had 'won' PMQs. Is 'winning' now defined by an outstanding ability to not answer questions? What rabbit hole have right wing commentators fallen down?

MaizieD Wed 09-Jun-21 13:37:34

I'm sure that many of you will be cheered to see this, if you don't already know about it

OpenDemocracy has won a significant legal victory against the UK government. The judgement forces transparency on a secretive unit accused of ‘blacklisting’ Freedom of Information requests from journalists, campaigners and others.

After a three-year battle, judge Chris Hughes found that the documents the Cabinet Office presented in court about the controversial Clearing House unit were ‘misleading’. He added that there is a “profound lack of transparency about the operation”, which might “extend to ministers”.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/freedom-of-information/foi-clearing-house-michael-gove-cabinet-office-opendemocracy-wins-court-case-uk-government/

Mind you, I think those pesky 'activist lawyers' are on the government's list, too.. They don't have a very high opinion of judges who give judgements against them.

Fascism, here we come..

(Sorry to derail your thread, Pippa)

MayBee70 Wed 09-Jun-21 13:31:47

As usual I watched PMQT and all Johnson did was play for laughs. Even during a world pandemic it’s all he can do. I do think the speaker, at one point, asked him to answer the question but I may have been dreaming it.

GillT57 Wed 09-Jun-21 13:26:21

Nandalot

Yes, MaizieD. Where is our democracy going? We need to be able to hold politicians to account but this government seems determined to block this very effective route.

Yes, this is another sinister potential development that is being slipped out while all the Margarets in the shires wet themselves about Oxford students voting to remove a painting of the Queen from their wall.

PippaZ Wed 09-Jun-21 13:22:29

Dinahmo

Not quite on topic but -

"Michael Gove acted unlawfully when the government awarded a contract without a tender last March to a polling company owned by long-term associates of his and Dominic Cummings, then Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, a judge has ruled.

Mrs Justice O’Farrell, who gave the ruling on the Cabinet Office contract with the company Public First, said: “The decision of 5 June 2020 to award the contract to Public First gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful.”

The ruling is the first in a series of judicial review legal challenges brought by the Good Law Project (GLP) against government Covid-19 contracts awarded with no competitive tenders under emergency regulations."

Taken from the Guardian today.

A big hurrah from me.

Another attempt to manipulate democracy and then tell us, with their smoke and mirrors, that we are wrong to think they are scamming us all. Brilliant result - well done The Good Law Project.

PippaZ Wed 09-Jun-21 13:18:02

If Starmar was less concerned about 'wallpaper' ... ...

This is not a thread about some Mr Starmar or even Starmer. It about the governments manipulation of the electorate and how they are achieving it.

Nandalot Wed 09-Jun-21 13:09:19

Yes, MaizieD. Where is our democracy going? We need to be able to hold politicians to account but this government seems determined to block this very effective route.

MaizieD Wed 09-Jun-21 12:22:27

No wonder the government is so desperate to curtail Judicial Review. It is the only tool a citizen has at the moment to hold them to account.

The GLP is crowdfunded (and a lot of people are funding them). It seems that the government also would like to curtail the use of crowd funding. What a surprise...

Dinahmo Wed 09-Jun-21 11:36:24

Not quite on topic but -

"Michael Gove acted unlawfully when the government awarded a contract without a tender last March to a polling company owned by long-term associates of his and Dominic Cummings, then Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, a judge has ruled.

Mrs Justice O’Farrell, who gave the ruling on the Cabinet Office contract with the company Public First, said: “The decision of 5 June 2020 to award the contract to Public First gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful.”

The ruling is the first in a series of judicial review legal challenges brought by the Good Law Project (GLP) against government Covid-19 contracts awarded with no competitive tenders under emergency regulations."

Taken from the Guardian today.

A big hurrah from me.

MaizieD Wed 09-Jun-21 09:44:18

If Starmar was less concerned about 'wallpaper' and more concerned about peoples jobs, eviction, minimum wage, stopping the privitisation of the NHS, etc. then he might be getting a little more support

What he wants doesn't exactly get much publicity, does it? I didn't see reports of his recent speech to the GMB plastered across the front pages; it's not as newsworthy as wallpaper or infighting..

This 'may' address some of your concerns. Naturally it's focussed on work because of the audience. There will be others.

labourlist.org/2021/06/starmers-gmb-speech-on-gary-smith-uber-deal-mclibel-fire-and-rehire/

Franbern Wed 09-Jun-21 08:43:49

varian

Chestnut

I don't think this is any different to how it's always been. Parties want voters and will do their best to get them. Only by gaining the majority of voters can they win. If they don't get them they lose, and no-one wants to lose.
People who sit behind their keyboards criticising all the time should maybe have been a politician themselves to show everyone how it should be done.

Wrong again Chestnut

They can win by gaining support of the MINORITY of voters.

At the last general election most of those who voted voted AGAINST the Tory Party and because of our totaslly undemocratic First Past The Post electoral system they won an eighty seat majority in the HoC.

This is a sham democracy.

Totally agree Varian, Whilst we have the 'first past the post' system, we live in very undemocratic country, in which the political party in power rarely has the support ofthe majority of the voters.
I would also like to see compulsory voting, with the option on the ballot paper of 'None of the above'.

However, part of the problem at present is the the main opposition party has little or few policies (except for working hmard at getting rid of most of their own hard-working members).

If Starmar was less concerned about 'wallpaper' and more concerned about peoples jobs, eviction, minimum wage, stopping the privitisation of the NHS, etc. then he might be getting a little more support

A surreal world in which a government who is led by a man who is a serial adulterer, a serial lier, and who happily hands out millions of pounds of governement contracts to his mates, even when those mates are unable to make those contracts work - still has so much support.

MaizieD Tue 08-Jun-21 21:29:43

lemongrove

Of course they have policies btw ridiculous to think otherwise.

One of their policies, as per their manifesto, was to retain Overseas Aid at 0.7% of GDP. hmm

MaizieD Tue 08-Jun-21 21:26:52

lemongrove

Because, if they had been a politician do you seriously think they wouldn’t have been oh so keen to let us know?😄

Judging by your own standards, lemon?

If you'd been a politician perhaps you might have been dying to let us all know, but perhaps other people feel differently about what they might disclose on an internet forum.

Or just not be so up themselves that they have to let everyone know how important they are or have been...

Of course, where does 'politician' begin? Parish councillor? Town or District councillor? County councillor? MP,? Cabinet minister? PM?

lemongrove Tue 08-Jun-21 21:14:41

Of course they have policies btw ridiculous to think otherwise.

lemongrove Tue 08-Jun-21 21:10:14

Because, if they had been a politician do you seriously think they wouldn’t have been oh so keen to let us know?😄

Spinnaker Tue 08-Jun-21 19:56:40

Ilovecheese

Chestnut on an anonymous forum, how do you know that no one is or has been a politician.

My thoughts entirely Ilovecheese wink

varian Tue 08-Jun-21 19:10:43

Chestnut

I don't think this is any different to how it's always been. Parties want voters and will do their best to get them. Only by gaining the majority of voters can they win. If they don't get them they lose, and no-one wants to lose.
People who sit behind their keyboards criticising all the time should maybe have been a politician themselves to show everyone how it should be done.

Wrong again Chestnut

They can win by gaining support of the MINORITY of voters.

At the last general election most of those who voted voted AGAINST the Tory Party and because of our totaslly undemocratic First Past The Post electoral system they won an eighty seat majority in the HoC.

This is a sham democracy.