Will Tory @#×@ get the message from voters ?

Laughing said:
They dont have to agree with me Stu. They have to be able to agree when the evidence supports something in an obvious way. An example in our exchange is you suggesting that Starmer didn't cause the downfall of Johnson.

In more extreme examples from other posters "If anyone else was in charge Labour would be 40 points clear in the polls" or, worse still "Kier Jong Un".

As I have said, this isn't an attack on you or any other posters. You are entitled to your opinions. I haven't heard any real evidence that Labour are now tory lite, for example. Bumface would say that Starmer refusing to rollback the 2 kid allowance limit is an example. It isn't an example and obviously so. The minute Starmer say Labour will reverse it, the next question is "Where is the money coming from?". Whilst I think that policy is worth borrowing for, the press would crucify Labour, give tories something to fasten on to to crticize Starmer and Labour as crap with the economy. It doesn't matter what history shows, most of the electorate don't understand the basics of economics and won't bother to learn either.

Starmer will be as far left as:
a) we can "demonstrably" afford
b) the electorate will accept it
c) media outlets can't critisize

Once in power, as things start to improve, he has a sounder footing to make more changes. People will base their opinion of the party in government, based on how it hits their pocket. If you are in opposition the way the elctorate measure a party is based on media outlets coverage.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that bumface would probably say that you're a right cheeky sod for thinking that you know what bumface would say. Oh, hang on. You were talking about Bumface werent you? I don't really know Bumface. I'm bumface. Sorry about that.
 
bumface said:
I would imagine that bumface would probably say that you're a right cheeky sod for thinking that you know what bumface would say. Oh, hang on. You were talking about Bumface werent you? I don't really know Bumface. I'm bumface. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
Now you are just being a silly sausage.

My best reply ever, if i do say so my self, and, by the way, I am quite drunk
 
Mustoes boots said:
It affects 7% of older more polluting cars in Greater London the other 93% do not pay, scrappage deals are in place for the older cars. The Tories saw an opportunity and lied about it to smear the Labour candidate and mayor the RW press were happy to follow.
Click to expand...
I think that's far too simplistic. The ULEZ charge affects people with older cars, probably people with low incomes. They wouldn't see any environmental benefit being worth the ULEZ charge. Ordinarily they'd have voted Labour but economic reality meant they couldn't.

The subsequent conversations between Keir Starmer and the London mayor show they realise this will cost votes wherever there is an urban area with a proposed ULEZ. It's a question of rethinking how they balance environmental stuff with economic reality.

It was unfortunate for the Labour candidate but it's not disastrous - it can be reimagined. I don't think there was any Tory conspiracy though. That would credit them with more joined up political savvy than I think they have, The Tories were just the beneficiaries of the law of unforeseen consequences.
 
Soutra said:
I think that's far too simplistic. The ULEZ charge affects people with older cars, probably people with low incomes. They wouldn't see any environmental benefit being worth the ULEZ charge. Ordinarily they'd have voted Labour but economic reality meant they couldn't.

The subsequent conversations between Keir Starmer and the London mayor show they realise this will cost votes wherever there is an urban area with a proposed ULEZ. It's a question of rethinking how they balance environmental stuff with economic reality.

It was unfortunate for the Labour candidate but it's not disastrous - it can be reimagined. I don't think there was any Tory conspiracy though. That would credit them with more joined up political savvy than I think they have, The Tories were just the beneficiaries of the law of unforeseen consequences.
Click to expand...
I think your last comment is correct and by the GE it won't be an issue any more.

On the one hand you have the people that die every year due to poor air quality, not to mention the thousands whos lives are made miserable. On the other, you have the people who just want to be able to use their car without having to pay. Health should trump freedom of choice and it does until its your freedom that is being eroded. Sad but true. Never underestimate how selfish we are. It's not our fault, its how we evolved.
 
Laughing said:
I think your last comment is correct and by the GE it won't be an issue any more.

On the one hand you have the people that die every year due to poor air quality, not to mention the thousands whos lives are made miserable. On the other, you have the people who just want to be able to use their car without having to pay. Health should trump freedom of choice and it does until its your freedom that is being eroded. Sad but true. Never underestimate how selfish we are. It's not our fault, its how we evolved.
Click to expand...
Yes. Everyone likes the idea of going green, everyone sees the need to go green, and everyone thinks we should go green.

The problem is that most people don't want to pay to go green. If green was free, or even almost free, then it would be a no brainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top