Conservative Party after the election

[SteveM70]

My one doubt about Andy Street is his bonkers partner....

He's said he isn't seeking a nomination (at this stage at least, I suppose)

 

[birchesgreen]

He's said he isn't seeking a nomination (at this stage at least, I suppose)

Probably a smart move, probably best to see what is left of the party afterwards.

 

[Cross City]

I have a lot of respect for Street despite never voting for him or his party. Overall he was a good mayor for Birmingham and championed the region well (HS2 cancelling aside).

A future Tory party led by him would at least be palatable.

 

[Howardh]

The Tories need to sit down and have a good look at themselves. Just where, exactly, has Brexit got them? From being a major party with a majority of 80 to struggling to beat the Libdems into second. If Labour won't move on returning to the single market (at least) then there's a huge gap in politics for those of us who DO want a return to the EU. The Conservatives were, once, THE party of Europe; Thatcher, Clarke, even Churchill for goodness' sakes! So why not bite the bullet and return home, then they will start to pull back those of us politically homeless??

 

[Enthusiast]

So why not bite the bullet and return home, then they will start to pull back those of us politically homeless??

There's more to being politically homeless than having nobody to vote for who will see to it that the UK rejoins the EU. The Conservatives have lost a lot of support because they are no longer er... Conservatives.

The Conservatives were, once, THE party of Europe; Thatcher, Clarke, even Churchill for goodness' sakes!

They were the party of Europe when the EU had fewer of the delusions of grandeur (and members) than it has today. If it had remained with fewer of both, Brexit would probably never have happened.

 

[edwin_m]

There's more to being politically homeless than having nobody to vote for who will see to it that the UK rejoins the EU. The Conservatives have lost a lot of support because they are no longer er... Conservatives.


They were the party of Europe when the EU had fewer of the delusions of grandeur (and members) than it has today. If it had remained with fewer of both, Brexit would probably never have happened.

Introduce proportional representation and you can have both a pro-EU and an anti-EU party on the right of centre.

 

[takno]

The Tories need to sit down and have a good look at themselves. Just where, exactly, has Brexit got them? From being a major party with a majority of 80 to struggling to beat the Libdems into second. If Labour won't move on returning to the single market (at least) then there's a huge gap in politics for those of us who DO want a return to the EU. The Conservatives were, once, THE party of Europe; Thatcher, Clarke, even Churchill for goodness' sakes! So why not bite the bullet and return home, then they will start to pull back those of us politically homeless??

I'd be surprised if single market and/or customs union weren't on the table from multiple parties by the next election. I'd prefer it sooner, but I think it needs to be either be more clearly the only credible option, or we need the conversation to be about it as a desirable forward-looking move rather righting last decade's great wrong. Right now we as a country, and the Conservatives as a party, need to stop heading in completely the wrong direction before we can really show our faces to the wider world.

 

[birchesgreen]

I read this yesterday, thought it was a good summary of how the international scene really is,

tdlr, don't hold your breath for a US trade deal to replace the EU. Europe is where you need to be looking.

The Tories’ disastrous misunderstanding of America

On trade, the right of British politics couldn’t see that the US is a foreign land

on.ft.com

Boris Johnson, 2017: “We hear that we’re first in line to do a great trade deal with the US.” Liz Truss, 2019: “My main priority now will be agreeing a free trade deal with the US.” Dominic Raab, a cabinet eminence at around the same time: “President Trump has made clear again that he wants an ambitious trade agreement with the UK.” Then Rishi Sunak on the same subject last summer. “For a while now, that has not been a priority for either the US or UK.” Oh.

 

[AlanL]

The Tories need to sit down and have a good look at themselves. Just where, exactly, has Brexit got them? From being a major party with a majority of 80 to struggling to beat the Libdems into second. If Labour won't move on returning to the single market (at least) then there's a huge gap in politics for those of us who DO want a return to the EU. The Conservatives were, once, THE party of Europe; Thatcher, Clarke, even Churchill for goodness' sakes! So why not bite the bullet and return home, then they will start to pull back those of us politically homeless??

I have to fully agree with a lot of this - there is a huge elephant in the room which is undermining our economy, our connectivity and is creating self destruction! Politicians are too scared to address this.

 

[nw1]

I'd be surprised if single market and/or customs union weren't on the table from multiple parties by the next election. I'd prefer it sooner, but I think it needs to be either be more clearly the only credible option, or we need the conversation to be about it as a desirable forward-looking move rather righting last decade's great wrong. Right now we as a country, and the Conservatives as a party, need to stop heading in completely the wrong direction before we can really show our faces to the wider world.

Agree, this sums up my feelings on the matter too.

The Conservatives have lost a lot of support because they are no longer er... Conservatives.

I would argue that they are more small-c conservative than they have ever been in recent times. Not only the hardline anti-immigrationism but also the war on what they see as "woke" issues, and national service, to name three examples.

 

[DarloRich]

IF the Tories get the shoeing they deserve they will probably lurch right and make one of the cranks leader. They did the last time they lost.

( also I am currently seeing a Conservative party Election advert at the foot of the screen!)

 

[nw1]

IF the Tories get the shoeing they deserve they will probably lurch right and make one of the cranks leader. They did the last time they lost.

( also I am currently seeing a Conservative party Election advert at the foot of the screen!)

You say "IF", are you seriously anticipating a fair chance of a Tory win?

I can't see it myself, even if Labour have some problems - the Tories are just too unpopular. If the Tories win now, it seems unlikely they'll ever lose given that the odds are stacked against them and probably won't be so much in future.

I can see a hung parliament "could" happen but even then I'd expect Labour as the largest party.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Single Market/Customs Union/Rejoining the EU is too hot a potato to handle as it would haemorrhage votes away from any party that mentions it. I know I certainly would not vote for a party that mentions it.

 

[Busaholic]

Single Market/Customs Union/Rejoining the EU is too hot a potato to handle as it would haemorrhage votes away from any party that mentions it. I know I certainly would not vote for a party that mentions it.

Plaid Cymru have gone for the first two of those in their manifesto.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Plaid Cymru have gone for the first two of those in their manifesto.

They’re not going to form a UK government though however would be interesting to see if it helps or hinders them.

 

[nw1]

Single Market/Customs Union/Rejoining the EU is too hot a potato to handle as it would haemorrhage votes away from any party that mentions it. I know I certainly would not vote for a party that mentions it.

I have replied on the Brexit thread on this.
See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/brexit-matters.211154/page-242#post-6791523

 

[ValentaFan1974]

If you’re in the SM/CU that’s akin to being in the EU anyway - just without a say at the table, hence why I have my stance on it.

 

[E27007]

The Conservatives were, once, THE party of Europe; Thatcher,

I believed Thatcher was not exactly enamoured by the politics of EEC, her Bruges speech for example, she considered the EEC to be overly-socialist and bureaucratic

 

[WesternLancer]

I believed Thatcher was not exactly enamoured by the politics of EEC, her Bruges speech for example, she considered the EEC to be overly-socialist and bureaucratic

That was way later - back in '74 she was prominent in the pro EEC campaign. It was the labour left that dominated the anti EEC campaign then (the 'capitalists club' line) - in contrast to the labour right - SDP to come - who were supportive. That's why IIRC Harold Wilson opted for a referendum in order to deal with the split in his own party on the matter.

The Bruges speech was in the era when Thatch and co saw the EU as having a growing social intervention role (Delores period) which they did not want to be bound by, unsurprisingly. It was that role that persuade Labour - post 1983, to take a more positive approach towards the EU. I think in Labour's 1983 manifesto (dubbed longest suicide not in history etc...) labour probably proposed leaving the EU.

 

[JamesT]

I believed Thatcher was not exactly enamoured by the politics of EEC, her Bruges speech for example, she considered the EEC to be overly-socialist and bureaucratic

The Bruges speech was about the growing centralisation of power, to some extent embodied by the change from the EEC to the EU.
Although things are very different now, remember that it was Ted Heath, a Conservative PM that signed the treaty for the UK joining the EEC in 1973. Thatcher campaigned on the side of remain in the 1975 referendum called by the then Labour government.

 

[3141]

In 1992 the Tories had a credible record on the economy, and their negatives on the poll tax and other legacy issues were largely nullified by getting rid of Thatcher. This year it's honestly difficult to see them having any sort of track record that would make people want to vote for them at all.

There's also much more public awareness of the possibilities of tactical voting.

Nonetheless, around 22% of the electorate DO want to vote for them, and that proportion may increase slightly by the election date as some get cold feet about the alternative(s).

I live in a constituency where in 2019 the Conservative got over 60% of the vote. I voted Lib Dem as I wanted to express my support for EU membership (though of course by then it was too late to turn back), and I didn't want to vote for Corbyn. I was expecting to vote Labour this time but I'm put off by the suggestion of lowering the voting age to 16, which is bonkers, if not quite as much as the national service proposal. But the Conservative will probably win anyway.

 

[deltic]

Given the state of the economy and Starmer's cautious approach, I can see Labour losing power in 2029, and potentially going back to a hung Parliament. A lot will depend on who is left in the Tory party to lead it and whether they can unite its various factions.

 

[edwin_m]

I live in a constituency where in 2019 the Conservative got over 60% of the vote. I voted Lib Dem as I wanted to express my support for EU membership (though of course by then it was too late to turn back), and I didn't want to vote for Corbyn. I was expecting to vote Labour this time but I'm put off by the suggestion of lowering the voting age to 16, which is bonkers, if not quite as much as the national service proposal. But the Conservative will probably win anyway.

The way things have changed since 2019, 60% yours is quite possibly now a vulnerable seat, especially if people vote tactically for whoever is best placed to beat the Tory (as didn't happen in 2019, probably mainly down to Corbyn).

It says here 16 is the youngest age to enter the Forces, so if someone's considered old enough to fight for their country it's probably reasonable to allow them to vote.

 

[birchesgreen]

I was expecting to vote Labour this time but I'm put off by the suggestion of lowering the voting age to 16, which is bonkers, if not quite as much as the national service proposal. But the Conservative will probably win anyway.

Why so? I come into contact with a lot of young people, a lot of them i'd trust with the vote more than "oldies" like me!

 

[nw1]

Why so? I come into contact with a lot of young people, a lot of them i'd trust with the vote more than "oldies" like me!

I don't think 16 is too silly either. They can work, they can get married, yet they can't vote.

Elsewhere on the internet I've seen people suggest that the voting age be raised to 21.... now that is bonkers.

 

[RT4038]

It says here 16 is the youngest age to enter the Forces, so if someone's considered old enough to fight for their country it's probably reasonable to allow them to vote.

They would also be responsible enough to be treated as adults from that age then? No more 'children' until 18?

 

[3141]

Why so? I come into contact with a lot of young people, a lot of them i'd trust with the vote more than "oldies" like me!

It says here 16 is the youngest age to enter the Forces, so if someone's considered old enough to fight for their country it's probably reasonable to allow them to vote.

You have to draw a line somewhere. It used to be 21. Now it's 18. Is there evidence for reducing it to 16?

There is evidence that, while young people may reach the peak of their cognitive development around the age of 18, their emotional and psychological development continues after that, in some cases until their mid-twenties. I'm not advocating that we should wait till then before allowing them to vote. Wherever the line is drawn some will still not have matured fully. I think the evidence is that, at 16, most haven't matured emotionally or psychologically. Therefore they should not have the right to vote at that age. By 21 the majority possibly will have. I'm not sure about 18, but that's where we are.

I don't see any connection between being fit to vote and being able to enter the armed forces. Those who enter the armed forces do so voluntarily. The fact that they choose to do that doesn't make them fit to vote. Perhaps the correct adjustment would be to raise the age for entering the forces to 18.

The only reason for proposing to lower the voting age to 16 is that the Labour Party expects it will benefit them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It says here 16 is the youngest age to enter the Forces, so if someone's considered old enough to fight for their country it's probably reasonable to allow them to vote.

I don't see that comparison. Entering the forces means you need to be capable of (after some training) obeying orders, following certain routines, knowing how to use certain equipment, and being sufficiently fit to meet the physical demands. Voting ideally means you need (without any training being provided) to be capable of judging the various political issues of the day, making up your mind about what general direction and specific policies you think are best for the country, being aware of current affairs and of the different parties approach to them, so you can form a sensible judgement of who you think would make the best representatives. While I realise legal minimum age for both of those is always going to be arbitrary, they are totally different skillsets and I can't see any reason why they should both be deliberately set at the same age. And it seems very plausible to me that the skills required for deciding sensibly who to vote for would require more life experience than the skills required to serve in the military.

 

[takno]

You have to draw a line somewhere. It used to be 21. Now it's 18. Is there evidence for reducing it to 16?

There is evidence that, while young people may reach the peak of their cognitive development around the age of 18, their emotional and psychological development continues after that, in some cases until their mid-twenties. I'm not advocating that we should wait till then before allowing them to vote. Wherever the line is drawn some will still not have matured fully. I think the evidence is that, at 16, most haven't matured emotionally or psychologically. Therefore they should not have the right to vote at that age. By 21 the majority possibly will have. I'm not sure about 18, but that's where we are.

I don't see any connection between being fit to vote and being able to enter the armed forces. Those who enter the armed forces do so voluntarily. The fact that they choose to do that doesn't make them fit to vote. Perhaps the correct adjustment would be to raise the age for entering the forces to 18.

The only reason for proposing to lower the voting age to 16 is that the Labour Party expects it will benefit them.

Young people are far better informed than was often the case in the past. In general allowing them to vote has proved successful where its been done in Scotland.

Entering the armed forces is a huge decision with life-changing personal consequences. Voting is a shared exercise where any given vote is diluted by being part of a wider electorate. in essence the age for entering the military should be much higher.

If you are barring 16 year olds from voting on the basis that they might not be at peak maturity, then really the over 60s should be barred on the basis that their analytical capabilities are declining and their positions become increasingly tribal and less informed by facts.

 

[deltic]

I don't see that comparison. Entering the forces means you need to be capable of (after some training) obeying orders, following certain routines, knowing how to use certain equipment, and being sufficiently fit to meet the physical demands. Voting ideally means you need (without any training being provided) to be capable of judging the various political issues of the day, making up your mind about what general direction and specific policies you think are best for the country, being aware of current affairs and of the different parties approach to them, so you can form a sensible judgement of who you think would make the best representatives. While I realise legal minimum age for both of those is always going to be arbitrary, they are totally different skillsets and I can't see any reason why they should both be deliberately set at the same age. And it seems very plausible to me that the skills required for deciding sensibly who to vote for would require more life experience than the skills required to serve in the military.

In reality very few people take much time to understand the issues of the day or which party has the most appropriate policies to address them. Virtually no-one will read the parties' manifestos. People vote for particular parties because that's what their "tribe" does or "its time for a change" or "the country is in a mess" even though they don't know why its in a mess. The idea that your average 16/17 year has a worse understanding of the issues than anyone else of voting age has little basis in reality. One of my great frustrations is how many schools have active and rigorous mock general elections where party policies are debated demonstrating a surprising amount of knowledge and interest about policies and then when young people can vote that seems to turn to apathy with very low turnouts.