Snapshot of _CCHQ is now briefing candidates to sell its message about impending defeat. The latest diktat from CRD says they should "warn against handing Labour a blank cheque" and the party having "no-one to stop them". "Only the Conservatives can with enough seats to prevent an unaccountable Labour majority,"_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1803732417150132384)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/breeallegretti/status/1803732417150132384/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1803732417150132384) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1803732417150132384)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Be careful what you wish for.](https://web.archive.org/web/20240620033204/https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/19/britains-conservatives-are-losing-as-they-governed-meekly)
wtf how am I supposed to know if Iâm drunk on drugs when the Economist is publishing articles with headings/subheadings like that.
I donât know whatâs real anymore.
This election campaign may have made me lose the remains of my mind.
(The only functional bit now being my conviction that the Tories will win precisely 11 seats.)
I think they must have swallowed whole their own line of, "We're not hearing a lot of love for Labour on the doorstep," and so believe that there is still a sizeable chunk of people who can be swayed on fear/dislike of Labour alone. What they have yet to realise - STILL - it seems is that for most of the country getting the Tories out is the main, if not only, objective this election.
"We're not hearing a lot of love for Labour on the doorstep."
What they probably failed to realise is the amount of *vitriol* was heard about the Tories on those doorsteps.
I don't love Labour. Why would I *want* to? I, the voter, ought to be, electorally speaking, mercenary. I should know what I want, and then vote in the way that best furthers my desires.
I don't need to love Labour to vote for them. They just need to be best positioned to give me what I want.
Isnât openly admitting that they are in this much trouble also a blanco check for everybody who might have tactically voted Tory to vote Reform?
Wouldnât be surprised if this new message also backfires.
Indeed. I'm genuinely interested to see how the Tory-controlled media, and I include the BBC, will cope with their party being pushed into irrelevance.
Its unlikely that they will have a chance to do so, I agree, but the second they get a chance, they will.
Lets see how much they work with conservatives as an opposition
It really is just amazing that they spent so many years reading the pro-Tory media (which is most of it Britain) and so somehow missed that people had finally actually got quite angry about fourteen years of corruption and stupidity and lies.
In a not too different parallel universe, Rishi Sunak was actually interested in being PM and so started his term apologising for his predecessors and then started a diligent program of investigating then fixing the many issue facing Britain.
He should have started by kicking out Truss and Johnson. It's mad how they totally missed how infuriating partygate, the leader election and then Truss in a row was. Months of blatant lying from BJ and then finishing up with uninspiring, patronising Sunuk overseeing a transparent stealth tax policy and trying to run on cutting taxes. HS2 cancellation seemed to embody everything wrong with them, wasted time and money to achieve nothing.
a snap election would have been the best possible outcome because things have only gotten worse for the Tories the longer this zombie government has shambled on.
> people had finally actually got quite angry about fourteen years of corruption and stupidity and lies
What I genuinely don't understand is how they look at all of this and then switch their vote to _Reform_ đ¤Ś
Literally the most corrupt, stupid and dishonest of all the parties. Like pure distillate of the worst bits of the Tory party they are deserting.
In a parallel universe we would be seeing the new PM Balls about to fight his first election on a "United States of Europe" ticket, after 14 years of blissful, nordic-style social-democratic Chaos with Ed Milliband.
That bacon sandwich has got a lot to answer for.
This is so fucked.
They know they're going to lose, so now they're trying to frame it like *the government people would have *overwhelmingly voted in* is actually unaccountable, and thus suggest the Tories are *entitled* to have power *over that elected government* in order to keep them from running mad with the power *the electorate lent them*. Whom they'd still have to answer to at the *next* election.
The balls on these people.
You're not wrong, and as a supporter of PR myself I can see that looks pretty bad.
But coming from *the Tories* of all people it is ridiculous. They of such enthusiastic support for FPTP that they've literally just spent the dying months of their administration replacing PR with FPTP in various local elections specifically because they say it gives greater legitimacy to the winner. It's no good breaking out the crocodile tears now.
Given how split the rest of the vote share is I'd say even if their vote share turns out to be just under 50% that's still overwhelming relative to the competition
The messaging is all over the fucking place. You can't proclaim that voting Tories is the only way to stop Labour and say "Were going to lose anyway plz vote for us lol"
So the plan is now â donât let Labour winâŚby too muchâ
Everyone get your preorders in for *Campaign Incompetence 101*. Released on 8 July, it will just feature a day-by-day summary of the ConservativeâŚefforts in this election.
Except
- even in the most optimistic scenario, that's still not true about voting tory.
- a majority of 10 is probably still the same as a majority of 100 for the purposes of this
- this makes it even more futile for the reluctant Tory voter to come out e.g. Whats the point
Anyone but Levido would argue that in the British system, facing this kind of scenario, it's well over time for the Tories to promote tactical voting to keep Labour out. But instead, he walks away with a huge payday and can pin the blame on Sunak for not listening to him on when to go to the polls
Honestly, anyone with a bit of sense understands that a majority beyond a certain size doesnât change much.
Truth be told, between a Labour Majority and Supermajority, the latter might be better because infighting might stop certain things from passing. Itâs like Horseshoe theory. From Narrow, to Standard, to Super.
Yep, I'm not a fan of Labour so I'm hoping they get a stonking majority. If their given enough rope to hang themselves, they'll either do just that or maybe I'm wrong and they'll surprise me. Either way it's a win/win for me.
Do they not realise that by putting this argument forward, they themselves are asking for a blank cheque? They're asking people to vote for them not on their policy platform but a vague promise of "competent opposition".
To sum it up, you shouldn't vote labour because they don't know what they stand for. You should vote Tory because it doesn't matter what they stand for they'll oppose labour. Genius.
I get why the Tories are doing badly in this election, they have stuck to the same stratergy since 2010 - which mainly consists of empty soundbites, empty rhetoric, pay of the debt/deficit and labour bad. It has worked for them 4 times in a row, why change that winning formula - the country should have realised this a long time a go but didn't clock on enough to vote these people out...
The majority of voters liked the look of the opposition less than they liked the activities (or inactivities) of the Tory party. This time round the electorate is angry with the Tory party for corruption, inaction on immigration and failure to properly enact Brexit. A good number of the electorate are angry with Labour for not holding the Tories to account for not dealing with the immigration question, for not fully enacting Brexit and for not pushing back against corruption in parliament. Labour is not winning, it's just not losing yet.
The Tories are dead. Everybody knows this. Some are still crying "Say it ain't so!"
Lib Dems are not particularly popular. Look at the polls. Lib Dems are less popular than Reform. Some ex Tory voters have moved over to Lib Dems; many of these will turn to Reform before Election Day.
Labour is popular generally and it has also attracted a lot of protest votes from traditional Tory voters who are unsure about or who are unwilling to vote Reform. They might change their mind on Election day. Labour's high lead over Reform is shaky.
My prediction is that Reform will gain an average 1% point increase in the polls per day between now and the election. Labour's lead will fall back. Lib Dems will hover between 10 and 15%. Expect Tory candidates to drop out over the next few days with more to drop out during Election Week. Expect Reform and Labour to poll similarly during election week.
Alas, as we know, popularity alone does not get candidates into parliament: constituency popularity does. Reform and Labour could be neck'n'neck in the polls in Election Week yet we still might see Labour 1st, Lib Dem 2nd then Reform 3rd party of parliament. It all depends how far apart popularity is spread. We do not have an answer to that question with respect to Reform's popularity.
I feel like this could so easily be exploited by Reform or the Lib Demâs. The Tories can argue they need votes in order to be an effective opposition. But this falls flat when their voters realise they have no idea what that opposition will look like. Sunak will definitely not be leader after losing. He is going to step down or be kicked out of leadership. The gulf in the party is so extreme, will the far right take control or the more centre right take control? Both Lib Demâs and Reform can argue, that if it is a game of picking the opposition then you might as well vote for one of them because you will a least know what you will get.
this feels like the tories entering expectation management mode, which is great because every time they've done that recently they ended up doing way worse than their own worse case scenario.
If you have a solid majority then you can push through whatever you want to. It doesn't matter if the majority is 100 or 300 it's the same outcome. This strategy makes no sense at all
I get your point but if you have a large enough majority they become irrelevant. There is generally only a handful of them. Even the Tories with a fairly small majority just before the election call were able to push through unpopular legislation. Anything over 100 and it becomes irrelevant
It's such a bollocks argument. Any party with a majority (small or large) can get legislation through and we're not getting a hung parliament.
The Tories have just had a huge majority too.
Was it this bad in 1997? I was out campaigning every day and I didn't really have much time to absorb the news.
The polls were fully in Blair's favour but did Major and CCHQ make many mistakes.
Today I'm out campaigning again but I am making more of an effort to read/ listen to the news.
We shouldnât vote Tory as when they lose and Sunak resigns weâll hand a blank cheque to the insane and out of touch Tory membership to vote in another insane out of touch leader like Boris or Truss.
Project Fearâ˘
Is this all they really have left? They have absolutely nothing positive to offer so they have to try sell themselves on the (laughable) notion that everyone else is worse. Itâs pathetic.
They deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history. I hope we never see them in mainstream politics again.
Reform are already ahead in the polls, so, I don't think the conservatives really have any place suggesting they could be a serious opposition to anyone. Make like your voters and just die of old age already.
The Tories seem to think they are the only party allowed to win a majority. This is why they have invented the term âsupermajorityâ! They donât seem to realise that many people want to see them punished as harshly as possible. A complete rejection of their 14 years in government.
Not really.
Parliament is supreme.
If the government can get laws through Parliament (which is easier the bigger their majority is), then they can do whatever they like.
The big mistake the Tories made was trying to circumvent Parliament, and act through executive powers, secondary legislation and bypassing procedures in the exercise of their acts of 'governance'.
All of those can be challenged by the Supreme Court and struck down by it.
But if they actually did the hard work of pushing through primary legislation through Parliament, then the Supreme Court is powerless. Because Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and all Courts are subordinate to it.
that's only true to a point isn't it?
as in it's not clear (or perhaps isn't true at all) that Parlimanetary sovereignty is completely boundless, but it's undefined and if the Supreme Court thinks Parliament has overstepped then you're in a constiutional crisis?
No it's very clear.
Parliament's authority is boundless.
That's the central tenant of our entire constitutional system.
It is impossible for Parliament to over-step because Parliament can do whatever it wants.
If tomorrow Parliament decided to introduce a law that made it illegal for a Frenchman to smoke in Paris, then that would be the Law.
Obviously Parliament doesn't have control over Paris or what a Frenchman might do there, but it'd still be the law within the UK, despite its lack of control over Paris.
There is no definition to its power, because it is boundless.
I used to think what you set out was the case, but it's this stuff around Rwanda and reading a few legal blogs that made it seem less open and shut that Parliamentary sovereignty is boundless: [https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/11/22/adam-tucker-the-rwanda-policy-legal-fictions-and-parliaments-legislative-authority/](https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/11/22/adam-tucker-the-rwanda-policy-legal-fictions-and-parliaments-legislative-authority/)
It's not even the main thrust of the blogpost but it alludes to potential limits on Parliamentary sovereignty that I wasn't aware of - but I'm also not a legal scholar.
Fundamentally, that blog is right in that the Rwanda Bill would be an abuse of Parliament's power but the dispute is not that Parliament couldn't do it.
Parliament can do it. If they wanted to.
But it would damage the foundations of the Rule of Law, and other lesser constitutional principles such as Common Law.
That's not new per say either. The War Damage Act 1965, for example, was a measure that acted retroactively (which is contradictory to the Rule of Law) to ensure that the UK government would not have to pay monetary damages for the particular situation that arose in Burmah Oil Company Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] (which the UK government technically lost, but overruled the decision via the retrospective actions of the WDA 1965)
Retrospective actions of a law, are antagonistic towards to the Rule of Law. You can see why that's the case if we have a situation where it's currently legal to, say, walk under a ladder and then Parliament makes a law saying it's a criminal offence to walk under a ladder and if you have ever walked under a ladder in the past, then you can be charged.
Inherently unfair right? And that chips away at the Rule of Law.
So the courts wouldn't have been happy if the Rwanda Bill did go through because they generally uphold the Rule of Law, so that creates a tension within the constitution, although there is no question that if push comes to shove, Parliament will be doing the shoving.
Parliament is Sovereign. We spent half a century fighting for it to be Sovereign. The Supreme Court was made up 5 minutes ago and could be voted out of existence the moment Labour got into power if Starmer decided.
Because it is currently controlled by Blarites, and so makes rulings they like. When it is inevitably controlled by a faction they don't like, they will coincidentally change their minds.
It's all so tiresome.
Snapshot of _CCHQ is now briefing candidates to sell its message about impending defeat. The latest diktat from CRD says they should "warn against handing Labour a blank cheque" and the party having "no-one to stop them". "Only the Conservatives can with enough seats to prevent an unaccountable Labour majority,"_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1803732417150132384) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/breeallegretti/status/1803732417150132384/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1803732417150132384) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1803732417150132384) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"we're gonna lose, please vote for us đĽš" is an interesting strategy
"You wouldn't hit a smol guy UwU" is a odd campaign message.Â
My brain just made Michael Gove say this. That's not somebody I ever wanted to imagine going UwU.
"I'm just a little guy! And it's my birthday!"
It's...I don't think I want to wank over it...but you never know
Any port in a storm.
Looking forward to the ârishi is a short kingâ messaging they do
Especially as some people just vote for the party they think will win, wanting to feel like a winner.
Lab +4 next week. >Rishi: why do I keep making the wrong choices?
Rushi having an ounce of self awareness?? More like: *Rushi: Am I out so of touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong.*
Alternatively Rishi: fuck, I placed a huge bet on me losing my seat and most polls say I'll still keep it. What can I do to make sure I lose
I think youâre probably joking, but I believe this.
*The Gambling Commission begins yet another investigation*
Go on the TV more?
Come on, does he seem like the kind of person capable of an ounce of introspection? He has people to do that for him
The UwU conservatism strategy, The Economist was actually bang on the money lol
I want to find that article and have no idea how
[Be careful what you wish for.](https://web.archive.org/web/20240620033204/https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/19/britains-conservatives-are-losing-as-they-governed-meekly)
wtf how am I supposed to know if Iâm drunk on drugs when the Economist is publishing articles with headings/subheadings like that. I donât know whatâs real anymore. This election campaign may have made me lose the remains of my mind. (The only functional bit now being my conviction that the Tories will win precisely 11 seats.)
I think they must have swallowed whole their own line of, "We're not hearing a lot of love for Labour on the doorstep," and so believe that there is still a sizeable chunk of people who can be swayed on fear/dislike of Labour alone. What they have yet to realise - STILL - it seems is that for most of the country getting the Tories out is the main, if not only, objective this election.
"We're not hearing a lot of love for Labour on the doorstep." What they probably failed to realise is the amount of *vitriol* was heard about the Tories on those doorsteps. I don't love Labour. Why would I *want* to? I, the voter, ought to be, electorally speaking, mercenary. I should know what I want, and then vote in the way that best furthers my desires. I don't need to love Labour to vote for them. They just need to be best positioned to give me what I want.
Appealing to the sub community. I guess that makes Labour the doms? Or maybe reform are the doms? Lib Dems are obviously furries, for those wondering.
It's the most honest they've been in years though
Isnât openly admitting that they are in this much trouble also a blanco check for everybody who might have tactically voted Tory to vote Reform? Wouldnât be surprised if this new message also backfires.
What do you mean. The leader of the opposition the right honorable Ed Davey will be there to stop them!
It's weird how Lib-dems are somewhat likely going to be the opposition yet their being mostly ignored still.
They won't be once they are leader of the opposition, then all who laughed at the bar charts will be sorry, very sorry indeed!
Only Lib Dems can lead the opposition here!
Good one
It is true that the Lib Dems love a good bar chart with the orange bar second along.
Depends if he can get a slide installed on the opposition benches or not.
It's frustrating how much Farage and Reform get so much attention, but the Lib Dems are mostly ignored by the media.
Indeed. I'm genuinely interested to see how the Tory-controlled media, and I include the BBC, will cope with their party being pushed into irrelevance.
watch them form a coalition with Reform for some reason
Would a LD-RUK coalition be called the Reform-Dem coalition?
Still wouldn't touch labours majority in their best case projections
At least we'd get PR out of it.
Their policies are arguably more progressive than Labours at this point! Shame about the nasty streak of NIMBYism in their local politics though.
Lib Dems promises are progressive, but then they trade them off for a chance to be part of a coalition
I seriously doubt that's on the cards anytime soon (i.e. within the next decade)
Its unlikely that they will have a chance to do so, I agree, but the second they get a chance, they will. Lets see how much they work with conservatives as an opposition
I thought it was Farage? Has he lied to us?
Has he ever told the truth?
It really is just amazing that they spent so many years reading the pro-Tory media (which is most of it Britain) and so somehow missed that people had finally actually got quite angry about fourteen years of corruption and stupidity and lies. In a not too different parallel universe, Rishi Sunak was actually interested in being PM and so started his term apologising for his predecessors and then started a diligent program of investigating then fixing the many issue facing Britain.
He should have started by kicking out Truss and Johnson. It's mad how they totally missed how infuriating partygate, the leader election and then Truss in a row was. Months of blatant lying from BJ and then finishing up with uninspiring, patronising Sunuk overseeing a transparent stealth tax policy and trying to run on cutting taxes. HS2 cancellation seemed to embody everything wrong with them, wasted time and money to achieve nothing.
How could he kick out Triss and Johnson? They were more popular than him!
Truss was possibly the most unpopular politician in Britain when she was booted out. Let's not rewrite history.
Obviously I meant within the Conservative Party.Â
And he'd have lost control of half the party he barely kept on board
a snap election would have been the best possible outcome because things have only gotten worse for the Tories the longer this zombie government has shambled on.
He couldn't acknowledge the corruption without shooting himself in the foot lol, he was the Chancellor that signed it all off.
> people had finally actually got quite angry about fourteen years of corruption and stupidity and lies What I genuinely don't understand is how they look at all of this and then switch their vote to _Reform_ 𤌠Literally the most corrupt, stupid and dishonest of all the parties. Like pure distillate of the worst bits of the Tory party they are deserting.
Because hate is a hell of a drug.
Vibe-based politics. Reform are the outsiders, they'll stick it to the man, Farage seems like a nice bloke.
In a parallel universe we would be seeing the new PM Balls about to fight his first election on a "United States of Europe" ticket, after 14 years of blissful, nordic-style social-democratic Chaos with Ed Milliband. That bacon sandwich has got a lot to answer for.
This is so fucked. They know they're going to lose, so now they're trying to frame it like *the government people would have *overwhelmingly voted in* is actually unaccountable, and thus suggest the Tories are *entitled* to have power *over that elected government* in order to keep them from running mad with the power *the electorate lent them*. Whom they'd still have to answer to at the *next* election. The balls on these people.
What happened to *WILL OF THE PEOPLE* as a thing that meant any majority no matter how small is an unstoppable dictat?
TBF labour will likely get 2/3 of the seats with <50% of the vote. I wouldn't call that overwhelmingly voted for.
You're not wrong, and as a supporter of PR myself I can see that looks pretty bad. But coming from *the Tories* of all people it is ridiculous. They of such enthusiastic support for FPTP that they've literally just spent the dying months of their administration replacing PR with FPTP in various local elections specifically because they say it gives greater legitimacy to the winner. It's no good breaking out the crocodile tears now.
Given how split the rest of the vote share is I'd say even if their vote share turns out to be just under 50% that's still overwhelming relative to the competition
The messaging is all over the fucking place. You can't proclaim that voting Tories is the only way to stop Labour and say "Were going to lose anyway plz vote for us lol"
So the plan is now â donât let Labour winâŚby too muchâ Everyone get your preorders in for *Campaign Incompetence 101*. Released on 8 July, it will just feature a day-by-day summary of the ConservativeâŚefforts in this election.
This strategy has never worked for them in Wales
Except - even in the most optimistic scenario, that's still not true about voting tory. - a majority of 10 is probably still the same as a majority of 100 for the purposes of this - this makes it even more futile for the reluctant Tory voter to come out e.g. Whats the point Anyone but Levido would argue that in the British system, facing this kind of scenario, it's well over time for the Tories to promote tactical voting to keep Labour out. But instead, he walks away with a huge payday and can pin the blame on Sunak for not listening to him on when to go to the polls
Next election cycle they might be promoting PR: both to gain seats and as a re run of them attempting to co-opt Farages policies to neuter him.
Honestly, anyone with a bit of sense understands that a majority beyond a certain size doesnât change much. Truth be told, between a Labour Majority and Supermajority, the latter might be better because infighting might stop certain things from passing. Itâs like Horseshoe theory. From Narrow, to Standard, to Super.
Yep, I'm not a fan of Labour so I'm hoping they get a stonking majority. If their given enough rope to hang themselves, they'll either do just that or maybe I'm wrong and they'll surprise me. Either way it's a win/win for me.
I mean surely this is essentially - âyou might as well vote for Reform because we are fuckedâ
Do they not realise that by putting this argument forward, they themselves are asking for a blank cheque? They're asking people to vote for them not on their policy platform but a vague promise of "competent opposition". To sum it up, you shouldn't vote labour because they don't know what they stand for. You should vote Tory because it doesn't matter what they stand for they'll oppose labour. Genius.
They're threatening us with a good time
There is literally no difference between a Labour majority and a Labour super majority. This is not America.
I invent a new concept, 'the shy-Labour voter'. These people stay at home.
I get why the Tories are doing badly in this election, they have stuck to the same stratergy since 2010 - which mainly consists of empty soundbites, empty rhetoric, pay of the debt/deficit and labour bad. It has worked for them 4 times in a row, why change that winning formula - the country should have realised this a long time a go but didn't clock on enough to vote these people out...
The majority of voters liked the look of the opposition less than they liked the activities (or inactivities) of the Tory party. This time round the electorate is angry with the Tory party for corruption, inaction on immigration and failure to properly enact Brexit. A good number of the electorate are angry with Labour for not holding the Tories to account for not dealing with the immigration question, for not fully enacting Brexit and for not pushing back against corruption in parliament. Labour is not winning, it's just not losing yet. The Tories are dead. Everybody knows this. Some are still crying "Say it ain't so!" Lib Dems are not particularly popular. Look at the polls. Lib Dems are less popular than Reform. Some ex Tory voters have moved over to Lib Dems; many of these will turn to Reform before Election Day. Labour is popular generally and it has also attracted a lot of protest votes from traditional Tory voters who are unsure about or who are unwilling to vote Reform. They might change their mind on Election day. Labour's high lead over Reform is shaky. My prediction is that Reform will gain an average 1% point increase in the polls per day between now and the election. Labour's lead will fall back. Lib Dems will hover between 10 and 15%. Expect Tory candidates to drop out over the next few days with more to drop out during Election Week. Expect Reform and Labour to poll similarly during election week. Alas, as we know, popularity alone does not get candidates into parliament: constituency popularity does. Reform and Labour could be neck'n'neck in the polls in Election Week yet we still might see Labour 1st, Lib Dem 2nd then Reform 3rd party of parliament. It all depends how far apart popularity is spread. We do not have an answer to that question with respect to Reform's popularity.
I feel like this could so easily be exploited by Reform or the Lib Demâs. The Tories can argue they need votes in order to be an effective opposition. But this falls flat when their voters realise they have no idea what that opposition will look like. Sunak will definitely not be leader after losing. He is going to step down or be kicked out of leadership. The gulf in the party is so extreme, will the far right take control or the more centre right take control? Both Lib Demâs and Reform can argue, that if it is a game of picking the opposition then you might as well vote for one of them because you will a least know what you will get.
this feels like the tories entering expectation management mode, which is great because every time they've done that recently they ended up doing way worse than their own worse case scenario.
This is disaster management mode. I don't even know what their expectations were.
If you have a solid majority then you can push through whatever you want to. It doesn't matter if the majority is 100 or 300 it's the same outcome. This strategy makes no sense at all
[ŃдаНонО]
I get your point but if you have a large enough majority they become irrelevant. There is generally only a handful of them. Even the Tories with a fairly small majority just before the election call were able to push through unpopular legislation. Anything over 100 and it becomes irrelevant
It's such a bollocks argument. Any party with a majority (small or large) can get legislation through and we're not getting a hung parliament. The Tories have just had a huge majority too.
Sunak has gone from "only Kier Starmer or I will be Prime Minister on 5th July." to "Kier Starmer is going to win. Please help me save my seat."
Was it this bad in 1997? I was out campaigning every day and I didn't really have much time to absorb the news. The polls were fully in Blair's favour but did Major and CCHQ make many mistakes. Today I'm out campaigning again but I am making more of an effort to read/ listen to the news.
For they saw the way, and the way was of the dodgy bar chart and the tactical voting and there was much wailing and cries of 'supermajority'.
What exactly do the conservatives know about accountability?
I'm not worried - turns out you can win a huge majority and still come out 5 years later with fuck all to show for it.
Give us the blank cheque! Give us the unaccountable majority!
We shouldnât vote Tory as when they lose and Sunak resigns weâll hand a blank cheque to the insane and out of touch Tory membership to vote in another insane out of touch leader like Boris or Truss.
Project Fear⢠Is this all they really have left? They have absolutely nothing positive to offer so they have to try sell themselves on the (laughable) notion that everyone else is worse. Itâs pathetic. They deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history. I hope we never see them in mainstream politics again.
Reform are already ahead in the polls, so, I don't think the conservatives really have any place suggesting they could be a serious opposition to anyone. Make like your voters and just die of old age already.
The Tories seem to think they are the only party allowed to win a majority. This is why they have invented the term âsupermajorityâ! They donât seem to realise that many people want to see them punished as harshly as possible. A complete rejection of their 14 years in government.
The Supreme Court, by its very existence, prevents any government from doing whatever it likes. Regardless of majority size.
Not really. Parliament is supreme. If the government can get laws through Parliament (which is easier the bigger their majority is), then they can do whatever they like. The big mistake the Tories made was trying to circumvent Parliament, and act through executive powers, secondary legislation and bypassing procedures in the exercise of their acts of 'governance'. All of those can be challenged by the Supreme Court and struck down by it. But if they actually did the hard work of pushing through primary legislation through Parliament, then the Supreme Court is powerless. Because Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and all Courts are subordinate to it.
that's only true to a point isn't it? as in it's not clear (or perhaps isn't true at all) that Parlimanetary sovereignty is completely boundless, but it's undefined and if the Supreme Court thinks Parliament has overstepped then you're in a constiutional crisis?
No it's very clear. Parliament's authority is boundless. That's the central tenant of our entire constitutional system. It is impossible for Parliament to over-step because Parliament can do whatever it wants. If tomorrow Parliament decided to introduce a law that made it illegal for a Frenchman to smoke in Paris, then that would be the Law. Obviously Parliament doesn't have control over Paris or what a Frenchman might do there, but it'd still be the law within the UK, despite its lack of control over Paris. There is no definition to its power, because it is boundless.
I used to think what you set out was the case, but it's this stuff around Rwanda and reading a few legal blogs that made it seem less open and shut that Parliamentary sovereignty is boundless: [https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/11/22/adam-tucker-the-rwanda-policy-legal-fictions-and-parliaments-legislative-authority/](https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/11/22/adam-tucker-the-rwanda-policy-legal-fictions-and-parliaments-legislative-authority/) It's not even the main thrust of the blogpost but it alludes to potential limits on Parliamentary sovereignty that I wasn't aware of - but I'm also not a legal scholar.
Fundamentally, that blog is right in that the Rwanda Bill would be an abuse of Parliament's power but the dispute is not that Parliament couldn't do it. Parliament can do it. If they wanted to. But it would damage the foundations of the Rule of Law, and other lesser constitutional principles such as Common Law. That's not new per say either. The War Damage Act 1965, for example, was a measure that acted retroactively (which is contradictory to the Rule of Law) to ensure that the UK government would not have to pay monetary damages for the particular situation that arose in Burmah Oil Company Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] (which the UK government technically lost, but overruled the decision via the retrospective actions of the WDA 1965) Retrospective actions of a law, are antagonistic towards to the Rule of Law. You can see why that's the case if we have a situation where it's currently legal to, say, walk under a ladder and then Parliament makes a law saying it's a criminal offence to walk under a ladder and if you have ever walked under a ladder in the past, then you can be charged. Inherently unfair right? And that chips away at the Rule of Law. So the courts wouldn't have been happy if the Rwanda Bill did go through because they generally uphold the Rule of Law, so that creates a tension within the constitution, although there is no question that if push comes to shove, Parliament will be doing the shoving.
Parliament is Sovereign. We spent half a century fighting for it to be Sovereign. The Supreme Court was made up 5 minutes ago and could be voted out of existence the moment Labour got into power if Starmer decided.
And should be. Its existence is one of the Lord and Saviour Tony Blair's more shameful moments
This sub loves it for some bizarre reason. Itâs far overstepped itâs boundaries, as exemplified by todays ridiculous ruling
Because it is currently controlled by Blarites, and so makes rulings they like. When it is inevitably controlled by a faction they don't like, they will coincidentally change their minds. It's all so tiresome.
I'm confused. why is CCHQ getting involved in the conservatives election campaign? I thought they are the UKs equivalent of the NSA.
Conservative Campaign Head Quarters. You are thinking of GCHQ
Ohhhhh. I am an idiot! Cheers
âPlease donât let Labour do to us what we did to them!â
>unaccountable Labour majority According to the polls- That is what the people want.
Thanks to our electoral system and system of governance, any party with a majority can essentially do what they want with few limitations