General Election 2024?

[Sod's Law 442]

23 hours ago, Toast said:

This is awesome, but there may not be many left to cross off by election night.

 

https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/1723069487/eu-version-tory-2024-meltdown-wallchart

 

That is amazing. Thanks for the laugh. Rees-Mogg should definitely be several steps lower on the chart than Sunak though. 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

 

[Toast 16,063]

40 minutes ago, Sod's Law said:

That is amazing. Thanks for the laugh. Rees-Mogg should definitely be several steps lower on the chart than Sunak though. 

 

It's been updated

 

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

If "There's Nothing Like A Dame" Andrea Jenkyns was to lose her seat I hope she's greeted with a few middle fingers at the count centre 

[The Old Crem 3,576]

This will actually poll quite well and Labour will have to be careful how they oppose it. 

[Thatcher 2,339]

The major issue with that policy is that if you actually read the detail it’s not as ‘scary’ as it sounds - it’s working in logistics/procurement/flood defences, or volunteering for the emergency services or charities.

 

But running a campaign in which you drive defence as one of the key wedges, with all sorts of articles and write ups about how the world is a dangerous place with Russia looming and our safety is at risk, to then announce national service? What young person or young person’s parents are going to vote for that? Hear the words national service and you immediately presume military service which may include deployment.
 

A policy that will put many off, in order to give a little bit of red meat to a handful of Reform voters. Convinced he is trying to lose this election on purpose.

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

The only people that stuff polls well with are the one who are still probably voting Tory anyway or some Refrom voters. Shit like that isn't the top of most people's priorities for a Govt.

[TQR 14,352]

12 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

This will actually poll quite well and Labour will have to be careful how they oppose it. 

No it won’t and no they won’t.

[Sly Ronnie 870]

4 minutes ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

The only people that stuff polls well with are the one who are still probably voting Tory anyway or some Refrom voters. Shit like that isn't the top of most people's priorities for a Govt.

 

Suggests he's trying to shore up the Tory vote and keep Reform at bay, rather than appeal to the middle ground.

[The Old Crem 3,576]

32 minutes ago, Thatcher said:

The major issue with that policy is that if you actually read the detail it’s not as ‘scary’ as it sounds - it’s working in logistics/procurement/flood defences, or volunteering for the emergency services or charities.

 

But running a campaign in which you drive defence as one of the key wedges, with all sorts of articles and write ups about how the world is a dangerous place with Russia looming and our safety is at risk, to then announce national service? What young person or young person’s parents are going to vote for that? Hear the words national service and you immediately presume military service which may include deployment.
 

A policy that will put many off, in order to give a little bit of red meat to a handful of Reform voters. Convinced he is trying to lose this election on purpose.

Anyway will the police and NHS want volunteers only on the weekends. They would rather many of them in weekdays for a start.

 

I doubt a lot of the military would want them either - in Europe where it is used it’s often the full time military staff who don’t like it much. 
 

James Cleverly in the Sun actually calls it National service and is very much putting the military aspect first - would have been better to put the idea of civil service first with the military just one option. Plus a year of Military service vs one weekend a month is quite different and quite odd. 

[En Passant 3,731]

I'd have said this is more the sort of thing people care about.

 

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

 

[msc 18,397]

54 minutes ago, TQR said:

No it won’t and no they won’t.

Just to point out, YouGov polled this six months ago for the government and found 64% of voters were massively opposed to it.

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,870]

 

[RoverAndOut 4,726]

55 minutes ago, En Passant said:

I'd have said this is more the sort of thing people care about.

 

 

 

I mean...skew figures to suit your argument how ever you like, but the message from that graph is loud and fucking clear. Isn't it funny how the NHS only fails when the Tories are in charge? 

[Sean 6,281]

1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

This will actually poll quite well and Labour will have to be careful how they oppose it. 

It will poll well with  a fair few boomers  and silent generations and potential deserters to reform but it strikes as not that popular overall.Young people will hate it and most people as it has already established on here will see it as an expensive distraction to Rishi's failed 5 pledges.He doesn't have the approval ratings or goodwill of the public to get credit for being bold.Plus yeah parents won't like the undertones of this.

[TQR 14,352]

41 minutes ago, msc said:

Just to point out, YouGov polled this six months ago for the government and found 64% of voters were massively opposed to it.

Thanks for finding this. I didn’t have the energy to back up my comment with actual stats because it was in reply to Crem and he never does.

 

It seems, though, that this National Service bullshit is to shore up the vote of a very select few people. National Service wasn’t a thing for anyone under 85 years old, so those backing it have no experience of it but because they’re full of spite and bile they want the youth of today to have to endure it.

 

Makes me even more glad Labour are lowering the voting age to 16. 

Edited May 25 by TQR
EFA

[Sean 6,281]

Also how will they enforce this?Most people will opt for the committee service and just not turn up for what is essentially unpaid work.Will the government prosecute these "deserters" and send them to community service in the same place they dodged community service? 

[En Passant 3,731]

4 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

I mean...skew figures to suit your argument how ever you like, but the message from that graph is loud and fucking clear. Isn't it funny how the NHS only fails when the Tories are in charge? 

 

Yes. I wondered about the parameters as one always does with such things. Lies, damned lies and statistics and so forth. However, it does list a source and a reputable one at that.

Also, what other dates can you put around it? If you go back more than the 30 odd years here, what difference would that make anyway? Or start the y axis at 0 rather than 100 and it'd maybe look a bit less steep I suppose.

Yes I'll grant the Tories the pandemic didn't help, but even allowing for the 2020 spike it's pretty damning.

[RoverAndOut 4,726]

1 minute ago, TQR said:

Thanks for finding this. I didn’t have the energy to back up my comment with actual stats because it was in reply to Crem and he never does.

 

It seems, though, that this National Service bullshit is to shore up the vote of a very select few people. National Service hasn’t been a thing since 1939, 85 years ago, so those backing it have no experience of it but because they’re full of spite and bile they want the youth of today to have to endure it.

 

Makes me even more glad Labour are lowering the voting age to 16. 

 

National Service was ended in 1960, 15 years post-war. With terms of service to be completed, the last National Servicemen were discharged in 1963. 60 years later and apparently our return to the 1960s is nearly complete. Out of Europe, National Service returning, he'll be calling for the death penalty next week.

[TQR 14,352]

2 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

National Service was ended in 1960, 15 years post-war. With terms of service to be completed, the last National Servicemen were discharged in 1963. 60 years later and apparently our return to the 1960s is nearly complete. Out of Europe, National Service returning, he'll be calling for the death penalty next week.

 

Sorry, should've said those born in 1939. Edited.

[Sean 6,281]

10 hours ago, TQR said:

Thanks for finding this. I didn’t have the energy to back up my comment with actual stats because it was in reply to Crem and he never does.

 

It seems, though, that this National Service bullshit is to shore up the vote of a very select few people. National Service hasn’t been a thing since 1939, 85 years ago, so those backing it have no experience of it but because they’re full of spite and bile they want the youth of today to have to endure it.

 

Makes me even more glad Labour are lowering the voting age to 16. 

It's to shore up the Tory old guard who they fear will go to reform like they did with UKIP years ago. Many tory headbangerss will like this but I doubt it will be enough to stop them deserting.Seems like a last ditch attempt to keep the traditional Tory voters on side.A bit of red meat.I sincerely doubt it will do any good politically at all.

[YoungWillz 20,918]

There will be no return to National Service says Rishi Sunak - January 2024: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/24/army-chief-says-people-of-uk-are-prewar-generation-who-must-be-ready-to-fight-russia

[Sean 6,281]

Looked at the Daily Mail comments which is I'm sure where the morons in power would expect some positivity but nope saying all the same things on here and more.