1. Didn't have to call a general election - did so anyway.
2. Said they wouldn't - did so anyway (flip-flop).
3. Brexit negotiations begin just a few days after. If these are so important then surely the last thing the government needed in the build up was turmoil.
4. What would be one of the most universally hated policies to bring back? Fox hunting.
5. Who gives the Tories most votes? The elderly? Hitting them as hard as they reasonably can.
6. Go on and on about negotiating Brexit - won't even debate one on one with Corbyn. Weak perception, or arrogant?
7. No calls to register to vote on their social media.
8. Attacking what was a logical, reasonable, and widely accepted view from Corbyn and Labour RE the Manchester attack and foreign policy influence.
9. Not costing their manifesto. Open for attack/easy target.
10. Positive comments about Corbyn filtering through from Tories and Tory-sympathisers.
11. Corbyn receiving a fairer share of media attention on the likes of the BBC and Sky, even showing him in a positive light for once.
12. Corbyn v May v Paxman - the perfect social media clip of that guy mouthing absolutely bollocks. Other cuts to the audience weren't as long. This guy wasn't cut when he began mouthing and shaking his head.
13. Leaks of images of May at 'rallies' devoid of attendees. Again perfect for social media. Many examples of these which when added up has a widespread effect.
In the election debate I would have loved to have been in the audience to ask May a simple question: since the general election was called, the average donation to the Tories has been £60k, and £22 to Labour. What does she think that says about the Tory party and their supporters?
(To play into the title of this article; is a general election a way to line pockets? Hmm. Quick cash maybe.)
I'm no politician but if I use a bit of logic and look at the key points above, I can only conclude that the Tories either don't want to be in office, are absolutely incompetent, or are incredibly conceited and arrogant. Arguments FOR the above could reasonably be made, but when spread across the whole range they just become weaker and weaker.
Why wouldn't they want office? Do they know something about the true cost of Brexit which they're hiding, so they don't have to be the ones to sort it out? Is this a long game they're playing, hoping that a socialist manifesto cripples Britain and they can swoop in and privatise everything in the name of saving the country?
Are they incompetent to the point that they didn't realise there would be such animosity to their manifesto? To their treating us, the voters, like empty-headed children who would be hypnotised by the whole strong and stable mantra?
Are they so arrogant to think they can push a negative manifesto on us and still win? One that blatantly only benefits their benefactors?
One of the key things for me, and something that is really strange, is that if they'd only balanced the manifesto a little more, costed a few things, and kept some of the more negative policies on the backburner to sneak through late at night in parliament in the future when no-one is watching (like they normally do) - the election would have been a breeze. THIS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ROCKET SCIENCE! And so why is that not exactly what they did?
They just left so many doors open as easy targets to attack, whoever is running their election campaign should be sacked. Unless of course it's self-sabotage.
Then again, I look at the front pages of the Telegraph, Daily Mail and Daily Express and I wonder... did they get the memo?
No comments:
Post a Comment