Rebecca Long-Bailey sacked (13 Viewers)

JimmyHillsbeard

Well-Known Member
No. It would worsen things

I know nothing about German politics but I get the impression it works as there are natural alliances who are really the same conservative type parties

This does not exist here and the composition would be very different. It would I assume eliminate sturgeons lot at Westminster which would be good but the parties aren’t allies and forming alliances and coalitions will always fail

Unfortunately the system we have is failing partly as the rise of the SNP has made it virtually impossible to get a majority Labour Party in government - that is of course an issue but we would end up more like Italy than Germany I’d suspect if we went that way

1969 and 1982 the coalition changed without holding an election as the minor party (FDP) switched allegiance from the CDU/CSU to the SPD and back again. All of Germany seemed to be outraged on each occasion but the FDP continued in government and their leader as Foreign Minister throughout the period.
 

JimmyHillsbeard

Well-Known Member
Labour would’ve won without Scotland in 97, 2001 and 2005.

It’s not the SNP making Labour unelectable.

whenever Labour have won a Westminster majority they have secured Scotland - but they’ve won England and Wales too. They have never been put in power by Scottish seats.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
The old saying about the “average British voter” is that they want a “hang the pedos and fund the NHS Party”, to break that down it’s basically: immigration controls, tough sentencing on crime with a well funded police force, tough on anti social behaviour, tough on benefit cheats, and probably these days “less woke bollocks”. Also probably not hammering drivers though I think maybe less so these days as people generally get the need for climate action.

Think Blair’s “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”, think ASBOs, Browns “British jobs for British people”, FB memes about homeless veterans and OAPs needing looking after ahead of recent immigrants. Your average Sun campaign “back our boys and crush the criminal scum” type stuff.

Blair was pretty close socially but IMO further right than most want economically. I think he could’ve been a lot more left wing but in hindsight he was it was just he paid for it in a right wing way (PFI) rather than sensible left wing economics.

The left however have put themselves in a corner where anything short of open borders, close the prisons and ACAB makes you right wing filth and that’s a million miles away from your average voter.

I can’t stand the woke stuff I must be honest. Mind you I also support wiping or vastly cutting the foreign aid budget so Christ knows what that would do to me at a CLP meeting
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Labour would’ve won without Scotland in 97, 2001 and 2005.

It’s not the SNP making Labour unelectable.

They may well have done but the seat composition is now hugely different and the swing required is sizemic - Corbyn received a huge percentage of the vote in 2017 and still was the minority party.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
This shows the scale of the task - a 10% swing to have a 1 seat majority and including a significant number in Scotland

https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Another-Mountain-to-Climb.pdf
Best bet is reduce the majority next election, let it struggle because backbenchers then have more influence (see Major, May), and take advantage at the election after.

Really, if you see the mess May/Johnson's government was, a half coherent strategy would have built on 2017 to win, rather than slip back.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member

JimmyHillsbeard

Well-Known Member
- Corbyn received a huge percentage of the vote in 2017 and still was the minority party.

??

Labour received 40% of the UK vote, the Tories got 42.4%. It’s sensible that they received fewer seats than the Conservatives - the largest party but who also failed to get a majority.

Even in Scotland Labour received fewer votes 27.1% (vs 28.6%) and seats 6 (vs 12) than the Conservatives in 2017.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
I can’t stand the woke stuff I must be honest. Mind you I also support wiping or vastly cutting the foreign aid budget so Christ knows what that would do to me at a CLP meeting

Wokeness, ironically, is destroying parties on the left of the political spectrum. In the UK, the Tories win the working class vote, and Trump secures a 16% swing in favour of the Republicans from the lowest income bracket in 2016.

Yet, the same working class voters who swung for Trump viewed Bernie Sanders very favourably.

I’m generally centre-left, and I can’t stand how the left/liberal types are embracing post-modernism ‘critical theory’. As a scientist yourself, this must also drive you crazy.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
??

Labour received 40% of the UK vote, the Tories got 42.4%. It’s sensible that they received fewer seats than the Conservatives - the largest party but who also failed to get a majority.

Even in Scotland Labour received fewer votes 27.1% (vs 28.6%) and seats 6 (vs 12) than the Conservatives in 2017.

The point is 40% is a huge share of the vote that even in itself will take a huge change in fortunes. Even with 16 seats in Scotland a huge 10% swing is required for a 1 seat majority
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Wokeness, ironically, is destroying parties on the left of the political spectrum. In the UK, the Tories win the working class vote, and Trump secures a 16% swing in favour of the Republicans from the lowest income bracket in 2016.

Yet, the same working class voters who swung for Trump viewed Bernie Sanders very favourably.

I’m generally centre-left, and I can’t stand how the left/liberal types are embracing post-modernism ‘critical theory’. As a scientist yourself, this must also drive you crazy.

Bernie in 2016 was the slightly socially conservative but left wing economic politician that would have won handily. Since then he has embraced more of the wokeness and though I still wanted him to succeed, the campaign this time was weaker. What annoys me most is that we are praising things that are more and more just symbolic or done on the internet than substantive achievements.

Keir Starmer seems to be going full woke and it does nothing for me.
 

JimmyHillsbeard

Well-Known Member
In the UK, the Tories win the working class vote, and Trump secures a 16% swing in favour of the Republicans from the lowest income bracket in 2016.

Yet, the same working class voters who swung for Trump viewed Bernie Sanders very favourably.

Since universal suffrage the Conservatives have needed working class votes to win any election. That doesn’t mean that the working class are Tories. Most w/c don’t vote Conservative. Even in northern Red Wall territory the Conservative gains from Labour were significant but small.

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. Swing is very difficult to read in the USA because of the turnover in the registered vote and differential turnout of those groups that are actually registered to vote. In 2016 Trump and Sanders were both playing the same hand - the anti-establishment outsider. After running against Clinton so hard for the Democratic nomination (mostly on the charge that she thought she was entitled to it) it’s less surprising that some Sanders support found it difficult to transfer to her. Nevertheless it’s still commonly overstated how large this intersection in the diagram actually was.

Currently I can’t see where Trump is going with the culture wars stuff. Electorally it looks like a dead end, very few extra voters are to be won there - those that voted for him despite misgivings in 2016 were insufficient to help him win the popular vote then and it’s hard to see many coming over to the race-baiting tweeter whose former staff are writing books about how he’s not fit to govern. The only clear strategy is to aim at those registered electors who are certain to vote - older, whiter (demographically dwindling) and restricting access to the vote for minorities and younger voters by stopping mail in ballots and registration drives etc.

Trump could win in November but he could also get humiliated. I think the current strategy (more Goldwater than Nixon) suggests they really fear the latter and are going for broke to scare white middle America into voting for him.

whether he’d concede defeat in November might also be a moot point.



Anyway that’s a massive set of interjections from me abt Politics which I don’t normally do here but save for my day job.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Really? That’s what you think? Really?
Aren’t most of the what-you-might-call- “woke”pissed off with him that he sacked RLB and he publicly celebrated Armed Forces day ?

I do find the labour people on here reaction to him and total negativity strange
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Really? That’s what you think? Really?
Aren’t most of the what-you-might-call- “woke”pissed off with him that he sacked RLB and he publicly celebrated Armed Forces day ?

Christ knows what the ‘woke’ crowd thinks of him. Just how he comes across to me.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
you're working on the assumption that all Labour has to do is win back lost voters. But it also has to keep the ones it's got.
If there was an election tomorrow I'd have to think long and hard about voting for a Starmer government. The fact this country is going to hell in a hand cart under Johnson would probably swing it but it's hardly a ringing endorsement.

Not what I’d call a ringing endorsement
 

JimmyHillsbeard

Well-Known Member
The point is 40% is a huge share of the vote that even in itself will take a huge change in fortunes. Even with 16 seats in Scotland a huge 10% swing is required for a 1 seat majority

I’m still confused by what you’re trying to say here. I think we are mostly in agreement.

Labour’s share in the vote in 2017 was relatively impressive - but still almost 3 percentage points lower than that received by a badly underperforming Prime Minister in the worst campaign anyone can remember. And even then Labour’s campaign was inefficient. A core vote strategy piling up huge majorities in constituencies they already held (large swathes of Greater London, Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry). Very few seats were won from the Tories on narrow margins (Warwick and Leamington being one of the v few exceptions).

In 2019 Labour fared even worse down to 32% of the vote while the Tories improved slightly to 44%.

They face a mammoth task to get back in - I think we agree on this. But it’s not insurmountable. Most people thought the Conservatives were in for another generation after the 1992 election. Then Black Wednesday robbed them of their reputation for economic competence. Labour worked hard to assume that mantle (I don’t think it was inevitable). if the Conservatives suffer a similar loss of public faith and Labour do make inroads into the voters that have not always voted for them in the recent past there is a clear chance of a labour majority at the next election.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
The problem labour has is it’s shaped policy wise by its members - members don’t win elections
I agree with this point - this is what led it to its disastrous Brexit policy of 2019. Members do not necessarily correspond to voters.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
Labour’s campaign was inefficient. A core vote strategy piling up huge majorities in constituencies they already held (large swathes of Greater London, Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry). Very few seats were won from the Tories on narrow margins (Warwick and Leamington being one of the v few exceptions).

This was one of the far less mentioned things that came out of the leaked report. ‘Allegedly’ the people responsible for either shaping or delivering this channelled resources to seats where the party had comfortable majorities and kept it away from marginals that could have resulted in more seats switching hands.
 

JimmyHillsbeard

Well-Known Member
This was one of the far less mentioned things that came out of the leaked report. ‘Allegedly’ the people responsible for either shaping or delivering this channelled resources to seats where the party had comfortable majorities and kept it away from marginals that could have resulted in more seats switching hands.

it was a direct leadership strategy. Reconnecting with the core vote to show that Labour was more popular than it had been under New Labour. Look at where the leader visits were in 2017, Corbyn and Milne had direct sign off on that.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I’m still confused by what you’re trying to say here. I think we are mostly in agreement.

Labour’s share in the vote in 2017 was relatively impressive - but still almost 3 percentage points lower than that received by a badly underperforming Prime Minister in the worst campaign anyone can remember. And even then Labour’s campaign was inefficient. A core vote strategy piling up huge majorities in constituencies they already held (large swathes of Greater London, Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry). Very few seats were won from the Tories on narrow margins (Warwick and Leamington being one of the v few exceptions).

In 2019 Labour fared even worse down to 32% of the vote while the Tories improved slightly to 44%.

They face a mammoth task to get back in - I think we agree on this. But it’s not insurmountable. Most people thought the Conservatives were in for another generation after the 1992 election. Then Black Wednesday robbed them of their reputation for economic competence. Labour worked hard to assume that mantle (I don’t think it was inevitable). if the Conservatives suffer a similar loss of public faith and Labour do make inroads into the voters that have not always voted for them in the recent past there is a clear chance of a labour majority at the next election.

What I’m saying is I think 40% is around labours peak and I don’t see Tories getting back to 30% levels with a now pretty dead 3rd party which they seem to have benefitted from

Major was dead duck in 92 - agajnst all odds he held a wafer thin majority which by 97 had vanished. There were splits over Europe bastardgare the disastrous family values increased tax rates against election promises and a gold dust opposition leader - the Tories were finished
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
it was a direct leadership strategy. Reconnecting with the core vote to show that Labour was more popular than it had been under New Labour. Look at where the leader visits were in 2017, Corbyn and Milne had direct sign off on that.

I was referring more to on the ground activists - sorry I wasn’t clearer.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Didn’t you also say that policies don’t win elections?

Largely they don’t. Again most people don’t read manifestos in the end most are only engaged every five years.

Politics in the uk is like a duopoly and every 5th year you have yo take market share

Economic competence or perceived confidence is the one thing that wins elections
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I do find the labour people on here reaction to him and total negativity strange
The stated policies he ran on for election are pretty left, really.

Left enough for me, anyway, and he has at least achieved based on merit. That's surely a good thing?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The stated policies he ran on for election are pretty left, really.

Left enough for me, anyway, and he has at least achieved based on merit. That's surely a good thing?

Oh he will need to ditch anything that’s controversially left wing and I am sure he will - after all who else are you going to vote for anyway
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
The stated policies he ran on for election are pretty left, really.

Left enough for me, anyway, and he has at least achieved based on merit. That's surely a good thing?

I was happy with his pledges that he ran on. I’m prepared to give him time, he has responded well to some things, and a couple of things concern me.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I agree with this point - this is what led it to its disastrous Brexit policy of 2019. Members do not necessarily correspond to voters.
Not sure that's the best example, really. Agree with it or not, a policy akin to members' wishes would have been a clear and definable platform to run on. As it happened, the leader wasn't aligned with members on this issue, and what we ended up with was a massive fudge that was impossible to explain, and turned people off regardless of view.

In trying to be all things to all people, it ended up pleasing nobody. Now Thatcher understood that if half the country hated you, it didn't matter if the other hal,f loved you...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top