Do you want to discuss boring politics? (61 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
JAM See
Well-Known Member
But will the candidate be male at the next election?
Anyway, just joshing. Of course it will, statistically speaking.
Highly likely, however I do believe Liz Truss polls very highly among CV Conservative party members.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well, actually speaking. Currently a county councillor and standing against Matt Western in ‘24 I believe.
It's fucking infuriating!
People just seem to think if someone in a position of authority has a plummy voice they are trustworthy and are fit to rule over us.
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
The whole interview was about whether misogyny should be made a crime.
oakey
Well-Known Member
Boris is now King Boris.
The people (well about 40% of voters) believe in a variation of the divine right of kings. He is entitled to rule. If things go wrong he must replace courtiers but rally the faithful with rousing speeches like Henry V against the French.
The rest of us have to wait until some of the 40% lose their faith or a progressive alliance gives us PR.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The main opposition party won’t support PR though, which is ironic seeing as they haven’t got a cat in hells chance of winning a majority outright under FPTP.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
‘Economically illiterate’: PM’s Tory conference speech gets frosty reception
Next boss, thinktanks and unions criticise Boris Johnson, saying ‘shortages cannot be blustered away’
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
For anyone to implement PR they’d first have to win under FPTP. Which means they will have had a cat in hells chance and therefore won’t want to change it. See Labour in 97 where PR was in the manifesto.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
They would - so to get Labour into ‘power’ they are going to have to form some kind of progress alliance with the SNP, Greens, PC and probably even LD, and a proper strategy of standing down candidates based on the make-up of the individual seats.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Never going to happen and wouldn’t work. “In bed with the SNP” is a standard Tory attack line why would you validate it?
Your fundamental problem is only about 15% of the country is as left wing and as liberal as you, and they mostly live in concentrated areas. No matter how you slice the parties that problem remains. Greens win Brighton or Labour win Brighton still one MP, LDs win Sheff Hallam or Labour do still one MP.
You need LDs taking Tory seats in rural areas and Labour being centrist enough to take Tory votes in the south. That’s the beauty of the party system. You can have diversity. If you have four far left ultra liberal parties fighting over the same votes you get the last 11 years.
As much as it doeant Align with my personal politics the electorally smart answer is to let the Greens be greens, LDs be LDs and Labour be milquetoast centrists stealing soft Tory votes.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Have those numbers been crunched on a seat by seat basis for the last election? Would be interesting to see the impact it would have had.
Obviously not an exact science as you don't know that if, for example, a Labour candidate stood down all those votes would go to the remaining progressive candidate.
Just looking at the headline numbers for the whole electorate an alliance of Labour & Lib Dem means there's only 1,000 votes in it, add in the Greens and they're ahead of the Conservatives without bringing the SNP in to it - would that not translate to seats won?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Yeah you don't bring the SNP into it, as it would indeed go down badly, and any deal would involve a referendum on Scottish independence. Of course in a general sense, it's probably worth noting that a strong Labour Party is better for the Union, as the SNP are seen as an alternative to the Tories in a country that's always been traditionally left of centre, be it Liberal or Labour, so a strong Labour diminishes the SNP.
Back in the day, of course, the Labour Party only became strong thanks to the Liberals standing down in certain seats, to enable Labour to get a foothold and improve the progressive dominance over the Tories. It kind of worked, too... but then Lloyd George upped and split the Liberal Party, and any gains went.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
To answer my own question couldn't find anything for 2019 with a quick google but did find some data for 2017 which suggests a progressive alliance would have put the Conservatives down to 267 with a progressive alliance of Labour, Lib Dem & Green on 325.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Id be interested to know the assumptions made to get those numbers.
This from YouGov, who did some polling around the idea is a good primer on why the data generally doesn’t stack up for a progressive alliance.
A “progressive alliance”: Could it work? | YouGov
A progressive alliance could get good support among left-of-centre voters but would likely pile up votes where they are not needed
yougov.co.uk
Politically for me it’s the same problem as PR: a way for left wing voters to not have to deal with electoral reality and pretend there’s a way they can win power without the votes of those nasty people they don’t like. But democracy don’t work like that.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
#BritainRejects
Meanwhile, in election land, Labour is still polling less than their percentage vote share in the 2019 General Election.
Meanwhile, in election land, Labour is still polling less than their percentage vote share in the 2019 General Election.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Only time it's got anywhere was when we had the coalition, and then the majority party was campaigning strongly against and it got nowhere.
PR needs to be brought in somewhere (IMO in an elected second chamber to replace the Lords)
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Thing is that the Tories are smart enough to know to rally together at elections and then fight amongst themselves when they have the power.
Labour (and the left in general) fight amongst themselves before they get the power, so it's likes the two bald men fighting over a comb. One side wants to do it their way, the other wants to do it differently but the reality is that neither of them get to do it at all.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Not sure going from 33% to 35% is much cause for optimism if you're a Labour supporter given that 33% led to what we keep being reminded was the worst night for Labour since 1935.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Talking of polls, here's an interesting one. Don't stop at the first tweet, but the stuff about appealing to your audience is key - and dials into discussions of pragmatism etc. Who actually *is* your political enemy? Conservatives are better at seeeing and showing that...
It's still such very strange times we live in, I don't really know when an appropriate point to judge is, you know. I'm not sure we're quite there yet... but does any recession etc. get a free pass as Covid related, or does the government get a hit even if it *is* Covid related? When do the past few Brexit and Covid years balance back into some kind of normality?!?
It's still such very strange times we live in, I don't really know when an appropriate point to judge is, you know. I'm not sure we're quite there yet... but does any recession etc. get a free pass as Covid related, or does the government get a hit even if it *is* Covid related? When do the past few Brexit and Covid years balance back into some kind of normality?!?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
"I've no idea where he is" 
Who knew The Day Today would become reality!
Who knew The Day Today would become reality!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Fair bit of evidence Covid and Brexit bounces are wearing off if you look at the polling. Vaccine bump started Dec last year and seems to be wearing off. Perhaps another with boosters?
What’s interesting for me is that Johnson is less well liked than May was. But where he is liked is ex Labour heartlands and where he’s disliked is the south where voters are suspicious of Labours economic record.
By interesting I mean infinitely frustrating and annoying.
The gap for Labour right now is economic competence and leadership in the south. Which is a hard gap to fit into and would send the membership into fits.
Genuinely think you’ve got to wait for Johnson to get bored and wander off at this point.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It does offer the potential for excuses however. Interest rates and inflation rises? Well, it's Covid innit. Unemployment goes up? Well, it's Covid. Conversely, keep it AOK, and you look even better than usual. The question is how many people are willing to excuse fuckups as not their fault guv - and it seems that's a fairly solid amount, that will take a lot of whittling down. What Johnson does have is a bit of the Thatchers about him, that it doesn't matter if a sizeable amount think he's a vacuous dishonest fraud... as long as he can keep his support base relatively solid. Whether you approve of him or not, it's fair to say he's good at playing politics in that respect, better than most.
What you need is a Liberal Party along the lines it was under Ashdown and Kennedy (arguably, you want it more like Clegg's tbh, but it needs that pair's credibility, that vanished into the night once they joined in coalition!) to fight the south, while Labour focus on a more traditional brand of social democracy to fight the north... before they join together in one harmonious Blairite compromise.
And yes, I know that intransigence and internal bickering will mean that'll never happen...
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Trouble with economic competence is you can't disprove that unless someone actually gives you the power to do it, and they won't give you the power because they think you're economically incompetent. Labour councils are given less support by the government and when they struggle this is viewed as them being unable to run things properly, not the government failing to fund them properly. Under New Labour the economy was ok on the whole and I don't think you could claim it's better under the Tories. Austerity made the recession worse yet we're not seeing that translated as economic incompetence.
We seem to still be working off historic impressions. Labour is still intrinsically linked to the 70's and huge TU power but have been a different animal for some time. Even under Corbyn's lurch to the left they weren't anywhere near the same.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The Lib Dems are fucking useless right now. The coalition seemed to break them
Tryiing to access a research paper about this but from what I can glean from the abstract and references the data seem to suggest that it’s basically down to incumbents to lose their rep for economic competence. Interest rates or inflation starts rising and people will notice. I think in 2017/19 if Labour didn’t have someone basically writing blank cheques all over the place with every policy they’d ever thought of we’d have won because of the economic incompetence of Brexit. As it was they came close in 2017 but by 2019 it was more about resolving the uncertainty than stopping Brexit so got obliterated as the sensible middle joined with the impatient Brexiters.
Agree with a lot of the above Shmmeee, however, I honestly believe if the government doesn’t deliver and there’s issues with regard to inflation, management of the economy (tax rises, supply chains/stock shortages etc) that directly impact people’s lives, then the Tory economy competence argument will weaken/disappear...whether the issues were the governments fault or not. That’s when labour just need to show they are credible.
Three years is a very long time !
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The Lib Dems and Labour are totally different parties. Many Lib Dems are not going to just vote labour if they stood down. If Labour stand down from any seats they are finished as a political party
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I consider Lib Dem's centrists and people that vote for them could go either way. That they went into coalition with the Tories tells you they aren't left wing enough to consider themselves completely different ideologically. Doubt they'd ever do it again though, not that they're likely to get a chance.
The big thing was that when they fell from favour the votes went to SNP, who are left wing but unlike Labour offer independence. If that wasn't such a big thing I would suggest a lot of those seats would have ended up Labour.
So the left vote gets split more than the right. Although not ideal, it could be pragmatic to make an agreement between the parties to stand down in certain seats for each other and work together. Better to have someone else who thinks a bit like you get that seat than to end up with someone who you're totally opposed to.
It's like going to the movies. Two people want to watch Bond, two want to watch Bourne and three want to watch a art-house movie. More people want to watch an action film but unless they agree between them to choose one or the other they're going to end up watching something they really don't want to.
JAM See
Well-Known Member
When I'm Grand Emperor of the United Kingdom (it will happen). I shall bring in two laws at the start of my reign
PR and compulsory voting.
The current system is not fit for purpose.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I don’t get the clamour for PR TBH. The left would splinter and the Lib Dems and Tories would reign forever more.
If you want a vision of the future magine Nick Clegg saying sorry forever.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
We need a written constitution enshrined in law too. The current gentleman’s agreement only works if the ruling party behaves gentlemanly. To be clear I’m not just talking about the current government. Would have been nice if we’d had a written constitution when Blair presented his dodgy dossier on Iraq that meant he would have received some sort of retribution for deliberately lying and misleading parliament damaging the very fabric of our democracy.