news & politics:discussion

[SheffJeff]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

in terms of what? You mean the coventry council dispute? or in general by shifting labour to the centre? It does feel like the start of something. Labour is pretty cash strapped at moment, if it's going to lose money from union affiliation as well as reduced membership where is it going to get it's money from, rich donors like the tories?

I get why starmer might want to appeal to centre ground voters and those that voted tory last time, but they're in danger of losing large numbers of voters on the left...there will many who just won't vote or will vote green or someone. You can see on social media (and on here) how much loathing there is for Starmer on the left...I know twitter isn't everyone, but it is someone.

And an election campaign in a year or two with labour infighting plus a lack of funds is not going to help either.

It was the Unite vs Cov Council dispute I was on about but it does seem Starmers decided he doesn't need the unions or their money. Bad move in my eyes but as a lefty lefty I suppose I'm not the demographic he's aiming for. As you say he will need to find equivalent funding from another source at some point though. 

[steviewevie]

48 minutes ago, SheffJeff said:

It was the Unite vs Cov Council dispute I was on about but it does seem Starmers decided he doesn't need the unions or their money. Bad move in my eyes but as a lefty lefty I suppose I'm not the demographic he's aiming for. As you say he will need to find equivalent funding from another source at some point though. 

Maybe they will do something behind the scenes. I mean, it's quite unusual as this is a council issue, not really something Starmer controls directly..but I guess Graham is going to the top with threats to get best deal possible for her members, and by all accounts she's good at this shit. I guess Starmer doesn't want to look like he will give in to such threats like this as Tories will just use it as ammunition in any election campaign.

[zahidf]

Yesssshhhh

And Abbott

 

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Yesssshhhh

And Abbott

 

I mean...that's one take...and I guess is partly true...Putin doesn't like that ex-ussr neighbours are joining, or wanting to join Nato (and EU)...but they are wanting to join as they are becoming more western, more democratic, and Putin is helping this with his threats and attacks. Ukraine were only wanting to join Nato after the 2014 Crimea invasion. The Baltics joined Nato in 2004 but did not have Nato troops there until 2014 because of the invasion of Ukraine. Russian attacks on Georgia pushed them to wanting to join EU and Nato, I mean, the west could say no, don't be western, be russian...but in the end they are european nations and want protection from Russia. The remaining pro Russian states like Berarus and Kazakhstan are run by autocrats funded and supported by kremlin. Nato is a problem for Putin, but Putin is the problem for many of Russia's neighbours.

Could get messy. I've seen some reports of the possibility of civil war in Russia...but then again people talk about the possibility of another civil war in US so maybe it's all bollocks.

[Kurosagi]

5 hours ago, SheffJeff said:

If Labour aren't backing the unions why should the unions back the Labour Party? Genuine question.

 

4 hours ago, Ozanne said:

That’s is true but a better politician would know how to handle these types of things and not buckle instantly.

Ozanne, this sums up why I have a problem with Starmer's leadership. I'm left, not the moveable feast that is 'centre', but even Blair for all his faults wouldn't have lost control of the unions. If Labour loses the support of the unions then what is Labour...the new Lib Dems?

Been down the pub and mulling over the Labour vs Union issue. If the unions pull their funding then where do they put it? Is it a bluff? After all, the whole purpose of the unions is to represent their members which means lobbying and having influence over policy, but if they're not supporting Labour then who do they go to for pro-worker changes in the future? If they bugger off and create a new party of the working class then it splits the left vote...but they will have money and Labour won't...feels like we're potentially entering a new phase of politics: Johnson fucking up the tories and Starmer fucking up labour.

[steviewevie]

LOOK, I AM NOT CORBYN!

 

[steviewevie]

was reading about 2019 election earlier, and the fact that labour won amongst working age, but it was the old bastards that swung it for the tories...and as we have an aging population this is likely to continue...but also older voters are not so bothered about lower taxes but want more spending on NHS, social care, pensions etc...which is why we're seeing tax rises to pay for that sort of thing.

Anyway, interested in that working age thing and found this from yougov...not sure about overall working age percentages though

Article I read was in New Statesman (might be behind paywall)

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/02/the-rise-of-high-tax-britain

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

Jack Monroe and Asda.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Kurosagi said:

 

Ozanne, this sums up why I have a problem with Starmer's leadership. I'm left, not the moveable feast that is 'centre', but even Blair for all his faults wouldn't have lost control of the unions. If Labour loses the support of the unions then what is Labour...the new Lib Dems?

Been down the pub and mulling over the Labour vs Union issue. If the unions pull their funding then where do they put it? Is it a bluff? After all, the whole purpose of the unions is to represent their members which means lobbying and having influence over policy, but if they're not supporting Labour then who do they go to for pro-worker changes in the future? If they bugger off and create a new party of the working class then it splits the left vote...but they will have money and Labour won't...feels like we're potentially entering a new phase of politics: Johnson fucking up the tories and Starmer fucking up labour.

It's not a great position to be in and of course I want the situation to be rectified for the workers involved. It just annoys me when Labour are doing so well in polls all round we see these stories which could risk that progress. In all likelihood I can't see the Unions pulling out completely as that way they'd have no seat at the table which would leave them to have no influence at all on Labour policy and yes they could help a new Party but our system doesn't work well for new Parties.

I don't think we are heading to that era, especially as Labour appear to be in a better position now than this time 2 years ago.

[fraybentos1]

7 hours ago, Kurosagi said:

 

Ozanne, this sums up why I have a problem with Starmer's leadership. I'm left, not the moveable feast that is 'centre', but even Blair for all his faults wouldn't have lost control of the unions. If Labour loses the support of the unions then what is Labour...the new Lib Dems?

Been down the pub and mulling over the Labour vs Union issue. If the unions pull their funding then where do they put it? Is it a bluff? After all, the whole purpose of the unions is to represent their members which means lobbying and having influence over policy, but if they're not supporting Labour then who do they go to for pro-worker changes in the future? If they bugger off and create a new party of the working class then it splits the left vote...but they will have money and Labour won't...feels like we're potentially entering a new phase of politics: Johnson fucking up the tories and Starmer fucking up labour.

Yes, but have you simply considered just having faith in starmer and not being such a Tory 

[steviewevie]

[mcshed]

12 hours ago, Ozanne said:

 

New methodology which now assumes if you voted Tory last time but now say don't know then you're probably going to vote Tory next time. Now I do see the logic behind that sort of thing and the dark arts of poll weighting do need to make these sorts of assumptions but I'd posit that it's more likely to be true of 2017 Tory voters than new first time Tory 2019 voters that swung the red wall.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, mcshed said:

New methodology which now assumes if you voted Tory last time but now say don't know then you're probably going to vote Tory next time. Now I do see the logic behind that sort of thing and the dark arts of poll weighting do need to make these sorts of assumptions but I'd posit that it's more likely to be true of 2017 Tory voters than new first time Tory 2019 voters that swung the red wall.

Why do they include don’t knows, if they want to know what those people think then don’t give the option surely?

[Kurosagi]

13 hours ago, Ozanne said:

I don't think we are heading to that era, especially as Labour appear to be in a better position now than this time 2 years ago.

I've 'enjoyed' watching the Johnson soap opera and the reversal of the tory voting intentions, but I guess I'm more suspicious of the solidity of any apparent labour lead. Do the polls reflect more about the state of the tories than labour at this point?

Would a labour party without unions continue to dominate in the polls, especially if the unions feel, rightly or wrongly, that with a potentially long-term damaged tory party the time is now to split? It could be bluff, or it could herald a re-imagining of the political landscape. Could be potentially exciting if the result led to a temporary coalition of the new and old parties of the left with a purpose to remove FPTP along with creating a constitution to prevent a Johnson mkII from running roughshod over parliamentary 'traditions'. Pipe dream?

[Zoo Music Girl]

45 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Why do they include don’t knows, if they want to know what those people think then don’t give the option surely?

"Don't know" will be the genuine answer for a lot of people at this stage. I used to work in market research back in the mists of time and we never did a survey without that option.

[Neil]

9 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

I've 'enjoyed' watching the Johnson soap opera and the reversal of the tory voting intentions, but I guess I'm more suspicious of the solidity of any apparent labour lead. Do the polls reflect more about the state of the tories than labour at this point?

because an election is about electing a team for govt (and rejecting the alternative teAM)it shows that people do accept that labour could be an alternative govt, which is an important step forwards ON WHERE THEY WERE TWO YEARS AGO.

 

9 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

Would a labour party without unions continue to dominate in the polls, especially if the unions feel, rightly or wrongly, that with a potentially long-term damaged tory party the time is now to split? It could be bluff, or it could herald a re-imagining of the political landscape. Could be potentially exciting if the result led to a temporary coalition of the new and old parties of the left with a purpose to remove FPTP along with creating a constitution to prevent a Johnson mkII from running roughshod over parliamentary 'traditions'. Pipe dream?

 

[steviewevie]

56 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

I've 'enjoyed' watching the Johnson soap opera and the reversal of the tory voting intentions, but I guess I'm more suspicious of the solidity of any apparent labour lead. Do the polls reflect more about the state of the tories than labour at this point?

Would a labour party without unions continue to dominate in the polls, especially if the unions feel, rightly or wrongly, that with a potentially long-term damaged tory party the time is now to split? It could be bluff, or it could herald a re-imagining of the political landscape. Could be potentially exciting if the result led to a temporary coalition of the new and old parties of the left with a purpose to remove FPTP along with creating a constitution to prevent a Johnson mkII from running roughshod over parliamentary 'traditions'. Pipe dream?

Voters will be attracted to labour if they look like they are a serious alternative who can offer something better. If unions do split from labour, which I still think is unlikely overall, then it's all over, at least for time being. How do left/social-democrat parties in europe get their funding? How does the SNP?

[steviewevie]

...also...whether Johnson stays or goes, the tory party is split on other stuff...tax and spend especially. Sunak goes on about how he wants us to be low tax economy, but whilst he's been chancellor taxes have been going up....and now many tories are moaning about this, wanting to bin net zero and think of other ways to plug NHS/social funding gaps and not use any new money for levelling up...and labour are making the most of it now accusing them of the high tax low growh economy. So, we could be going into next election with lots of tory infighting too.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kurosagi said:

I've 'enjoyed' watching the Johnson soap opera and the reversal of the tory voting intentions, but I guess I'm more suspicious of the solidity of any apparent labour lead. Do the polls reflect more about the state of the tories than labour at this point?

Would a labour party without unions continue to dominate in the polls, especially if the unions feel, rightly or wrongly, that with a potentially long-term damaged tory party the time is now to split? It could be bluff, or it could herald a re-imagining of the political landscape. Could be potentially exciting if the result led to a temporary coalition of the new and old parties of the left with a purpose to remove FPTP along with creating a constitution to prevent a Johnson mkII from running roughshod over parliamentary 'traditions'. Pipe dream?

I think it’s a mixture of both the Tories being awful and Labour improving. The key metrics to show that are recent Ipsos Mori polling which shows Labour ahead on the 3 key areas - VI, Best PM & Economy. I’m not naive enough to think it’s job done for Labour as they definitely need to keep improving but I think the recent gains in the polls are at least partly due to Labour getting better.

In relation to your 2nd point, it’s kinda ironic because it was the TU that blocked the motion for PR at Conference, if it wasn’t for them Labour would back PR right now (to some extent).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

"Don't know" will be the genuine answer for a lot of people at this stage. I used to work in market research back in the mists of time and we never did a survey without that option.

Genuine question, why don’t they remove DK as an option, wouldn’t it force people to make a choice?

[steviewevie]

 

[Kurosagi]

40 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Genuine question, why don’t they remove DK as an option, wouldn’t it force people to make a choice?

Better to identify DK as they are the 'volatile' group. If you know who they are then you can drill down further using crosstabs with other measures to try to understand them better. DK is a very useful category, especially over time if you have a panel.

[Kurosagi]

44 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

In relation to your 2nd point, it’s kinda ironic because it was the TU that blocked the motion for PR at Conference, if it wasn’t for them Labour would back PR right now (to some extent).

I'd forgotten about that...and I'd forgotten that the result was hindered by Starmer staying quiet on the issue:

“But we can also see we have not yet won the argument elsewhere in our movement. Hundreds of trade unionists play a key role in our campaign, but despite this most unions do not yet back reform. The truth is, if the Leadership had engaged with this unifying policy as intensively as they pushed their own proposed rule changes, PR would now be Labour policy."

I'm guessing that Starmer was trying to keep a balancing act with the unions at the time. Probably likely that both a post union labour and a new union alliance party would eagerly embrace PR! But, yes, it's probably unlikely that the unions will split, the UK doesn't tend to do radical upheaval.

[Zoo Music Girl]

23 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

Better to identify DK as they are the 'volatile' group. If you know who they are then you can drill down further using crosstabs with other measures to try to understand them better. DK is a very useful category, especially over time if you have a panel.

This basically. Also you can't force someone to make a choice. I used to do surveys over the phone and you don't need to give them much of an excuse to go "fuck this" and hang up. Same if it was online. If I was filling in a survey and it wouldn't let me choose an option I wanted I'd just quit it.