news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

Starmer obviously targetting voters in some of those swing seats in red wall and elsewhere that labour need to win back from the tories. To many on left some of it may sound abhorrent, but that is the tactic. You could argue it is a bad tactic as may lose left/liberal votes elsewhere, but I'm sure they take all this into account when they're number crunching and plotting strategies. People say that he worded it badly about the immigrants in NHS thing, but not sure it was a mistake at all.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Starmer obviously targetting voters in some of those swing seats in red wall and elsewhere that labour need to win back from the tories. To many on left some of it may sound abhorrent, but that is the tactic. You could argue it is a bad tactic as may lose left/liberal votes elsewhere, but I'm sure they take all this into account when they're number crunching and plotting strategies. People say that he worded it badly about the immigrants in NHS thing, but not sure it was a mistake at all.

Weirdly I just saw this which backs up what you are saying (I’m not saying you are this person 😂)

 

[lost]

some polling here:

 

[kaosmark2]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Starmer obviously targetting voters in some of those swing seats in red wall and elsewhere that labour need to win back from the tories. To many on left some of it may sound abhorrent, but that is the tactic. You could argue it is a bad tactic as may lose left/liberal votes elsewhere, but I'm sure they take all this into account when they're number crunching and plotting strategies. People say that he worded it badly about the immigrants in NHS thing, but not sure it was a mistake at all.

I outlined a few days ago why I think they've already been won back to Labour.

There's saying/not saying things so as to win votes, which is necessary. That doesn't mean the shitty things he says shouldn't be called to account.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, lost said:

some polling here:

 

The question is leading one but it backs up what’s I’ve been saying that the campaigners will lose the publics support by using measures that they have been and thus set the whole issue back. 

[lost]

Labour split about 50%/50% which I'd expect because the left/right paradigm doesn't exist anymore. Its now what we'd call working class blue collar workers in the physical economy vs office based work from home types in the virtual economy working via the internet. We saw this over Brexit, we saw it over covid and now we are seeing it over climate change.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I outlined a few days ago why I think they've already been won back to Labour.

There's saying/not saying things so as to win votes, which is necessary. That doesn't mean the shitty things he says shouldn't be called to account.

red wall voters? have they? you get that from polling? That support probably soft though, dislike of Johnson for parties, dislike of Truss for incompetence, and hopefully dislike of tories for bullshitting on brexit benefits and levelling up maybe...but in the midst of an election campaign when tories are banging on about labour being soft on crime or soft on immigration etc etc A labour outright win is possible, but certainly not nailed on, and they need those red wall seats, and a whole bunch of blue wall seats too.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

Labour split about 50%/50% which I'd expect because the left/right paradigm doesn't exist anymore. Its now what we'd call working class blue collar workers in the physical economy vs office based work from home types in the virtual economy working via the internet. We saw this over Brexit, we saw it over covid and now we are seeing it over climate change.

that polling wasn't for climate change, it was for the tactics used by just stop oil etc protesters.

[lost]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

that polling wasn't for climate change, it was for the tactics used by just stop oil etc protesters.

The two are connected. Its more to do with the trade deals this country signed with places like China in the mid-90's that has driven our energy intensive manufacturing industry to be outsourced. Obviously climate change wasn't the main driver it was cheaper labour costs but its clear its not coming back whilst we drive for net zero:

Edited November 11, 2022 by lost

[kaosmark2]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

red wall voters? have they? you get that from polling? That support probably soft though, dislike of Johnson for parties, dislike of Truss for incompetence, and hopefully dislike of tories for bullshitting on brexit benefits and levelling up maybe...but in the midst of an election campaign when tories are banging on about labour being soft on crime or soft on immigration etc etc A labour outright win is possible, but certainly not nailed on, and they need those red wall seats, and a whole bunch of blue wall seats too.

Polling, and the factors that led to the swing in the red wall.

As I said, it wasn't 23k switching to vote Tory, it was 8k swinging Tory and the rest of Labour voters not showing up in a winter election with disillusionment with Corbyn and Brexit. Also, Johnson was somewhat popular at the time.

I don't think there's pro-Starmer support there, but most should default back to Labour during a to cost of living crisis.

The issue for Labour is that while those are the seats that gave Johnson a majority, they need another 80 on top of that, largely in traditional swing seats.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, lost said:

The two are connected. Its more to do with the trade deals this country signed with places like China in the mid-90's that has driven our energy intensive manufacturing industry to be outsourced. Obviously climate change wasn't the main driver it was cheaper labour costs but its clear its not coming back whilst we drive for net zero:

no...but point was you were saying labour support was divided down the middle over climate change, but the polling doesn't show that. It was showing attitude protesters tactics of blocking roads etc. You can say they are connected, and of course they are, but I doubt they correlate.

Not sure why you needed to throw that graph in there to show we're not emitting as much per capita as some other places.

[lost]

Just now, steviewevie said:

no...but point was you were saying labour support was divided down the middle over climate change, but the polling doesn't show that. It was showing attitude protesters tactics of blocking roads etc. You can say they are connected, and of course they are, but I doubt they correlate.

Not sure why you needed to throw that graph in there to show we're not emitting as much per capita as some other places.

Its a graph of emissions from heavy industry. Obviously some countries have kept more of theirs than others. I'd see a correlation due to well someone who was particularly worried about climate change would find the tactics more justified?  

Anyway yes issues around climate change generally can be split into a number of different areas. The working class argument would be we've simply outsourced our emissions to China hence if those emissions are going to happen anyway why can't we have the jobs and would it be better to have that stuff made with gas/wind power here than coal power in China.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Polling, and the factors that led to the swing in the red wall.

As I said, it wasn't 23k switching to vote Tory, it was 8k swinging Tory and the rest of Labour voters not showing up in a winter election with disillusionment with Corbyn and Brexit. Also, Johnson was somewhat popular at the time.

I don't think there's pro-Starmer support there, but most should default back to Labour during a to cost of living crisis.

The issue for Labour is that while those are the seats that gave Johnson a majority, they need another 80 on top of that, largely in traditional swing seats.

ok...well like I say...that is their tactics and I'm sure they do plenty of polling and focus groups to come up with these strategies....they have a wide coalition of voters to please.

[Guest]

Signs of a party that’s been in power for too long. 

[steviewevie]

Biden had a good week, Putin and Trump didn't.

[steviewevie]

or Musk.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

Apparently Sunak/Hunt might lower 45p rate income tax threshold from £150k to £125k.

[Guest]

Rishi Sunak will soon have to announce some actual policies. Labour have tons of them on the agenda but atm the Tories have nothing. 

[steviewevie]

 

[charlierc]

12 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Signs of a party that’s been in power for too long. 

That is quite the sentence to lead with in an article.

... though a part of me is curious. If Twitter goes down the pan, as many think it could given how poorly Elon Musk is doing at running it, what becomes of this thread if it can no longer rely on Tweet embeds?

[charlierc]

My first instinct after the US midterms as the results become slightly clearer is that 2024 could well be Biden v DeSantis. I still think it's possible a Democrat challenger could nick it, but given Biden seems to be in a better place than many expected, that feels like a trickier job for an internal opponent to pull off.

The fact DeSantis demolished his Democrat opponent in Florida, which seems to be the only place where a red wave happened, means I think he has to now be at the front of the queue for their Presidential pick. Much as Trump doesn't exactly seem enthusiastic at the idea he might now be the Republican's second choice to try and win back the White House.

[lost]

14 minutes ago, charlierc said:

. If Twitter goes down the pan, as many think it could given how poorly Elon Musk is doing at running it, what becomes of this thread if it can no longer rely on Tweet embeds?

It'll be like the old days before twitter was invented. People will have to have a discussion in the discussions section again.

[charlierc]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

It'll be like the old days before twitter was invented. People will have to have a discussion in the discussions section again.

That's so 2009.

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, charlierc said:

That is quite the sentence to lead with in an article.

... though a part of me is curious. If Twitter goes down the pan, as many think it could given how poorly Elon Musk is doing at running it, what becomes of this thread if it can no longer rely on Tweet embeds?

RIP politics thread.