UK Politics

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[lazyred]

29 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

He has the moral victory, loved by the far left because they don't have to follow up with the hard stuff like win and govern. 

[steviewevie]

 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I don’t really understand the comparison between different year’s elections. We don’t have a system which works on total votes. Each election has its own individual circumstances, different reasons for voting smaller parties and tactical voting. Labour was piling up votes in London in 2019 but at the expense of more marginal areas.

 

I think when people are talking about Starmer as the Knight in shining armour who saved Labour from the unelectable Corbyn, It is reasonable to compare his performance with Jezza.

Labour undoubtedly saw a huge improvement in Scotland. However i think that it is pretty clear that that is more down to the woes of the SNP rather than anything Labour did.

 

But let's look at England. (all the figures below exclude Scotland & Wales)

 

Starmer's Labour managed to persuade just under 8.4million folk to vote Labour  which was 34.4% of the total vote.

 

That was a whopping increase 0.4% on the percentage Labour won in England in 2019 under the unelectable Corbyn although about 700,000 more people voted for Corbyn's Labour that Starmer's.

 

(in 2017 nearly 11.4million conquered their Corbyophobia to vote Labour  - e percentage of 41.5% over 7% higher than Starmer's Labour got yesterday)

 

So congratulate Starmer on his win by all means, just don't pretend he has made Labour wildly more electable. 

 

You can thank Liz Truss & Nigel Farage for that.

[kaosmark2]

47 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

I think when people are talking about Starmer as the Knight in shining armour who saved Labour from the unelectable Corbyn, It is reasonable to compare his performance with Jezza.

Labour undoubtedly saw a huge improvement in Scotland. However i think that it is pretty clear that that is more down to the woes of the SNP rather than anything Labour did.

 

But let's look at England. (all the figures below exclude Scotland & Wales)

 

Starmer's Labour managed to persuade just under 8.4million folk to vote Labour  which was 34.4% of the total vote.

 

That was a whopping increase 0.4% on the percentage Labour won in England in 2019 under the unelectable Corbyn although about 700,000 more people voted for Corbyn's Labour that Starmer's.

 

(in 2017 nearly 11.4million conquered their Corbyophobia to vote Labour  - e percentage of 41.5% over 7% higher than Starmer's Labour got yesterday)

 

So congratulate Starmer on his win by all means, just don't pretend he has made Labour wildly more electable. 

 

You can thank Liz Truss & Nigel Farage for that.

 

I mean, there is an argument that Starmer made Labour more electable in seats they needed to win, and because of our silly electoral system, that's very important. 

 

But this isn't a "in power for a generation" landslide, mainly because of the fragility of so many seats. Labour have to govern very very well to have a significant majority after the next election.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

I mean, there is an argument that Starmer made Labour more electable in seats they needed to win, and because of our silly electoral system, that's very important. 

 

But this isn't a "in power for a generation" landslide, mainly because of the fragility of so many seats. Labour have to govern very very well to have a significant majority after the next election.

There was a real sense of enthusiasm & even excitement in the country when Blair won in 1997 and all he had to do to win successive elections was to keep hold of that, which he broadly did (until Iraq)

 

I don't sense much of that that enthusiasm (& absolutely no excitement) about  Starmer's win - he has to try and generate that whilst trying to sort out the mess he has been left. If the Tories carry on squabbling & Reform continue taking a significant share of the right wing vote - that might be enough to get him a second term.

However if the Tories sort themselves out & appear to be a credible alternative government & reform fade away then Starmer will really have to deliver noticeable improvement  which will be tough considering the constraints he has imposed on himself.

Believe it or note, I genuinely hope he succeeds as a half decent Labour government is always better than any Tory government (& that still appears to be the  choice under the crazy voting system we insist on retaining.)

[kaosmark2]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

There was a real sense of enthusiasm & even excitement in the country when Blair won in 1997 and all he had to do to win successive elections was to keep hold of that, which he broadly did (until Iraq)

 

I don't sense much of that that enthusiasm (& absolutely no excitement) about  Starmer's win - he has to try and generate that whilst trying to sort out the mess he has been left. If the Tories carry on squabbling & Reform continue taking a significant share of the right wing vote - that might be enough to get him a second term.

However if the Tories sort themselves out & appear to be a credible alternative government & reform fade away then Starmer will really have to deliver noticeable improvement  which will be tough considering the constraints he has imposed on himself.

Believe it or note, I genuinely hope he succeeds as a half decent Labour government is always better than any Tory government (& that still appears to be the  choice under the crazy voting system we insist on retaining.)

 

I fully agree here. My main thing about ignoring the "share of the vote" comparisons to Corbyn, is that I dislike the "right side of history" stuff talked about from his ardent supporters. I don't think "winning the argument" matters as much as putting meals in the mouths of impoverished children. Labour gets to do that from power, and I do think that Rayner, Reeves, and Phillipson have the combination of talent and empathy to deliver that.

 

I do have questions over what else they'll get done, good and bad. I don't trust Streeting as far as my skinny arms could throw him, and the various things he's said about wanting more private investment in the NHS and that PIF deals didn't go far enough have scared me, even aside from his transphobia and general obnoxiousness. Him aside, I think the cabinet is pretty talented, and will generally be good at the briefs and jobs they've been given. I fear what they'll do on the culture war stuff, and I fear what Starmer's authoritarian bent will lead to, on human rights both here and abroad, on immigration, on protests, and on desperately needed reform of our police.

 

The main thing though, is that I've credited both Lib Dems and Greens with a very well-run tactical campaign to extract seats and relevance against a biased media under our backwards electoral system. I feel like it'd be quite hypocritical to ignore that Starmer has succeeded in turning a low vote share into a huge majority. I'll credit him and Labour for the tactics in utilising the system effectively, and now I want to see that turned into a positive impact on society - including a proposal for electoral reform in the 2029 manifesto.

Edited Saturday at 12:06 AM by kaosmark2

[steviewevie]

Starmer's lot (McSweeney) won it by the fact they understood how to win an election in this country with the system we have and the coalition of people they needed to appeal to. Boris Johnson and Cummings got this too. Corbyn didn't and couldn't.

Labour also won because they were so much more popular than Tories.

Back in 2019 everyone was going on about Johnson's appeal and how they would be in power for ages...now labour do something not too dissimilar and everyone is going on about how it isn't fair and Starmer is sh*t and this won't last.

I actually think labour will be in power for at least two terms, because Starmer isn't stupid and lazy like Johnson, there are no maniacs waiting in the wings like Truss, and because the right is split and i don't think that is getting fixed anytime soon.

[Nobody Interesting]

12 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Everyone is talking about PR when it f**ks the right.

 

I have always talked about PR whoever it f**ks.

[Nobody Interesting]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

 

I think when people are talking about Starmer as the Knight in shining armour who saved Labour from the unelectable Corbyn, It is reasonable to compare his performance with Jezza.

Labour undoubtedly saw a huge improvement in Scotland. However i think that it is pretty clear that that is more down to the woes of the SNP rather than anything Labour did.

 

But let's look at England. (all the figures below exclude Scotland & Wales)

 

Starmer's Labour managed to persuade just under 8.4million folk to vote Labour  which was 34.4% of the total vote.

 

That was a whopping increase 0.4% on the percentage Labour won in England in 2019 under the unelectable Corbyn although about 700,000 more people voted for Corbyn's Labour that Starmer's.

 

(in 2017 nearly 11.4million conquered their Corbyophobia to vote Labour  - e percentage of 41.5% over 7% higher than Starmer's Labour got yesterday)

 

So congratulate Starmer on his win by all means, just don't pretend he has made Labour wildly more electable. 

 

You can thank Liz Truss & Nigel Farage for that.

 

Having looked deeper I have found between 50 and 74 seats that Labour won by small margins where the Tory vote fell and Reforms grew substantially. Without Reform, unless the voters stayed at home, then Labour would not have won these seats.

Looks like the campaign 'vote Reform, get Labour' was spot on.

[Nobody Interesting]

24 hours later and to quote  a song by the Lottery Winners, "I already feel much better!

 

Of course I am not a Labour supporter but the Tories are gone and tomorrow's headlines might actually be something positive, some plan put in place and not just another scandal or other.

 

Maybe something that simple is what the country needs to get some sort of stability - I sincerely hope it is cos we really need some sort of stability and give the young folk some hope for tomorrow.

[lazyred]

56 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Having looked deeper I have found between 50 and 74 seats that Labour won by small margins where the Tory vote fell and Reforms grew substantially. Without Reform, unless the voters stayed at home, then Labour would not have won these seats.

Looks like the campaign 'vote Reform, get Labour' was spot on.

The tory split with reform created the huge majority. The sane as the Labour split in the 80s gave the tories a big majority. 

But if those 74 seats stayed tory then labour still win or lead a hung parliament. 

I agree there is little enthusiasm for labour but they deserve credit for winning. They can only use the system as it is and they did it. 

 

[lazyred]

In all the excitement the new Attorney General hasnt got much attention beyond dumping Emily Thornberry.

 

Richatd Hermer specialises in civil liberties and human rights

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/richard-hermer/

 

He was part of this group

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/leading-jewish-lawyers-call-for-israel-to-abide-by-laws-of-war/5117587.article

[charlierc]

12 hours ago, steviewevie said:

 

He's heard that both his 2017 and 2019 election results saw him get more votes huh.

 

But you can only beat whats in front of you I guess and he had the luck to face a Tory party less broken than this version.

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Having looked deeper I have found between 50 and 74 seats that Labour won by small margins where the Tory vote fell and Reforms grew substantially. Without Reform, unless the voters stayed at home, then Labour would not have won these seats.

Anecdotally mine appears to be at the top end of that bracket, given a Labour candidate won by 2,700 votes in a seat where Reform finished third with 7,500.

 

Some were obviously more slender ofc, such as Poole or Hendon where a Labour candidate won by under 20 votes.

[pink_triangle]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

 

I think when people are talking about Starmer as the Knight in shining armour who saved Labour from the unelectable Corbyn, It is reasonable to compare his performance with Jezza.

Labour undoubtedly saw a huge improvement in Scotland. However i think that it is pretty clear that that is more down to the woes of the SNP rather than anything Labour did.

 

But let's look at England. (all the figures below exclude Scotland & Wales)

 

Starmer's Labour managed to persuade just under 8.4million folk to vote Labour  which was 34.4% of the total vote.

 

That was a whopping increase 0.4% on the percentage Labour won in England in 2019 under the unelectable Corbyn although about 700,000 more people voted for Corbyn's Labour that Starmer's.

 

 

(in 2017 nearly 11.4million conquered their Corbyophobia to vote Labour  - e percentage of 41.5% over 7% higher than Starmer's Labour got yesterday)

 

So congratulate Starmer on his win by all means, just don't pretend he has made Labour wildly more electable. 

 

You can thank Liz Truss & Nigel Farage for that.

I don’t think anyone is calling Starmer the knight in shining armour and the big thing is he isn’t claiming to be that himself. This is a public service PM rather than a presidential type who wants to get on with the job. After all the Tory drama I think many of the electorate are happy with this.

 

Again the total votes only tell so much. Some labour supporters will have voted elsewhere tactically, while others will have voted Labour tactically. Some will have protested or stayed at home anticipating a big labour win, who may have made different choices.

 

However the Starmer approach was about gaining power. There is little benefit to the county in piling up votes in London and Liverpool. Labour have sacrificed votes in some areas to rim where it matters.

 

Also as a Welshman happy to see all Tory MPs kicked out, hope Scotland follow our lead in 5 years!

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, charlierc said:

He's heard that both his 2017 and 2019 election results saw him get more votes huh.

 

But you can only beat whats in front of you I guess and he had the luck to face a Tory party less broken than this version.

In fairness he was very lucky to face the May campaign which was a complete shitshow.

[pink_triangle]

The good thing about the landslide is I keep finding new MPs I didn’t know had been kicked out. Yesterday evening it was Fox, this morning Redwood, hopefully missed a few more! For balance I thought the likes of Sunak, Mourdant, Shapps, JRM were gracious in defeat, a quality lacking from Truss and Braverman.

 

Speaking to a colleague yesterday and she is seeing the same with her kids age in .terms of support for reform and will be interesting to see if that influences vote for 16 year olds. I hope when constituents realise reform are using them for national exposure and have no interest in local issues they will show them the door. 
 

I fear reform are targeting the vulnerable by offering simplistic solutions. I also fear there are some Muslims with quite extreme views using the legitimate Gaza debate as a way to get into politics. There is so much division I don’t envy the tough job Starmer has.

[lost]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I fear reform are targeting the vulnerable by offering simplistic solutions.

 

Thats the thing about giving the vote to 16 year olds. Young people are attracted to simplistic solutions. It maybe left wing or right wing populism but to assume they will all go for left wing populism I think is quite dangerous.

[pink_triangle]

5 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Thats the thing about giving the vote to 16 year olds. Young people are attracted to simplistic solutions. It maybe left wing or right wing populism but to assume they will all go for left wing populism I think is quite dangerous.

I think 60 year olds are attracted to simplistic solutions as well.

[charlierc]

38 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

In fairness he was very lucky to face the May campaign which was a complete shitshow.

Not so much of a debacle that they lost their status as largest party.

 

Although given how chaotic it was until the 2019 election, they weren't far off.

[lost]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I think 60 year olds are attracted to simplistic solutions as well.

 

Sure. There are clever young people but no wise young people. Wisdom comes from experience but also older people who have not gained any wisdom during their lives.

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, lost said:

 

Sure. There are clever young people but no wise young people. Wisdom comes from experience but also older people who have not gained any wisdom during their lives.

I missed that bit where I suddenly became wise on my 18th birthday.

[lost]

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

I missed that bit where I suddenly became wise on my 18th birthday.

 

You don't you simply gain two more years experience between 16 and 18 but yes the Tories may use that argument when they are back in and raise it to 21.

 

Its an arbitary number but one that has stood for a quite a while without being messed with also at a time when all the others have been trending up etc.. age to stay in full time education, age to buy knives, age to buy fireworks, age for teachers to sleep with their pupils etc..

Edited Saturday at 10:33 AM by lost