This time, Russia’s mass missile attack is deliberately targeting residential areas, not even our energy infrastructure. War criminal Putin “celebrates” New Year by killing people. Russia must be kicked out of its UN Security Council seat which it has always occupied illegally. https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1609180784736206851
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Let's suggest for a moment that swing back, boundary changes and an inefficiency of Labour votes leads to a Conservative/DUP government. Will the Conservatives thus, also remain in the wilderness for a couple of generations. come the election after next?
I would suggest incumbency has its advantages, something may come up, and it is harder to score when one is not in possession of the ball.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
PR can have other unforeseen outcomes. in the medium term it'd allow other parties into the mix far left and far right parties would either take the votes from Con/Lab or they would force them further left/right. Look at France/Italy.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
450 MPs is rather an extreme case as that would be a majority of 250.
On a more realistic basis of a majority of 100 (375 MPs) a lot of the logic is still there, but it's weaker.
On ReFUCK, huge pinch of salt on the polls translating to a General Election, but I don't suppose Starmer will worry too much about throwing petrol on the right-wing dumpster fire if that's the outcome - not really his problem.
More broadly, the election just gone isn't the one to worry about - it's the next one and the one after that. Labour in 1997 kidded themselves that the landslide meant that there was a permanent progressive majority. But politics doesn't work that way. I don't think Starmer will go for it unless he needs to for the reasons stated, but it really isn't as simple as saying "we'd have won fewer seats in 2024 had it been under PR" - the question is 2028 and 2032 as 2024 is a moot counterfactual.
Have seen no publicity whatsoever for the £2 single bus fare cap which begins tomorrow. Won't be paying £8.20 return (!!) into Toon for a while. Yet nobody at all seems to be aware of it. On a bus right now which will be capped from tomorrow. No posters or owt. Here is a list of routes on which it applies.
Yes, it's astonishing that the government isn't trumpeting this more - incompetence? It's a really good idea, supported by lefties and bus users like me. Where I live, every bus journey from city centre to places 30 miles apart will be £2, Saving money and getting cars off the road - what's not to like? And yet, as you say, nobody's heard of it. Weird.
Tories have now adopted the Thatcher mantra that anyone using a bus is a failure so thoroughly they have now experience severe dissonance at trying to increase bus usage.
Labour must implement PR in their next period of Government, it is now essential.
Can't see it happening. it's in their long term interests not their short term interests.
Personally I think that we need a form of PR for all local government elections and an elected portion of the house of lords. Once that's happened people will be more open to it happening for HoC elections
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
450 MPs is rather an extreme case as that would be a majority of 250.
On a more realistic basis of a majority of 100 (375 MPs) a lot of the logic is still there, but it's weaker.
On ReFUCK, huge pinch of salt on the polls translating to a General Election, but I don't suppose Starmer will worry too much about throwing petrol on the right-wing dumpster fire if that's the outcome - not really his problem.
More broadly, the election just gone isn't the one to worry about - it's the next one and the one after that. Labour in 1997 kidded themselves that the landslide meant that there was a permanent progressive majority. But politics doesn't work that way. I don't think Starmer will go for it unless he needs to for the reasons stated, but it really isn't as simple as saying "we'd have won fewer seats in 2024 had it been under PR" - the question is 2028 and 2032 as 2024 is a moot counterfactual.
With 50 seats under PR though RefUK don't split the right they boost it in the Commons
There will of course be an inevitable giveaway budget where Hunt tries to hand out free cash bribes without Trussing up the markets. But voters would have to have goldfish brains to accept that and vote Tory.
I suspect the goldfish constituency is an important voting bloc in most democracies...
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
450 MPs is rather an extreme case as that would be a majority of 250.
On a more realistic basis of a majority of 100 (375 MPs) a lot of the logic is still there, but it's weaker.
On ReFUCK, huge pinch of salt on the polls translating to a General Election, but I don't suppose Starmer will worry too much about throwing petrol on the right-wing dumpster fire if that's the outcome - not really his problem.
More broadly, the election just gone isn't the one to worry about - it's the next one and the one after that. Labour in 1997 kidded themselves that the landslide meant that there was a permanent progressive majority. But politics doesn't work that way. I don't think Starmer will go for it unless he needs to for the reasons stated, but it really isn't as simple as saying "we'd have won fewer seats in 2024 had it been under PR" - the question is 2028 and 2032 as 2024 is a moot counterfactual.
As with Reform taking votes from the Cons, it'll increase the vote of the Greens from Labour. in the medium to long term there'll be more votes for further left and further right parties.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
450 MPs is rather an extreme case as that would be a majority of 250.
On a more realistic basis of a majority of 100 (375 MPs) a lot of the logic is still there, but it's weaker.
On ReFUCK, huge pinch of salt on the polls translating to a General Election, but I don't suppose Starmer will worry too much about throwing petrol on the right-wing dumpster fire if that's the outcome - not really his problem.
More broadly, the election just gone isn't the one to worry about - it's the next one and the one after that. Labour in 1997 kidded themselves that the landslide meant that there was a permanent progressive majority. But politics doesn't work that way. I don't think Starmer will go for it unless he needs to for the reasons stated, but it really isn't as simple as saying "we'd have won fewer seats in 2024 had it been under PR" - the question is 2028 and 2032 as 2024 is a moot counterfactual.
As with Reform taking votes from the Cons, it'll increase the vote of the Greens from Labour. in the medium to long term there'll be more votes for further left and further right parties.
Would also ironically halve the number of SNP MPs to about 25 to 30
As with Reform taking votes from the Cons, it'll increase the vote of the Greens from Labour. in the medium to long term there'll be more votes for further left and further right parties.
Would also ironically halve the number of SNP MPs to about 25 to 30
the other thing to think about, looking at actual votes cast, at the last election Cons had 635 candidates whereas Greens only had 472 and Brexit had 275. a significant amount of people didn't get the option to vote for either of these and in a PR election they would. Whether they would get any significant votes is debatable but it'd need to be considered.
I know at the last election Brexit didn't stand in a load of Con seats but they'd have struggled to put up 635 candidates.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
Labour's opportunity is to restructure an economy that has become increasingly broken over the last 50 years. Our national income isn't the issue - we are a rich country. The problem is that our attachment to spivism has made everything cost more and more whilst delivering less and less.
I'm not going to bang on about my support for a StateCo model which makes poorer European countries have better services than we do - you know what I think. But unless significant changes are made to the way we do things we will only get poorer and poorer despite huge tax takes.
If there were a magic money tree that delivered 10% higher national income for almost everyone, and got you reelected, bingo, that could deliver decades of rule. But hundreds of thousands of people in the existing political system haven't worked out how to do it.
The UK voter wants some mix of US material living standards and housing, Northern European social services, and Southern European work-life balance. Most other rich countries go in a more extreme direction: some work longer hours more efficiently, others settle for renting tiny flats and 0-to-1 child families.
I see no way there's an election in 2023 unless the Tories once again defenestrate a leader, but I don't see that as likely. Hold out for 2024 and pray there is a miracle is the strategy now, especially as the first half of 2023 at least will still feel bad.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
Labour's opportunity is to restructure an economy that has become increasingly broken over the last 50 years. Our national income isn't the issue - we are a rich country. The problem is that our attachment to spivism has made everything cost more and more whilst delivering less and less.
I'm not going to bang on about my support for a StateCo model which makes poorer European countries have better services than we do - you know what I think. But unless significant changes are made to the way we do things we will only get poorer and poorer despite huge tax takes.
If there were a magic money tree that delivered 10% higher national income for almost everyone, and got you reelected, bingo, that could deliver decades of rule. But hundreds of thousands of people in the existing political system haven't worked out how to do it.
The UK voter wants some mix of US material living standards and housing, Northern European social services, and Southern European work-life balance. Most other rich countries go in a more extreme direction: some work longer hours more efficiently, others settle for renting tiny flats and 0-to-1 child families.
At a minimum, a degree of honesty about the country’s problems, clarity rather than obfuscation about how the resulting burdens are going to be shared, and some rational proposals for a better medium term future ought be the basis for every serious party’s platform. No one has yet ticked all those boxes. There’s upside for any party that does - though any manifesto from the Tories will be treated with (understandably) deep scepticism.
Andrew Bridgen going full on now against the covid vax
By suppressing the evidence of the harms caused by the mRNA vaccines the MSM have sealed their own fate. The public will never believe anything from them again. It’s the end of these mouthpieces of big Pharma and the super wealthy elite. This is the end of the controlled media.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
450 MPs is rather an extreme case as that would be a majority of 250.
On a more realistic basis of a majority of 100 (375 MPs) a lot of the logic is still there, but it's weaker.
On ReFUCK, huge pinch of salt on the polls translating to a General Election, but I don't suppose Starmer will worry too much about throwing petrol on the right-wing dumpster fire if that's the outcome - not really his problem.
More broadly, the election just gone isn't the one to worry about - it's the next one and the one after that. Labour in 1997 kidded themselves that the landslide meant that there was a permanent progressive majority. But politics doesn't work that way. I don't think Starmer will go for it unless he needs to for the reasons stated, but it really isn't as simple as saying "we'd have won fewer seats in 2024 had it been under PR" - the question is 2028 and 2032 as 2024 is a moot counterfactual.
As with Reform taking votes from the Cons, it'll increase the vote of the Greens from Labour. in the medium to long term there'll be more votes for further left and further right parties.
The fact the main winners from PR are RefUK, the Greens and LDs and the main losers from PR are the Conservatives, Labour and SNP is key to why it is unlikely to happen.
Given under FPTP the vast majority of MPs are Conservative, Labour or SNP
Labour must implement PR in their next period of Government, it is now essential.
If they win, they won't see it as essential. They'll go the way of Trudeau and 'discover' it is more complicated than they thought.
Indeed and had Canada had PR the Conservatives would have won most seats in 2021 and 2019 not Trudeau's Liberals. So Trudeau was right to stick with FPTP from his perspective
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
450 MPs is rather an extreme case as that would be a majority of 250.
On a more realistic basis of a majority of 100 (375 MPs) a lot of the logic is still there, but it's weaker.
On ReFUCK, huge pinch of salt on the polls translating to a General Election, but I don't suppose Starmer will worry too much about throwing petrol on the right-wing dumpster fire if that's the outcome - not really his problem.
More broadly, the election just gone isn't the one to worry about - it's the next one and the one after that. Labour in 1997 kidded themselves that the landslide meant that there was a permanent progressive majority. But politics doesn't work that way. I don't think Starmer will go for it unless he needs to for the reasons stated, but it really isn't as simple as saying "we'd have won fewer seats in 2024 had it been under PR" - the question is 2028 and 2032 as 2024 is a moot counterfactual.
As with Reform taking votes from the Cons, it'll increase the vote of the Greens from Labour. in the medium to long term there'll be more votes for further left and further right parties.
The fact the main winners from PR are RefUK, the Greens and LDs and the main lovers from PR are the Conservatives, Labour and SNP is key to why it is unlikely to happen.
Given under FPTP the vast majority of MPs are Conservative, Labour or SNP
The fact the main winners from PR are RefUK, the Greens and LDs and the main losers from PR are the Conservatives, Labour and SNP is key to why it is unlikely to happen.
Given under FPTP the vast majority of MPs are Conservative, Labour or SNP
that's the reason it's not happened before (or in the USA) and is the main reason for it not happening in the near future.
The SNP does have a policy of PR as much because they think that it'll keep the Tories out as because they think it's the right thing to do. I think that PR will be one of the costs of a coalition agreement with Labour if it got to that though.
(TBF, quite a few other folk, not excepting me, got quite a few things wrong, too.)
Ahem:
My PB Predictions for 2022:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. 2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. 3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. 4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. 5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. 6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. 7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. 8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. 9. Bitcoin to collapse. 10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
2/10, must try harder.
Edit: 3/10 if a 62% fall in Bitcoin counts as a collapse.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
If Labour don't sort out the economy if they win next time they could be out in 5 years not after 30!
Whilst, in a literal sense, of course Labour could be out after five years, I don't really think the point you're making is right.
Firstly, there will almost certainly be an economic improvement post 2024 simply on a cyclical basis. Secondly, even if structural reforms either don't work or don't yield visible dividends by 2028/9, the "turning round the supertanker" argument is a pretty strong one for re-election, particularly coming off a long period of Conservative led government. Thirdly, there is a very reasonable chance the Tory defeat at the next election will be heavy, and the civil war that ensues severe and bloody.
So it's not impossible Labour will be out after one term, but I'd say the probability of re-election is high even if economic performance is sluggish. The benefit of the doubt is likely to be given in a way that it wouldn't going into a third or fourth election.
I do hope Labour consider introducing some form of PR, that would keep the Tories out for a generation.
I think the chance of Starmer doing it if he has a majority of 100 is negligible. He's pretty much set it up as a bargaining chip for a post-election deal (by saying "well, conference voted for it, but I'm not personally convinced and it's not going in the manifesto"). This puts him in a nice position in that he can offer it as a concession but make the point internally that the Party voted for it. But if he doesn't have to have that negotiation, I just can't see him suddenly seeing it as a first term priority - that sounds like fantasy to me.
Indeed, Labour could win 450 MPs on 45% of the vote under FPTP but would get only about 300 with PR. 150 Labour MPs will not vote to make themselves redundant.
PR also means 50 RefUK MPs on current polls and maybe even more Tory MPs than FPTP would now give them
PR can have other unforeseen outcomes. in the medium term it'd allow other parties into the mix far left and far right parties would either take the votes from Con/Lab or they would force them further left/right. Look at France/Italy.
Labour must implement PR in their next period of Government, it is now essential.
If they win, they won't see it as essential. They'll go the way of Trudeau and 'discover' it is more complicated than they thought.
Indeed and had Canada had PR the Conservatives would have won most seats in 2021 and 2019 not Trudeau's Liberals. So Trudeau was right to stick with FPTP from his perspective
There FPTP and PR didn't matter. It would have been a Liberal-led centre-left government either way. Outside Quebec, the election was about the Conservatives versus everybody else, much like UK elections outside Scotland.
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
Labour's opportunity is to restructure an economy that has become increasingly broken over the last 50 years. Our national income isn't the issue - we are a rich country. The problem is that our attachment to spivism has made everything cost more and more whilst delivering less and less.
I'm not going to bang on about my support for a StateCo model which makes poorer European countries have better services than we do - you know what I think. But unless significant changes are made to the way we do things we will only get poorer and poorer despite huge tax takes.
If there were a magic money tree that delivered 10% higher national income for almost everyone, and got you reelected, bingo, that could deliver decades of rule. But hundreds of thousands of people in the existing political system haven't worked out how to do it.
The UK voter wants some mix of US material living standards and housing, Northern European social services, and Southern European work-life balance. Most other rich countries go in a more extreme direction: some work longer hours more efficiently, others settle for renting tiny flats and 0-to-1 child families.
At a minimum, a degree of honesty about the country’s problems, clarity rather than obfuscation about how the resulting burdens are going to be shared, and some rational proposals for a better medium term future ought be the basis for every serious party’s platform. No one has yet ticked all those boxes. There’s upside for any party that does - though any manifesto from the Tories will be treated with (understandably) deep scepticism.
There is downside for any party that explains how it will raise taxes on everyone, simply to maintain what they already have in an aging society. See 2017, T. May.
There is more chance of mankind dying out in the next year - from AI, aliens, war, plague or possibly climate change - than in any previous year in civilised human history. And yes, I am including the Black Death
Labour must implement PR in their next period of Government, it is now essential.
If they win, they won't see it as essential. They'll go the way of Trudeau and 'discover' it is more complicated than they thought.
Indeed and had Canada had PR the Conservatives would have won most seats in 2021 and 2019 not Trudeau's Liberals. So Trudeau was right to stick with FPTP from his perspective
There FPTP and PR didn't matter. It would have been a Liberal-led centre-left government either way. Outside Quebec, the election was about the Conservatives versus everybody else, much like UK elections outside Scotland.
No it wouldn't. The largest party by convention forms the government in Canada. So Scheer would have been PM in 2019 and O'Toole in 2021 not Trudeau, even if of only minority governments
There is more chance of mankind dying out in the next year - from AI, aliens, war, plague or possibly climate change - than in any previous year in civilised human history. And yes, I am including the Black Death
Happy New Year!
It depends whether the six year old child in some technically advanced "civilisation" finally gets bored and turns off this simulation we live in. She has tried to spice it up by turning on disaster mode but she is easily bored I suspect. Blink.
I just don’t have it in me to start worrying about the latest covid variant .
Had my booster and that’s it now . Not having any more jabs and won’t be wearing masks unless it’s a requirement as in a medical setting .
We’re just going to have to accept these new variants will pop up from time to time .
It seems perverse to refuse a new jab if a new variant occurs which causes deaths and there's a new vaccine to counter it. Why - machismo, lack of care for vulnerable people? The virus won't care, it'll just spread if it can.
Labour must implement PR in their next period of Government, it is now essential.
If they win, they won't see it as essential. They'll go the way of Trudeau and 'discover' it is more complicated than they thought.
Indeed and had Canada had PR the Conservatives would have won most seats in 2021 and 2019 not Trudeau's Liberals. So Trudeau was right to stick with FPTP from his perspective
There FPTP and PR didn't matter. It would have been a Liberal-led centre-left government either way. Outside Quebec, the election was about the Conservatives versus everybody else, much like UK elections outside Scotland.
No it wouldn't. The largest party by convention forms the government in Canada. So Scheer would have been PM in 2019 and O'Toole in 2021 not Trudeau, even if of only minority governments
In 2006 for example Harper's Conservatives won most seats in a hung parliament and Harper became Canadian PM.
However the Liberals, BQ and NDP combined still had more seats than the Conservatives
Keir Starmer doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to just let power go away. I think he will ensure a successor is in the same vain as him, meaning there is no chance Labour goes to the left ever again.
This genuinely might be a twenty or thirty year Labour Government. Call me crazy but we were saying the same thing when Johnson won.
The problems besetting the UK are mainly about the desire to have a better quality of life than national income supports. It is hard to see how Labour can lock down thirty years unless the Tory Party rushes to an unelectable extreme, and first, with Sunak that's the one thing they are trying not to do, second, lots of extremes are electable nowadays.
Labour's opportunity is to restructure an economy that has become increasingly broken over the last 50 years. Our national income isn't the issue - we are a rich country. The problem is that our attachment to spivism has made everything cost more and more whilst delivering less and less.
I'm not going to bang on about my support for a StateCo model which makes poorer European countries have better services than we do - you know what I think. But unless significant changes are made to the way we do things we will only get poorer and poorer despite huge tax takes.
If there were a magic money tree that delivered 10% higher national income for almost everyone, and got you reelected, bingo, that could deliver decades of rule. But hundreds of thousands of people in the existing political system haven't worked out how to do it.
The UK voter wants some mix of US material living standards and housing, Northern European social services, and Southern European work-life balance. Most other rich countries go in a more extreme direction: some work longer hours more efficiently, others settle for renting tiny flats and 0-to-1 child families.
Putting it bluntly, our acceptance of spivism means there is always someone syphoning cash out of the system. We are spending growing vast sums on public services, yet impose spivs runniung some bullshit market structure so that cash goes to managers rather than the service they are mismanaging.
We used to lead the world with technical innovation, but instead of investing for the long term to make things cheaper, it gets sold abroad for a shift profit for the spiv class, leaving the product more expensive long term.
Here's a starter for 10. Instead of slashing Corporation Tax and handing cash over for no benefit, insist that lower CTax has to pay a living wage, invest in training and R&D.
There is more chance of mankind dying out in the next year - from AI, aliens, war, plague or possibly climate change - than in any previous year in civilised human history. And yes, I am including the Black Death
Happy New Year!
I thought you were going to finish 'than there is of a general election.'
Although I suppose if we do all die, Sunak ceases to be PM so that prediction is correct.
1) The Conservative Party is heading for a drubbing 2) Many Conservative MPs will lose seats 3) This will mean many Conservative MPs will be on the job market. 4) the kind of jobs ex politicians want - consulting, influence pedalling etc are not infinite in number.
How many might quit early? Announcing you are standing down at the next election is one thing. A number have done this.
Standing down *now* and getting away from the association with the “oncoming freight train” must be attractive.
How many will do that? Early “defectors” win…
Could we see a non trivial erosion of the governments majority?
There is more chance of mankind dying out in the next year - from AI, aliens, war, plague or possibly climate change - than in any previous year in civilised human history. And yes, I am including the Black Death
Happy New Year!
It depends whether the six year old child in some technically advanced "civilisation" finally gets bored and turns off this simulation we live in. She has tried to spice it up by turning on disaster mode but she is easily bored I suspect. Blink.
Ahh - the sheer pleasure of panic!
I would actually stand by my statement. Even when the Black Death was ravaging the world, at worst it killed 60% of society, and left enough people to quickly restore an agrarian medieval economy (it's not hard, just plant stuff and wait)
So there was no sincere threat of us going extinct. Now, there is, from any one or a combination of those threats. The threat is vanishingly small, but it is there, and not quite as small as it was
Probably the last time homo sapiens was this endangered was when we were still in Africa, 150,000 years ago, and nearly got wiped out by the weather
Labour must implement PR in their next period of Government, it is now essential.
If they win, they won't see it as essential. They'll go the way of Trudeau and 'discover' it is more complicated than they thought.
Indeed and had Canada had PR the Conservatives would have won most seats in 2021 and 2019 not Trudeau's Liberals. So Trudeau was right to stick with FPTP from his perspective
There FPTP and PR didn't matter. It would have been a Liberal-led centre-left government either way. Outside Quebec, the election was about the Conservatives versus everybody else, much like UK elections outside Scotland.
No it wouldn't. The largest party by convention forms the government in Canada. So Scheer would have been PM in 2019 and O'Toole in 2021 not Trudeau, even if of only minority governments
No. The NDP stated that they would not tolerate a Scheer minstry because of his right-wing policies, and in fact would support any other constellation of parties, even including the Bloc. 2006 was a long time ago in politics, especially in North America, and "by convention" is talking about politics in a different, cosier era.
1) The Conservative Party is heading for a drubbing 2) Many Conservative MPs will lose seats 3) This will mean many Conservative MPs will be on the job market. 4) the kind of jobs ex politicians want - consulting, influence pedalling etc are not infinite in number.
How many might quit early? Announcing you are standing down at the next election is one thing. A number have done this.
Standing down *now* and getting away from the association with the “oncoming freight train” must be attractive.
How many will do that? Early “defectors” win…
Could we see a non trivial erosion of the governments majority?
Only those who have secured positions starting at once that pay more than the redundancy payments for those who lose their seats.
And if I felt cynical I might suggest a non-trivial number would take the job and still stand and get defeated for that very reason.
Nice to see Leon in full pearl-clutching granny mode today. So much more entertaining than his only other mode of drunken sex tourist.
I’ve asked the managers of the Grand Conspiracy to tell the Illuminati to tell the Zeta Reticiulans to get the Lizard Men started on the invasion of the Woke Trans Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs….
There is more chance of mankind dying out in the next year - from AI, aliens, war, plague or possibly climate change - than in any previous year in civilised human history. And yes, I am including the Black Death
Happy New Year!
It depends whether the six year old child in some technically advanced "civilisation" finally gets bored and turns off this simulation we live in. She has tried to spice it up by turning on disaster mode but she is easily bored I suspect. Blink.
Ahh - the sheer pleasure of panic!
I would actually stand by my statement. Even when the Black Death was ravaging the world, at worst it killed 60% of society, and left enough people to quickly restore an agrarian medieval economy (it's not hard, just plant stuff and wait)
So there was no sincere threat of us going extinct. Now, there is, from any one or a combination of those threats. The threat is vanishingly small, but it is there, and not quite as small as it was
Probably the last time homo sapiens was this endangered was when we were still in Africa, 150,000 years ago, and nearly got wiped out by the weather
The most extreme nuclear war/biological war concepts ever created would kill maybe 90% of the human race. Survival would be biased to hunter gathers and low tech farmers.
Rebuilding would be much easier. The steel in a few building structures might be more iron than the Roman Empire used. In its entirety…
Labour must implement PR in their next period of Government, it is now essential.
If they win, they won't see it as essential. They'll go the way of Trudeau and 'discover' it is more complicated than they thought.
Indeed and had Canada had PR the Conservatives would have won most seats in 2021 and 2019 not Trudeau's Liberals. So Trudeau was right to stick with FPTP from his perspective
There FPTP and PR didn't matter. It would have been a Liberal-led centre-left government either way. Outside Quebec, the election was about the Conservatives versus everybody else, much like UK elections outside Scotland.
No it wouldn't. The largest party by convention forms the government in Canada. So Scheer would have been PM in 2019 and O'Toole in 2021 not Trudeau, even if of only minority governments
No. The NDP stated that they would not tolerate a Scheer minstry because of his right-wing policies, and in fact would support any other constellation of parties, even including the Bloc. 2006 was a long time ago in politics, especially in North America, and "by convention" is talking about politics in a different, cosier era.
Well they didn't in 2006 did they! In 2006 Liberals and NDP alone combined had more seats than the Conservatives, Harper still ended up PM.
Even if the NDP would have blocked a Scheer government no guarantee at all they would have blocked a more centrist O'Toole government in 2021 if the Conservatives had won most seats
There is more chance of mankind dying out in the next year - from AI, aliens, war, plague or possibly climate change - than in any previous year in civilised human history. And yes, I am including the Black Death
Happy New Year!
It depends whether the six year old child in some technically advanced "civilisation" finally gets bored and turns off this simulation we live in. She has tried to spice it up by turning on disaster mode but she is easily bored I suspect. Blink.
Ahh - the sheer pleasure of panic!
I would actually stand by my statement. Even when the Black Death was ravaging the world, at worst it killed 60% of society, and left enough people to quickly restore an agrarian medieval economy (it's not hard, just plant stuff and wait)
So there was no sincere threat of us going extinct. Now, there is, from any one or a combination of those threats. The threat is vanishingly small, but it is there, and not quite as small as it was
Probably the last time homo sapiens was this endangered was when we were still in Africa, 150,000 years ago, and nearly got wiped out by the weather
Even if we are not, I tend to agree with you about the threat to humanity.
Martin Rees - Our Final Century - gives a well argued case that it is about 50/50 that we survive this century so perhaps a 98% chance that we survive this year. 50/1 hmm
Comments
https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1609180784736206851
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1609181317710626816
I would suggest incumbency has its advantages, something may come up, and it is harder to score when one is not in possession of the ball.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1609179094444384259
They get in so infrequently, if they are in it will be for a decade or more IMHO
On a more realistic basis of a majority of 100 (375 MPs) a lot of the logic is still there, but it's weaker.
On ReFUCK, huge pinch of salt on the polls translating to a General Election, but I don't suppose Starmer will worry too much about throwing petrol on the right-wing dumpster fire if that's the outcome - not really his problem.
More broadly, the election just gone isn't the one to worry about - it's the next one and the one after that. Labour in 1997 kidded themselves that the landslide meant that there was a permanent progressive majority. But politics doesn't work that way. I don't think Starmer will go for it unless he needs to for the reasons stated, but it really isn't as simple as saying "we'd have won fewer seats in 2024 had it been under PR" - the question is 2028 and 2032 as 2024 is a moot counterfactual.
Personally I think that we need a form of PR for all local government elections and an elected portion of the house of lords. Once that's happened people will be more open to it happening for HoC elections
I know at the last election Brexit didn't stand in a load of Con seats but they'd have struggled to put up 635 candidates.
The UK voter wants some mix of US material living standards and housing, Northern European social services, and Southern European work-life balance. Most other rich countries go in a more extreme direction: some work longer hours more efficiently, others settle for renting tiny flats and 0-to-1 child families.
Oops! The Worst Political Predictions of 2022
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/31/the-worst-political-predictions-of-2022-00074872
(TBF, quite a few other folk, not excepting me, got quite a few things wrong, too.)
No one has yet ticked all those boxes. There’s upside for any party that does - though any manifesto from the Tories will be treated with (understandably) deep scepticism.
Given under FPTP the vast majority of MPs are Conservative, Labour or SNP
The SNP does have a policy of PR as much because they think that it'll keep the Tories out as because they think it's the right thing to do. I think that PR will be one of the costs of a coalition agreement with Labour if it got to that though.
My PB Predictions for 2022:
1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022.
2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls.
3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election.
4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November.
5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence.
6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world.
7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end.
8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue.
9. Bitcoin to collapse.
10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year.
2/10, must try harder.
Edit: 3/10 if a 62% fall in Bitcoin counts as a collapse.
Happy New Year!
Ahh - the sheer pleasure of panic!
Why - machismo, lack of care for vulnerable people?
The virus won't care, it'll just spread if it can.
However the Liberals, BQ and NDP combined still had more seats than the Conservatives
We used to lead the world with technical innovation, but instead of investing for the long term to make things cheaper, it gets sold abroad for a shift profit for the spiv class, leaving the product more expensive long term.
Here's a starter for 10. Instead of slashing Corporation Tax and handing cash over for no benefit, insist that lower CTax has to pay a living wage, invest in training and R&D.
Although I suppose if we do all die, Sunak ceases to be PM so that prediction is correct.
Game Theory time.
Postulates
1) The Conservative Party is heading for a drubbing
2) Many Conservative MPs will lose seats
3) This will mean many Conservative MPs will be on the job market.
4) the kind of jobs ex politicians want - consulting, influence pedalling etc are not infinite in number.
How many might quit early? Announcing you are standing down at the next election is one thing. A number have done this.
Standing down *now* and getting away from the association with the “oncoming freight train” must be attractive.
How many will do that? Early “defectors” win…
Could we see a non trivial erosion of the governments majority?
So there was no sincere threat of us going extinct. Now, there is, from any one or a combination of those threats. The threat is vanishingly small, but it is there, and not quite as small as it was
Probably the last time homo sapiens was this endangered was when we were still in Africa, 150,000 years ago, and nearly got wiped out by the weather
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-sea-saved-humanity-2012-12-07/
And if I felt cynical I might suggest a non-trivial number would take the job and still stand and get defeated for that very reason.
That should get @leon rolling.
Yes, I know. A management structure that resembles the worst excesses of the NHS.
NEW THREAD
The most extreme nuclear war/biological war concepts ever created would kill maybe 90% of the human race. Survival would be biased to hunter gathers and low tech farmers.
Rebuilding would be much easier. The steel in a few building structures might be more iron than the Roman Empire used. In its entirety…
Flint knapping wouldn’t be a useful skill.
PM.
Even if the NDP would have blocked a Scheer government no guarantee at all they would have blocked a more centrist O'Toole government in 2021 if the Conservatives had won most seats
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf
Even if we are not, I tend to agree with you about the threat to humanity.
Martin Rees - Our Final Century - gives a well argued case that it is about 50/50 that we survive this century so perhaps a 98% chance that we survive this year. 50/1 hmm
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Our-Final-Century-Civilisation-Twenty-first/dp/0099436868