This election was the worst she has been though. Door step reaction utterly dire.
We are back to Corbyn being poison.
I think Nandy might be the best shout for a Kinnock-vs-Militant style clear out that gives Labour a shot not at 2024, but at 2029. Rayner not trusted by the left, RLB and Burgon too lefty and bovine, Starmer too metropolitan and won't carry the membership. But I don't think Labour will go for that.
The Con voter in me says to want an unelectable Corbynista like Burgon, but I just can't put the Jewish people I know through another election like that.
Stop it with your Burgon. Even I would vote for Johnson, if that huge pudding became Labour Leader.
I am not so sure. If last week told us anything it is that Labour have a bigger toxicity issue than the Tories. Racism being a big one.
But the Tories are also racists will be the retort. The Tories brand of racism is one that touches a nerve in Rochdale and Rotherham. I may be outraged at 'letter boxes', and 'bank robbers' but there are people out there thinking 'letter boxes and bank robbers? Boris is on our page!
I think you've got this the wrong way round. The lesson of this election was that the Tories are becoming less toxic in that people who previously have said they wouldn't ever vote Tory are now doing so, particularly among working class voters. This is something that Labour should frankly have known was going to happen at some point - the trend was in the long-term data (as the FT thread showed) and Fatcha, even Major, are fading memories for many.
It also showed that plenty of people were not prepared to vote for Labour if they didn't like the party very much (i.e. you need to earn their votes and can't assume they'll be automatically in the bag). This is neither new nor a Labour-specific issue. Yes it will have harmed the Labour brand. But I don't think it's the same as the party being long-term toxic in the same way that "The Nasty Party" (copyright T May) got, because it seems that many traditional Lab voters who went elsewhere in 2019 still identify with the party to some extent and will be willing to vote for it again, particularly if "trying to undo my Brexit vote" and "leadership in cahoots with terrorists, won't sign the national anthem" type doubts can be removed.
Toxicity is really about ceilings not floors, and Labour's performance at this election tells us more about their floor than their ceiling. (We also got to see some impression of the Tory ceiling under a "reaches the parts other leaders can't" kind of PM, so we have learned a little about Tory toxicity.) All the "brand strength" and "could you ever consider voting ... " polling, even during the Corbyn era, suggested Labour had a decent upside if they could only just exploit it, and were at an advantage relative to the Conservatives on this front. A new leader ought to be better-placed to reach out, if they were able to overcome the party's internal mechanics, which remain inward-looking.
One thing we were told Jezza was, was definitely a decent bloke.
Now loads of defeated Labour MPs are saying neither him nor any of his cronies have the decency to phone them up and offer apologises / support for them and their staff.
Why did anyone ever think that? The man did not even have the decency to speak to Luciana Berger when she was being hounded and threatened during her pregnancy.
One thing we were told Jezza was, was definitely a decent bloke.
Now loads of defeated Labour MPs are saying neither him nor any of his cronies have the decency to phone them up and offer apologises / support for them and their staff.
Hmm, it's a bit irrelevant now, but I think their underlying dislike of Corbyn is leading this. Nobody rang me or my staff up when we lost in 2010, and we didn't expect them to, though obviously it's nice that Cameron did. If I'd been a regular critic of Brown and tried to get rid of him, I definitely wouldn't have expected it.
I think I have just spotted why Boris might have had such a weird reaction to somebody saying look at this photo.
Just watching the Laura K Brexit programme from earlier this evening and on a walk about, Boris is taking selfies with members of the public and it is all very nice. Then a woman comes up, takes a photo and then says look at his photo, shoves the phone in his face, and then says he looks just like you....he could be your love child....
One thing we were told Jezza was, was definitely a decent bloke.
Now loads of defeated Labour MPs are saying neither him nor any of his cronies have the decency to phone them up and offer apologises / support for them and their staff.
Why did anyone ever think that? The man did not even have the decency to speak to Luciana Berger when she was being hounded and threatened during her pregnancy.
I didn't, but all the Cult tell us that Magic Grandpa is if nothing else a principled decent honest man.
I’ve also got money on Rayner at decent odds for next Labour leader.
I had almost given up on this bet earlier today, following the flatmates reported post-breakfast announcement of what I shall christen the “Granola Pact”. But now I’m not quite so sure.
As was the case with Brown and Blair, RLB is more closely connected with the leadership and is the presumed, heir apparent but lacks the presence of her junior colleague. RLB is drifting back out in the betting and Rayner’s odds suggest she may not be a non-runner after all.
One thing we were told Jezza was, was definitely a decent bloke.
Now loads of defeated Labour MPs are saying neither him nor any of his cronies have the decency to phone them up and offer apologises / support for them and their staff.
Hmm, it's a bit irrelevant now, but I think their underlying dislike of Corbyn is leading this. Nobody rang me or my staff up when we lost in 2010, and we didn't expect them to, though obviously it's nice that Cameron did. If I'd been a regular critic of Brown and tried to get rid of him, I definitely wouldn't have expected it.
I would hope that one could rise above that and say despite our past differences I am sorry, if there is anything we as a party can do for you or your team please let me know. It is the right thing to do.
It strikes me that we collectively know less than is ideal about the electorate who has to make this unenviable choice. Presumably 60% of them are still barking mad Momentum types who take orders direct from Jon Lansman? Or did the rift that opened up over Pete Willsman/Chris Williamson develop into a full scale split?
In which case, who do the splitters now take orders from? Is it possible that two left wingers on the ballot ends up with them letting Phillips/Nandy through the middle, even under AV?
Note that I am explicitly ignoring the possibility that they will be making their own minds up. In addition, I feel there's likely to be an as-yet-undeclared runner in this race. There's a tiny outside chance that it might be Claudia Webbe.
I think people with zero involvement in Labour internal politics shouldn't get too caught up with the importance of Momentum. They are Corbyn's most organised and vocal cheerleaders yes, but in terms of selectorate votes this was only part of his winning coalition. Also, the average age may not be as low as you think just because you see loads of student-politicians or just-graduated activists voicing off on twitter and demos.
More to the point is that the selectorate is heavily London-dominated. I don't think this is great for Nandy whose "thing" that that she's been working on for years is basically "Northern towns, Northern towns, Northern towns". If people are thinking "why did we lose - hold on, we could have done without losing all those Northern towns?" then maybe that bodes well for her. But I wonder whether other contenders, even if they are Northerners representing seats in The North, might have a more universal message that appeals more directly in London.
One thing we were told Jezza was, was definitely a decent bloke.
Now loads of defeated Labour MPs are saying neither him nor any of his cronies have the decency to phone them up and offer apologises / support for them and their staff.
Why did anyone ever think that? The man did not even have the decency to speak to Luciana Berger when she was being hounded and threatened during her pregnancy.
He is usually soft spoken, mild mannered (except when journalists are involved) and says nice things about talking to people and wanting peace - it makes him seem humble, dignified and nice. As things have happened though, it seems to disguise his arrogance and vanity in being an icon, that being more important than genuine acknowledgement of fault (acknowledgement while casting the blame on other things is not acknowledgement) and delivering for people.
One thing we were told Jezza was, was definitely a decent bloke.
Now loads of defeated Labour MPs are saying neither him nor any of his cronies have the decency to phone them up and offer apologises / support for them and their staff.
Hmm, it's a bit irrelevant now, but I think their underlying dislike of Corbyn is leading this. Nobody rang me or my staff up when we lost in 2010, and we didn't expect them to, though obviously it's nice that Cameron did. If I'd been a regular critic of Brown and tried to get rid of him, I definitely wouldn't have expected it.
I think you are probably right about why this particular issue is getting aired so much, I don't think it itself speaks much to him, but I maintain that being a nice, humble person requires more than a pleasant old man demeanour, and his actions as a leader show that while he has not been the type to seek out power, having reached the top of his party he has allowed his arrogance and vanity to run amok, getting carried away by praise he received and ignoring any criticism as from enemies, even within the party.
It strikes me that we collectively know less than is ideal about the electorate who has to make this unenviable choice. Presumably 60% of them are still barking mad Momentum types who take orders direct from Jon Lansman? Or did the rift that opened up over Pete Willsman/Chris Williamson develop into a full scale split?
In which case, who do the splitters now take orders from? Is it possible that two left wingers on the ballot ends up with them letting Phillips/Nandy through the middle, even under AV?
Note that I am explicitly ignoring the possibility that they will be making their own minds up. In addition, I feel there's likely to be an as-yet-undeclared runner in this race. There's a tiny outside chance that it might be Claudia Webbe.
I think people outside the party overrate Momentum as an organisation. They're simply a left-wing ginger group. I've been a member since the start. They text me at election time urging me to help in marginals. They recommend candidates for the NEC, which is helpful as most of us have never heard of half the candidates. And that's it. They hold no meetings, don't have a newspaper or a website. Months go by with zero messages from them. For well-known candidates, members make up their own minds.
What is certainly true is that perhaps 55-60% of the membership thinks of itself as left-wing. But we don't have an agreement on what that actually means, so most of the potential candidates will get a hearing.
One other thing that is noticeable from this Laura K Brexit programme, Boris was using this "Get Brexit Done" slogan from day one as PM. I wonder when it first got focus grouped etc?
It strikes me that we collectively know less than is ideal about the electorate who has to make this unenviable choice. Presumably 60% of them are still barking mad Momentum types who take orders direct from Jon Lansman? Or did the rift that opened up over Pete Willsman/Chris Williamson develop into a full scale split?
In which case, who do the splitters now take orders from? Is it possible that two left wingers on the ballot ends up with them letting Phillips/Nandy through the middle, even under AV?
Note that I am explicitly ignoring the possibility that they will be making their own minds up. In addition, I feel there's likely to be an as-yet-undeclared runner in this race. There's a tiny outside chance that it might be Claudia Webbe.
I think people outside the party overrate Momentum as an organisation. They're simply a left-wing ginger group. I've been a member since the start. They text me at election time urging me to help in marginals. They recommend candidates for the NEC, which is helpful as most of us have never heard of half the candidates. And that's it. They hold no meetings, don't have a newspaper or a website. Months go by with zero messages from them. For well-known candidates, members make up their own minds.
What is certainly true is that perhaps 55-60% of the membership thinks of itself as left-wing. But we don't have an agreedment on what that actually means, so most of the potential candidates will get a hearing.
I think it is disingenuous to say they don't have a newspaper or website. They are a number of "news" sites that have been setup which push the Momentum agenda every day.
One thing we were told Jezza was, was definitely a decent bloke.
Now loads of defeated Labour MPs are saying neither him nor any of his cronies have the decency to phone them up and offer apologises / support for them and their staff.
Why did anyone ever think that? The man did not even have the decency to speak to Luciana Berger when she was being hounded and threatened during her pregnancy.
I didn't, but all the Cult tell us that Magic Grandpa is if nothing else a principled decent honest man.
To anyone involved in Labour Party politics over the last forty years who wasn't a raging Trot, Corbyn was always a dreadful and dangerous fool.
I am not so sure. If last week told us anything it is that Labour have a bigger toxicity issue than the Tories. Racism being a big one.
But the Tories are also racists will be the retort. The Tories brand of racism is one that touches a nerve in Rochdale and Rotherham. I may be outraged at 'letter boxes', and 'bank robbers' but there are people out there thinking 'letter boxes and bank robbers? Boris is on our page!
I think you've got this the wrong way round. The lesson of this election was that the Tories are becoming less toxic in that people who previously have said they wouldn't ever vote Tory are now doing so, particularly among working class voters. This is something that Labour should frankly have known was going to happen at some point - the trend was in the long-term data (as the FT thread showed) and Fatcha, even Major, are fading memories for many.
It also showed that plenty of people were not prepared to vote for Labour if they didn't like the party very much (i.e. you need to earn their votes and can't assume they'll be automatically in the bag). This is neither new nor a Labour-specific issue. Yes it will have harmed the Labour brand. But I don't think it's the same as the party being long-term toxic in the same way that "The Nasty Party" (copyright T May) got, because it seems that many traditional Lab voters who went elsewhere in 2019 still identify with the party to some extent and will be willing to vote for it again, particularly if "trying to undo my Brexit vote" and "leadership in cahoots with terrorists, won't sign the national anthem" type doubts can be removed.
Toxicity is really about ceilings not floors, and Labour's performance at this election tells us more about their floor than their ceiling. (We also got to see some impression of the Tory ceiling under a "reaches the parts other leaders can't" kind of PM, so we have learned a little about Tory toxicity.) All the "brand strength" and "could you ever consider voting ... " polling, even during the Corbyn era, suggested Labour had a decent upside if they could only just exploit it, and were at an advantage relative to the Conservatives on this front. A new leader ought to be better-placed to reach out, if they were able to overcome the party's internal mechanics, which remain inward-looking.
It strikes me that we collectively know less than is ideal about the electorate who has to make this unenviable choice. Presumably 60% of them are still barking mad Momentum types who take orders direct from Jon Lansman? Or did the rift that opened up over Pete Willsman/Chris Williamson develop into a full scale split?
In which case, who do the splitters now take orders from? Is it possible that two left wingers on the ballot ends up with them letting Phillips/Nandy through the middle, even under AV?
Note that I am explicitly ignoring the possibility that they will be making their own minds up. In addition, I feel there's likely to be an as-yet-undeclared runner in this race. There's a tiny outside chance that it might be Claudia Webbe.
I think people outside the party overrate Momentum as an organisation. They're simply a left-wing ginger group. I've been a member since the start. They text me at election time urging me to help in marginals. They recommend candidates for the NEC, which is helpful as most of us have never heard of half the candidates. And that's it. They hold no meetings, don't have a newspaper or a website. Months go by with zero messages from them. For well-known candidates, members make up their own minds.
What is certainly true is that perhaps 55-60% of the membership thinks of itself as left-wing. But we don't have an agreedment on what that actually means, so most of the potential candidates will get a hearing.
Nick. You were very close with your GE Tory majority prediction of 60 seats, despite it being very far from what you would have wanted to happen.
Care to share your thoughts on the current value bets in the Labour leadership election?
It strikes me that we collectively know less than is ideal about the electorate who has to make this unenviable choice. Presumably 60% of them are still barking mad Momentum types who take orders direct from Jon Lansman? Or did the rift that opened up over Pete Willsman/Chris Williamson develop into a full scale split?
In which case, who do the splitters now take orders from? Is it possible that two left wingers on the ballot ends up with them letting Phillips/Nandy through the middle, even under AV?
Note that I am explicitly ignoring the possibility that they will be making their own minds up. In addition, I feel there's likely to be an as-yet-undeclared runner in this race. There's a tiny outside chance that it might be Claudia Webbe.
I think people with zero involvement in Labour internal politics shouldn't get too caught up with the importance of Momentum. They are Corbyn's most organised and vocal cheerleaders yes, but in terms of selectorate votes this was only part of his winning coalition. Also, the average age may not be as low as you think just because you see loads of student-politicians or just-graduated activists voicing off on twitter and demos.
More to the point is that the selectorate is heavily London-dominated. I don't think this is great for Nandy whose "thing" that that she's been working on for years is basically "Northern towns, Northern towns, Northern towns". If people are thinking "why did we lose - hold on, we could have done without losing all those Northern towns?" then maybe that bodes well for her. But I wonder whether other contenders, even if they are Northerners representing seats in The North, might have a more universal message that appeals more directly in London.
Thanks. I'm possibly overreacting to the NEC elections, where it seemed very clear that the official Momentum slate had a huge inbuilt advantage, even after Willsman was removed from it. My assumption was this was Momentum driven. In terms of Corbyn's original election, obviously he eventually won among existing members and trade unionists as well as the new members, prior to Momentum being set up.
I am not so sure. If last week told us anything it is that Labour have a bigger toxicity issue than the Tories. Racism being a big one.
But the Tories are also racists will be the retort. The Tories brand of racism is one that touches a nerve in Rochdale and Rotherham. I may be outraged at 'letter boxes', and 'bank robbers' but there are people out there thinking 'letter boxes and bank robbers? Boris is on our page!
I think you've got this the wrong way round. The lesson of this election was that the Tories are becoming less toxic in that people who previously have said they wouldn't ever vote Tory are now doing so, particularly among working class voters. This is something that Labour should frankly have known was going to happen at some point - the trend was in the long-term data (as the FT thread showed) and Fatcha, even Major, are fading memories for many.
It also showed that plenty of people were not prepared to vote for Labour if they didn't like the party very much (i.e. you need to earn their votes and can't assume they'll be automatically in the bag). This is neither new nor a Labour-specific issue. Yes it will have harmed the Labour brand. But I don't think it's the same as the party being long-term toxic in the same way that "The Nasty Party" (copyright T May) got, because it seems that many traditional Lab voters who went elsewhere in 2019 still identify with the party to some extent and will be willing to vote for it again, particularly if "trying to undo my Brexit vote" and "leadership in cahoots with terrorists, won't sign the national anthem" type doubts can be removed.
Toxicity is really about ceilings not floors, and Labour's performance at this election tells us more about their floor than their ceiling. (We also got to see some impression of the Tory ceiling under a "reaches the parts other leaders can't" kind of PM, so we have learned a little about Tory toxicity.) All the "brand strength" and "could you ever consider voting ... " polling, even during the Corbyn era, suggested Labour had a decent upside if they could only just exploit it, and were at an advantage relative to the Conservatives on this front. A new leader ought to be better-placed to reach out, if they were able to overcome the party's internal mechanics, which remain inward-looking.
I think it is disingenuous to say they don't have a newspaper or website. They are a number of "news" sites that have been setup which push the Momentum agenda every day.
Sure, there are any number of websites pushing all kinds of agendas. But I've never had a message from Momentum encouraging me to follow one or another, and I very much doubt if more than 10% of the membership regularly follows any of them. My point is that it doesn't try to organise and influence in the way that non-members think (I was responding to Endillion, who seemed to envisage it as a tightly-knit body issuing orders). What it does is try to motivate those of us who are already broadly left-wing.
It strikes me that we collectively know less than is ideal about the electorate who has to make this unenviable choice. Presumably 60% of them are still barking mad Momentum types who take orders direct from Jon Lansman? Or did the rift that opened up over Pete Willsman/Chris Williamson develop into a full scale split?
In which case, who do the splitters now take orders from? Is it possible that two left wingers on the ballot ends up with them letting Phillips/Nandy through the middle, even under AV?
Note that I am explicitly ignoring the possibility that they will be making their own minds up. In addition, I feel there's likely to be an as-yet-undeclared runner in this race. There's a tiny outside chance that it might be Claudia Webbe.
It’s very plausible there is an outsider with a great chance who is yet to declare but how bad would Claudia Webbe be? I know she replaced Keith Vaz and faced an Asian candidate but her campaigning must have been awful to allow a 15% swing.
I think it is disingenuous to say they don't have a newspaper or website. They are a number of "news" sites that have been setup which push the Momentum agenda every day.
Sure, there are any number of websites pushing all kinds of agendas. But I've never had a message from Momentum encouraging me to follow one or another, and I very much doubt if more than 10% of the membership regularly follows any of them. My point is that it doesn't try to organise and influence in the way that non-members think (I was responding to Endillion, who seemed to envisage it as a tightly-knit body issuing orders). What it does is try to motivate those of us who are already broadly left-wing.
Oh, I'm under no illusions as to the level of organisation actually involved. From my external perspective, all I see is what goes on Twitter, which may or may not be representative. The messaging that was being produced around the NEC elections last year was somewhat eye-opening.
I think people with zero involvement in Labour internal politics shouldn't get too caught up with the importance of Momentum. They are Corbyn's most organised and vocal cheerleaders yes, but in terms of selectorate votes this was only part of his winning coalition. Also, the average age may not be as low as you think just because you see loads of student-politicians or just-graduated activists voicing off on twitter and demos.
More to the point is that the selectorate is heavily London-dominated. I don't think this is great for Nandy whose "thing" that that she's been working on for years is basically "Northern towns, Northern towns, Northern towns". If people are thinking "why did we lose - hold on, we could have done without losing all those Northern towns?" then maybe that bodes well for her. But I wonder whether other contenders, even if they are Northerners representing seats in The North, might have a more universal message that appeals more directly in London.
Thanks. I'm possibly overreacting to the NEC elections, where it seemed very clear that the official Momentum slate had a huge inbuilt advantage, even after Willsman was removed from it. My assumption was this was Momentum driven. In terms of Corbyn's original election, obviously he eventually won among existing members and trade unionists as well as the new members, prior to Momentum being set up.
Nick has just added more than me, but Momentum's effect on NEC is large because the emails you get from them (recommend signing up - on a "spare" anonymous email address - even if you don't share their views but have an interest in internal Labour politics, but as I said before don't overestimate their importance) get around the "I've never heard of this person" issue. When you tick a name in an internal election, you don't get told their subfaction ("Emma Jones, JC4PM subparty;Tom Smith, Momentum; Sam King, Bring Back Blair Front"). If you get an email saying "We need your help - vote Tom Smith!" then you know what the Momentum backers want, and if that's "your" side of the spectrum, then you know who to vote for. Might be worth doing a cursory google to check what daft scandals they've been involved in and a quick scan of their twitter feed, but suspect most voters are low-effort and won't bother doing that.
When it comes to a leadership election, this effect is not so powerful because the contenders are well-known.
Also as Francis says, plenty of "outriders" linked to this side of the party have independent media operations. If you want to get a feel for what they think/feel, look at their blogs etc. The Momentum emails are just the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, remember that these people are not where the centre of the Labour party is, even with its new and increasingly left-wing membership, so don't get too caught up in it.
I think it is disingenuous to say they don't have a newspaper or website. They are a number of "news" sites that have been setup which push the Momentum agenda every day.
Sure, there are any number of websites pushing all kinds of agendas. But I've never had a message from Momentum encouraging me to follow one or another, and I very much doubt if more than 10% of the membership regularly follows any of them. My point is that it doesn't try to organise and influence in the way that non-members think (I was responding to Endillion, who seemed to envisage it as a tightly-knit body issuing orders). What it does is try to motivate those of us who are already broadly left-wing.
They may not be issuing "orders", but is it a coincidence that they "recommended" 9 members for the NEC last year, and all 9 were voted in?
However, I think the leadership election may be different. With the NEC, most people don't really know the names, or if they do, don't see these people in the media very often. As a result many are happy to take guidance.
Most members are well aware of Long-Bailey, Starmer etc., and I've seen very few mentions of people being impressed by Long-Bailey. If Rayner was standing for leader, then I suspect a Momentum stamp of approval could push her over the line.
Nick has just added more than me, but Momentum's effect on NEC is large because the emails you get from them (recommend signing up - on a "spare" anonymous email address - even if you don't share their views but have an interest in internal Labour politics, but as I said before don't overestimate their importance) get around the "I've never heard of this person" issue. When you tick a name in an internal election, you don't get told their subfaction ("Emma Jones, JC4PM subparty;Tom Smith, Momentum; Sam King, Bring Back Blair Front"). If you get an email saying "We need your help - vote Tom Smith!" then you know what the Momentum backers want, and if that's "your" side of the spectrum, then you know who to vote for. Might be worth doing a cursory google to check what daft scandals they've been involved in and a quick scan of their twitter feed, but suspect most voters are low-effort and won't bother doing that.
When it comes to a leadership election, this effect is not so powerful because the contenders are well-known.
Also as Francis says, plenty of "outriders" linked to this side of the party have independent media operations. If you want to get a feel for what they think/feel, look at their blogs etc. The Momentum emails are just the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, remember that these people are not where the centre of the Labour party is, even with its new and increasingly left-wing membership, so don't get too caught up in it.
I'm looking at the futures/options firm assurehedge.com . Is it kosher? Are they careless with data or liable to bugger off to a nonextradition country when things go kaka?
You can hum and har about how x, y and z will be good or not so good but I reckon Beccy Long Bailey is going to win.
Nah, she'll LOSE in 2024
There might be an election before then, it's Britain afterall.
I think those days are over. I think it'll go to 2024 or later.
The Conservatives have a big majority. If things are going well, then there *might* be a 2023 General Election, but it's not likely.
If things are going badly, then the government will put of an election to the very last minute - either mid or late 2024.
If things are going really, really, really badly - to the extent that the Conservative Party has split - then we might have an earlier election. But it doesn't seem very likely.
I'm looking at the futures/options firm assurehedge.com . Is it kosher? Are they careless with data or liable to bugger off to a nonextradition country when things go kaka?
You can hum and har about how x, y and z will be good or not so good but I reckon Beccy Long Bailey is going to win.
Nah, she'll LOSE in 2024
There might be an election before then, it's Britain afterall.
I think those days are over. I think it'll go to 2024 or later.
The Conservatives have a big majority. If things are going well, then there *might* be a 2023 General Election, but it's not likely.
If things are going badly, then the government will put of an election to the very last minute - either mid or late 2024.
If things are going really, really, really badly - to the extent that the Conservative Party has split - then we might have an earlier election. But it doesn't seem very likely.
If my analysis is correct, then a Nandy-style "let's build a bridge between Lewisham and Leigh again" coalition repair job, a Neo-Blairite push to recapture Middle England, and a leftier strategy of "we only need to get lucky once, which we will since the university-education ethnic-minority demographics are trending in our favour" might all represent missed opportunities. Someone with creativity and insight who can see through the shifting sands of Post-Brexit Britain and the Great Class/Income Dealignment might grasp how to sculpt an entirely new formula with the potential to win big again in the future - though they might not be granted the remit to attempt it.
Reckon there's scope for me to write a shortish header expounding on that post?
It strikes me that we collectively know less than is ideal about the electorate who has to make this unenviable choice. Presumably 60% of them are still barking mad Momentum types who take orders direct from Jon Lansman? Or did the rift that opened up over Pete Willsman/Chris Williamson develop into a full scale split?
In which case, who do the splitters now take orders from? Is it possible that two left wingers on the ballot ends up with them letting Phillips/Nandy through the middle, even under AV?
Note that I am explicitly ignoring the possibility that they will be making their own minds up. In addition, I feel there's likely to be an as-yet-undeclared runner in this race. There's a tiny outside chance that it might be Claudia Webbe.
It’s very plausible there is an outsider with a great chance who is yet to declare but how bad would Claudia Webbe be? I know she replaced Keith Vaz and faced an Asian candidate but her campaigning must have been awful to allow a 15% swing.
Didn't the chairman of the local CLP slate Corbyn, resign from the party and encourage people to vote Tory once Webbe was put in as candidate. Can't have helped..
I liked that Nandy isn't one of these "I could never be a friend of a Tory" types like Pidock. I always find it weird when you hear politicians say this kind of thing, because in the real world most of us have friends that have different political views, and we all learn from doing so.
"Quick, I need a city beginning with A!!!" "Aberdeen?" "Too Scottish" "Abergavenny?" "Too Welsh" "Andover?" "God have you been there? No" "OK, how about Abbotsford?" "Brilliant! Scottish but sounds English! I'll take it!" "Good"
Pause
"Now get off my doorstep and go home Francesca, you psycho"
It looks like a Starmer v Long Bailey race, Starmer as the Portillo style 'moderniser' candidate, Long-Bailey as the IDS style 'traditionalist' candidate after a heavy defeat to the re elected governing party
You can hum and har about how x, y and z will be good or not so good but I reckon Beccy Long Bailey is going to win.
Nah, she'll LOSE in 2024
There might be an election before then, it's Britain afterall.
I think those days are over. I think it'll go to 2024 or later.
The Conservatives have a big majority. If things are going well, then there *might* be a 2023 General Election, but it's not likely.
If things are going badly, then the government will put of an election to the very last minute - either mid or late 2024.
If things are going really, really, really badly - to the extent that the Conservative Party has split - then we might have an earlier election. But it doesn't seem very likely.
It's complicated by the fact that it's December 2019. Any date in 2023 is at most four years and nineteen days after the last election. He won't do it.
I am not so sure. If last week told us anything it is that Labour have a bigger toxicity issue than the Tories. Racism being a big one.
But the Tories are also racists will be the retort. The Tories brand of racism is one that touches a nerve in Rochdale and Rotherham. I may be outraged at 'letter boxes', and 'bank robbers' but there are people out there thinking 'letter boxes and bank robbers? Boris is on our page!
I think you've got this the wrong way round. The lesson of this election was that the Tories are becoming less toxic in that people who previously have said they wouldn't ever vote Tory are now doing so, particularly among working class voters. This is something that Labour should frankly have known was going to happen at some point - the trend was in the long-term data (as the FT thread showed) and Fatcha, even Major, are fading memories for many.
There was some striking polling that showed Johnson/Hancock were more trusted on the NHS than Corbyn/Ashworth.
The question is, how much of that toxicity attached to Corbyn has rubbed off on Labour?
Interesting what Nandy said about building a "bridge" (as opposed to rebuilding the Red Wall) between the "Lewisham" and the "Leigh" parts of their coalition.
I wonder if in a way this kind of thinking is backwards and fighting the last war. With voting affiliation increasingly independent of social class and with Brexit out of the way, and if you had a good 4-5 years to reshape the direction of the Labour party however you wanted (whether the party membership / MPs would let you is a big "if" of course...) could you build a completely new coalition?
One thing in Labour's favour is they have lower brand-toxicity than the Tories - so there are more people out there who don't vote Labour who might be willing to switch for the right cause. And Labour did very well in some nationwide segments, e.g. parents, which reminded me of how Tony Blair managed to normalise Labour-voting among Middle England.
I'm not the kind of political genius to be able to put the jigsaw together. But I don't think one can rule out the possibility of there being some different angle of attack for Labour than just trying to cobble their old voter coalition together. Whether they can take it or not is another issue.
The thing is, Nandy's proposals are *both* morally *and* electorally appealing. Maybe you're right that building a new coalition could be more electorally successful, but it would still need to be underpinned by some values.
Two different ways to fail are (1) be so ideologically pure that you are unelectable; or (2) be so obsessed with appealing to diffferent parts of the electorate that you do no good even if you do win. Everyone's rightly focused on how Labour need to get away from (1) at the moment, but your idea sounds like (2) unless this new coalition actually represents something worth fighting for?
Economics does not always play as big a part as some of us would like — Project Fear had its origins in the 2014 referendum — but the economics of Scottish independence are clear. It is about 40 years too late.
So I was thinking of joining the Labour Party to help them out with their Crazy Person infestation, hopefully they'll return the favour later and give me a hand with my cave crickets.
Anybody know: * I'm a British citizen but not a UK resident, and the Labour Party took away my right to vote in British elections. But can I still join the Labour Party and vote on their leader? * Logistically, would the ballot get to Japan and back in time?
The thing is, Nandy's proposals are *both* morally *and* electorally appealing. Maybe you're right that building a new coalition could be more electorally successful, but it would still need to be underpinned by some values.
Two different ways to fail are (1) be so ideologically pure that you are unelectable; or (2) be so obsessed with appealing to diffferent parts of the electorate that you do no good even if you do win. Everyone's rightly focused on how Labour need to get away from (1) at the moment, but your idea sounds like (2) unless this new coalition actually represents something worth fighting for?
Excellent post. Agree that Nandy offers an interesting and appealing combination, not least because her values she's basing her offer on seem generally non-exclusionary (not identity-driven, not a jot of "Me and my principles are right, and if you don't like it then you aren't my kind of people and don't have a part in this project").
I don't mean "try to appeal to everyone at once" since, as you've said, that way you're on a hiding to nothing. You do need to appeal to enough people though - one worry about a focus on rediscovering a way to talk to both Leigh and Lewisham is that at best that gets you back to 2017 or 2015 and that's not enough. (Scotland is a big issue of course.)
I'll chuck in a (3) - you can fail by fighting the last war, or the one before that. Your next winning coalition may not look like your previous ones, though it will surely incorporate elements of them. This often means appealing to people currently not considered part of the party's core base, and likely under-represented in the party membership, which is a problem with leadership elections!
Post-Brexit and post-class dealignment, there is a possibly unprecedented opportunity to radically shake up voter coalitions. Labour are in principle well-placed to take advantage of it - it ought to be easier to reshape your coalition from opposition than government, and Labour's "upside" (as represented by % of people who would at least consider voting for them) is likely still higher than the Tories. Labour are also in more desperate need of a shake-up, since their past winning coalitions included strong Scottish performances. They should at least reflect on the possible paths open to them, even if it takes them beyond their comfort zone. (I fear the current comfort zone of their activists is dangerously small.)
Excellent post. Agree that Nandy offers an interesting and appealing combination, not least because her values she's basing her offer on seem generally non-exclusionary (not identity-driven, not a jot of "Me and my principles are right, and if you don't like it then you aren't my kind of people and don't have a part in this project").
I don't mean "try to appeal to everyone at once" since, as you've said, that way you're on a hiding to nothing. You do need to appeal to enough people though - one worry about a focus on rediscovering a way to talk to both Leigh and Lewisham is that at best that gets you back to 2017 or 2015 and that's not enough. (Scotland is a big issue of course.)
I'll chuck in a (3) - you can fail by fighting the last war, or the one before that. Your next winning coalition may not look like your previous ones, though it will surely incorporate elements of them. This often means appealing to people currently not considered part of the party's core base, and likely under-represented in the party membership, which is a problem with leadership elections!
Post-Brexit and post-class dealignment, there is a possibly unprecedented opportunity to radically shake up voter coalitions. Labour are in principle well-placed to take advantage of it - it ought to be easier to reshape your coalition from opposition than government, and Labour's "upside" (as represented by % of people who would at least consider voting for them) is likely still higher than the Tories. Labour are also in more desperate need of a shake-up, since their past winning coalitions included strong Scottish performances. They should at least reflect on the possible paths open to them, even if it takes them beyond their comfort zone. (I fear the current comfort zone of their activists is dangerously small.)
I do agree that (3) is a common route to failure. Something that I think is down the lines of a new coaltion that you are suggesting, and which actually came from Corbyn's team in 2017 (and then disappeared, as far as I know) was the idea of a National Care Service. It would only have had to win support from a small proportion of older voters to make a big difference, given the size of the demographic group and the way they currently vote. And it ought to hold appeal to middle-aged voters as well. Hugely expensive though.
And I couldn't agree more about exclusionary ideas being a major problem, probably the major problem. The failure to recognise that not everyone has to care about intersectionality (even though I do, personally). The failure to recognise that small-c conservatives who work tirelessly for vulnerable people in their community deserve nothing but respect. The notion that such people need to be "educated"....
Something that I think is down the lines of a new coaltion that you are suggesting, and which actually came from Corbyn's team in 2017 (and then disappeared, as far as I know) was the idea of a National Care Service. It would only have had to win support from a small proportion of older voters to make a big difference, given the size of the demographic group and the way they currently vote. And it ought to hold appeal to middle-aged voters as well. Hugely expensive though.
Yes, that's a good example since older people are a demographic that Labour could really benefit from making a credible offer to - also, the party membership is older than people realise and generally positive about the health'n'care sector anyway (there's the odd wager of inter-generational war who claims they'd like the oldies wiped out but obviously they're massively outnumbered by those who work in the sector!) so it's even an attractive pitch to the membership. In 2019, the pitch was repeated:
Jeremy Corbyn unveils £10 billion plan for free personal care for the elderly
EXCLUSIVE The Labour leader said he would cap social care bills at £30,000 - reducing the number of people facing costs of £100k or more by 70,000
Jeremy Corbyn will today unveil a £10billion a year package to provide free personal care for the elderly.
And he will cap at £30,000 the amount anyone has to spend on being looked after in later life.
That will reduce by 70,000 the number of people now facing costs of £100,000 or more.
Got lost in the noise about privatising the water companies and free broadband though, I suspect. Was there any polling of the "do you recognise this manifesto promise" kind?
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of the election campaign was the complete lack of focus on the two biggest long term threats to the UK:
- Terrible productivity growth since the recession - Abysmal balance of payments figures
Until both of those quandaries are tackled, the idea that the conservatives or labour can bring any form of sustained prosperity to the Midlands & North are pie in the sky.
Agreed. But how does a government stop people being lazy and buying loads of foreign tat with their disposable income?
The short answer is: they cannot.
Chronic low productivity and addiction to buying foreign goods and services are cultural phenomena. They take a lot of time to change, probably several generations.
The key is self-respect. There is not much of that about in England at the moment. The nation is rife with cads and bullies. Self-hatred is the order of the day.
Just been catching up on YouGov's latest favourability ratings - Corbyn completely in the basement, though poor Jo Swinson gets a terrible kicking as well - but also this stood out:
Nicola Sturgeon - net favourability... With 2017 Con voters: -77 With 2016 Leave voters: -70
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Johnson's intransigence over Indyref2 can survive another Nat or Nat/Green majority at Holyrood come 2021, one gathers the impression that his new voter coalition will not exactly be distraught at his refusal to play ball with the First Minister.
Whether this also indicates that the Tory base is truly committed to the Union, or if it's more the case that they don't care and are simply disinclined to listen to Scottish special pleading, who can say? More research required.
A Westminster Bubble way of looking at the world if ever I saw one.
Rather than looking at what 2017 Con voters and 2016 Leave voters think (or, more accurately, feel), ask yourself occasionally what Scots think (or, more accurately, feel).
The key to saving the Union lies in Scotland, not in England. But feel free to keep searching in the wrong place.
So I was thinking of joining the Labour Party to help them out with their Crazy Person infestation, hopefully they'll return the favour later and give me a hand with my cave crickets.
Anybody know: * I'm a British citizen but not a UK resident, and the Labour Party took away my right to vote in British elections. But can I still join the Labour Party and vote on their leader? * Logistically, would the ballot get to Japan and back in time?
I think I voted online for the NEC positions. Maybe check if that's an option for leader...
Something that I think is down the lines of a new coaltion that you are suggesting, and which actually came from Corbyn's team in 2017 (and then disappeared, as far as I know) was the idea of a National Care Service. It would only have had to win support from a small proportion of older voters to make a big difference, given the size of the demographic group and the way they currently vote. And it ought to hold appeal to middle-aged voters as well. Hugely expensive though.
Yes, that's a good example since older people are a demographic that Labour could really benefit from making a credible offer to - also, the party membership is older than people realise and generally positive about the health'n'care sector anyway (there's the odd wager of inter-generational war who claims they'd like the oldies wiped out but obviously they're massively outnumbered by those who work in the sector!) so it's even an attractive pitch to the membership. In 2019, the pitch was repeated:
Jeremy Corbyn unveils £10 billion plan for free personal care for the elderly
EXCLUSIVE The Labour leader said he would cap social care bills at £30,000 - reducing the number of people facing costs of £100k or more by 70,000
Jeremy Corbyn will today unveil a £10billion a year package to provide free personal care for the elderly.
And he will cap at £30,000 the amount anyone has to spend on being looked after in later life.
That will reduce by 70,000 the number of people now facing costs of £100,000 or more.
Got lost in the noise about privatising the water companies and free broadband though, I suspect. Was there any polling of the "do you recognise this manifesto promise" kind?
I thought he had promised everyone a second home in Florida.
Just been catching up on YouGov's latest favourability ratings - Corbyn completely in the basement, though poor Jo Swinson gets a terrible kicking as well - but also this stood out:
Nicola Sturgeon - net favourability... With 2017 Con voters: -77 With 2016 Leave voters: -70
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Johnson's intransigence over Indyref2 can survive another Nat or Nat/Green majority at Holyrood come 2021, one gathers the impression that his new voter coalition will not exactly be distraught at his refusal to play ball with the First Minister.
Whether this also indicates that the Tory base is truly committed to the Union, or if it's more the case that they don't care and are simply disinclined to listen to Scottish special pleading, who can say? More research required.
A Westminster Bubble way of looking at the world if ever I saw one.
Rather than looking at what 2017 Con voters and 2016 Leave voters think (or, more accurately, feel), ask yourself occasionally what Scots think (or, more accurately, feel).
The key to saving the Union lies in Scotland, not in England. But feel free to keep searching in the wrong place.
Whoever said I was looking for a means to save the Union?
I merely sought to pass comment on the consequences for the Government in terms of its support if it decides to dig in its heels. How it would go about trying to rescue the Union (if, indeed, this is even possible) is a separate matter.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of the election campaign was the complete lack of focus on the two biggest long term threats to the UK:
- Terrible productivity growth since the recession - Abysmal balance of payments figures
Until both of those quandaries are tackled, the idea that the conservatives or labour can bring any form of sustained prosperity to the Midlands & North are pie in the sky.
Agreed. But how does a government stop people being lazy and buying loads of foreign tat with their disposable income?
The short answer is: they cannot.
Chronic low productivity and addiction to buying foreign goods and services are cultural phenomena. They take a lot of time to change, probably several generations.
The key is self-respect. There is not much of that about in England at the moment. The nation is rife with cads and bullies. Self-hatred is the order of the day.
The most effective way to deal with low productivity is through a combination of higher wages and a short supply of Labour, encouraging automation. Government policy should help with that.
The flow of imported goods is a more intractible problem, of course.
Regardless, these problems don't stop abruptly at the Tweed. The Scottish Government has one of the largest budget deficits in the Western world (cleared each year with English taxpayer's money,) a failing education system and an opioid addiction crisis comparable to that in the United States. Self-respect not much in evidence there, eh?
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of the election campaign was the complete lack of focus on the two biggest long term threats to the UK:
- Terrible productivity growth since the recession - Abysmal balance of payments figures
Until both of those quandaries are tackled, the idea that the conservatives or labour can bring any form of sustained prosperity to the Midlands & North are pie in the sky.
Agreed. But how does a government stop people being lazy and buying loads of foreign tat with their disposable income?
The short answer is: they cannot.
Chronic low productivity and addiction to buying foreign goods and services are cultural phenomena. They take a lot of time to change, probably several generations.
The key is self-respect. There is not much of that about in England at the moment. The nation is rife with cads and bullies. Self-hatred is the order of the day.
Yup no-one ever commits crime in Scotland or ever buys foreign goods. True the Scots have little self-hatred - many of tem hate the English as a substitute.
This election was the worst she has been though. Door step reaction utterly dire.
We are back to Corbyn being poison.
I think Nandy might be the best shout for a Kinnock-vs-Militant style clear out that gives Labour a shot not at 2024, but at 2029. Rayner not trusted by the left, RLB and Burgon too lefty and bovine, Starmer too metropolitan and won't carry the membership. But I don't think Labour will go for that.
The Con voter in me says to want an unelectable Corbynista like Burgon, but I just can't put the Jewish people I know through another election like that.
Stop it with your Burgon. Even I would vote for Johnson, if that huge pudding became Labour Leader.
Do you know that in civilised countries they get to have a choice that isn't just the lesser of two massive shits?
We will continue to support the First Past the Post system of voting, as it allows voters to kick out politicians who don’t deliver, both locally and nationally.
Who said this before elevating defeated politician Zac Goldsmith to the Lords and putting him in government?
This election was the worst she has been though. Door step reaction utterly dire.
We are back to Corbyn being poison.
I think Nandy might be the best shout for a Kinnock-vs-Militant style clear out that gives Labour a shot not at 2024, but at 2029. Rayner not trusted by the left, RLB and Burgon too lefty and bovine, Starmer too metropolitan and won't carry the membership. But I don't think Labour will go for that.
The Con voter in me says to want an unelectable Corbynista like Burgon, but I just can't put the Jewish people I know through another election like that.
Stop it with your Burgon. Even I would vote for Johnson, if that huge pudding became Labour Leader.
Do you know that in civilised countries they get to have a choice that isn't just the lesser of two massive shits?
Worth noting BoZo's pisspoor rating. Not quite as bad as Jezza, but not too far off. I cannot see any reason for it to improve.
Suspect Starmer would be the best of those standing (probably), but he would have an immediate problem on the EU. He's been very pro-Remain, which is fine, but if we've left does he shift to Rejoin?
"Quick, I need a city beginning with A!!!" "Aberdeen?" "Too Scottish" "Abergavenny?" "Too Welsh" "Andover?" "God have you been there? No" "OK, how about Abbotsford?" "Brilliant! Scottish but sounds English! I'll take it!" "Good"
Pause
"Now get off my doorstep and go home Francesca, you psycho"
In Scottish terms Abbotsford isn't even a place as such, just the made up name of a country house. Perhaps Franny has lots of pals among the tour guides.
Suspect Starmer would be the best of those standing (probably), but he would have an immediate problem on the EU. He's been very pro-Remain, which is fine, but if we've left does he shift to Rejoin?
This election was the worst she has been though. Door step reaction utterly dire.
We are back to Corbyn being poison.
I think Nandy might be the best shout for a Kinnock-vs-Militant style clear out that gives Labour a shot not at 2024, but at 2029. Rayner not trusted by the left, RLB and Burgon too lefty and bovine, Starmer too metropolitan and won't carry the membership. But I don't think Labour will go for that.
The Con voter in me says to want an unelectable Corbynista like Burgon, but I just can't put the Jewish people I know through another election like that.
Stop it with your Burgon. Even I would vote for Johnson, if that huge pudding became Labour Leader.
Do you know that in civilised countries they get to have a choice that isn't just the lesser of two massive shits?
Where the Americans and French have led, we have unfortunately followed.
So I was thinking of joining the Labour Party to help them out with their Crazy Person infestation, hopefully they'll return the favour later and give me a hand with my cave crickets.
Anybody know: * I'm a British citizen but not a UK resident, and the Labour Party took away my right to vote in British elections. But can I still join the Labour Party and vote on their leader? * Logistically, would the ballot get to Japan and back in time?
I think I voted online for the NEC positions. Maybe check if that's an option for leader...
This election was the worst she has been though. Door step reaction utterly dire.
We are back to Corbyn being poison.
I think Nandy might be the best shout for a Kinnock-vs-Militant style clear out that gives Labour a shot not at 2024, but at 2029. Rayner not trusted by the left, RLB and Burgon too lefty and bovine, Starmer too metropolitan and won't carry the membership. But I don't think Labour will go for that.
The Con voter in me says to want an unelectable Corbynista like Burgon, but I just can't put the Jewish people I know through another election like that.
Stop it with your Burgon. Even I would vote for Johnson, if that huge pudding became Labour Leader.
Do you know that in civilised countries they get to have a choice that isn't just the lesser of two massive shits?
*Cough* Donald v Hilary *Cough* Macron v Le Pen. Etc.
This election was the worst she has been though. Door step reaction utterly dire.
We are back to Corbyn being poison.
I think Nandy might be the best shout for a Kinnock-vs-Militant style clear out that gives Labour a shot not at 2024, but at 2029. Rayner not trusted by the left, RLB and Burgon too lefty and bovine, Starmer too metropolitan and won't carry the membership. But I don't think Labour will go for that.
The Con voter in me says to want an unelectable Corbynista like Burgon, but I just can't put the Jewish people I know through another election like that.
Stop it with your Burgon. Even I would vote for Johnson, if that huge pudding became Labour Leader.
Do you know that in civilised countries they get to have a choice that isn't just the lesser of two massive shits?
Worth noting BoZo's pisspoor rating. Not quite as bad as Jezza, but not too far off. I cannot see any reason for it to improve.
Just been catching up on YouGov's latest favourability ratings - Corbyn completely in the basement, though poor Jo Swinson gets a terrible kicking as well - but also this stood out:
Nicola Sturgeon - net favourability... With 2017 Con voters: -77 With 2016 Leave voters: -70
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Johnson's intransigence over Indyref2 can survive another Nat or Nat/Green majority at Holyrood come 2021, one gathers the impression that his new voter coalition will not exactly be distraught at his refusal to play ball with the First Minister.
Whether this also indicates that the Tory base is truly committed to the Union, or if it's more the case that they don't care and are simply disinclined to listen to Scottish special pleading, who can say? More research required.
A Westminster Bubble way of looking at the world if ever I saw one.
Rather than looking at what 2017 Con voters and 2016 Leave voters think (or, more accurately, feel), ask yourself occasionally what Scots think (or, more accurately, feel).
The key to saving the Union lies in Scotland, not in England. But feel free to keep searching in the wrong place.
And - and I appreciate it’s not in your political interests to share that information - what is that key?
I may live to regret it but his odds at present seem to exhibit the classic Betfair centrist bias for metro candidates that its punters continually fall for.
"Quick, I need a city beginning with A!!!" "Aberdeen?" "Too Scottish" "Abergavenny?" "Too Welsh" "Andover?" "God have you been there? No" "OK, how about Abbotsford?" "Brilliant! Scottish but sounds English! I'll take it!" "Good"
Pause
"Now get off my doorstep and go home Francesca, you psycho"
In Scottish terms Abbotsford isn't even a place as such, just the made up name of a country house. Perhaps Franny has lots of pals among the tour guides.
I was, some time ago, advised to try and remember two or three place names beginning with successive alphabet letters (Andover, Bedford, Cambridge etc) as an aid to sleep. It's very good until one gets to I and J. If one gets past those, and X or course, it's impossible and one lies awake trying to think of one. Usually end up with 'eXeter' and start again.
Suspect Starmer would be the best of those standing (probably), but he would have an immediate problem on the EU. He's been very pro-Remain, which is fine, but if we've left does he shift to Rejoin?
This will be a very difficult issue for Labour and the Lib Dems. I think it depends on what Johnson does.
If he goes for No Deal, then I think the rejoin position would be best.
But if Boris gets a deal through then I think a rejoin position will be very difficult to defend. People won't want to reopen that issue for what will seem like minor technical issues.
"Quick, I need a city beginning with A!!!" "Aberdeen?" "Too Scottish" "Abergavenny?" "Too Welsh" "Andover?" "God have you been there? No" "OK, how about Abbotsford?" "Brilliant! Scottish but sounds English! I'll take it!" "Good"
Pause
"Now get off my doorstep and go home Francesca, you psycho"
In Scottish terms Abbotsford isn't even a place as such, just the made up name of a country house. Perhaps Franny has lots of pals among the tour guides.
Like all those new counties, then?
(Interesting aside. At a do last weekend childhood friend commented 'I may be the only person here to have punched an MP.' Turns out that a certain MP was tooling around in class in 197x, and refused to stop - so he punched him to make him stop. Various opinions about the slipperiness or otherwise of certain other prominent local politicians.
Fascinating belatedly catching up with Laura K's The Brexit Storm - how many MPs voting down May's deal thought they were stopping Brexit.....She also makes the point that up to now, Parliament and voters had been aligned on implementing the results of referendums - this time Parliament and the voters were at odds - the voters had given Parliament an instruction it didn't like. The rest, they say, is history...
Just been catching up on YouGov's latest favourability ratings - Corbyn completely in the basement, though poor Jo Swinson gets a terrible kicking as well - but also this stood out:
Nicola Sturgeon - net favourability... With 2017 Con voters: -77 With 2016 Leave voters: -70
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Johnson's intransigence over Indyref2 can survive another Nat or Nat/Green majority at Holyrood come 2021, one gathers the impression that his new voter coalition will not exactly be distraught at his refusal to play ball with the First Minister.
Whether this also indicates that the Tory base is truly committed to the Union, or if it's more the case that they don't care and are simply disinclined to listen to Scottish special pleading, who can say? More research required.
A Westminster Bubble way of looking at the world if ever I saw one.
Rather than looking at what 2017 Con voters and 2016 Leave voters think (or, more accurately, feel), ask yourself occasionally what Scots think (or, more accurately, feel).
The key to saving the Union lies in Scotland, not in England. But feel free to keep searching in the wrong place.
And - and I appreciate it’s not in your political interests to share that information - what is that key?
I think that one of things needed to be addressed by Boris & Co is a '24k mile service' on devolution - another of the Blair projects that has gone off half-cocked.
Quite how one engages the wibbling hatemongers of Sturgeon's Nutty Party is another question. Perhaps the problem is with the people in the leadership.
I may live to regret it but his odds at present seem to exhibit the classic Betfair centrist bias for metro candidates that its punters continually fall for.
I think with Starmer he’s been elevated to some kind of mythical status by centrists as the Labour saviour, but has spent the election away from the camera so they might find under scrutiny he falls very short of the hype.
Starmer is too London, too left and too second referendum for the majority of the country but on the upside he can string a sentence together and be on top of his brief. He’s clearly and wisely attempting to pull in support from the Corbynista wing in his Guardian editorial but it remains to be seen how big an issue gender is in this race.
So I was thinking of joining the Labour Party to help them out with their Crazy Person infestation, hopefully they'll return the favour later and give me a hand with my cave crickets.
Anybody know: * I'm a British citizen but not a UK resident, and the Labour Party took away my right to vote in British elections. But can I still join the Labour Party and vote on their leader? * Logistically, would the ballot get to Japan and back in time?
You can vote online, and I think it's unlikely that you'd be refused. I'd lived in Switzerland and Denmark for 30 years as a party member and don't remember any problem.
Sorry to hear about the crickets! Try not to use horrible glue traps though...
Suspect Starmer would be the best of those standing (probably), but he would have an immediate problem on the EU. He's been very pro-Remain, which is fine, but if we've left does he shift to Rejoin?
This will be a very difficult issue for Labour and the Lib Dems. I think it depends on what Johnson does.
If he goes for No Deal, then I think the rejoin position would be best.
But if Boris gets a deal through then I think a rejoin position will be very difficult to defend. People won't want to reopen that issue for what will seem like minor technical issues.
Labour is not going rejoin. Starmer if you read his interview I think realises this. I suspect his pitch will be that Labour needs a forensic type to unpick the nature of Boris's negotiations.
As for the race, if all components of the Corbyn machine get fully behind RLB she'll be difficult to beat - because it's not just Momentum, it's Unite, and the outriders who have a disproportionate influence not on who they tell people to vote for, but in topics of conversation within the party, and do not play clean. It's a bit like the tabloids in the country. Yeah, they're read by a fraction of the population - but do help set the news agenda. I think Starmer or Nandy should be praying Philips (or another outspoken moderate) scrapes on to the ballot to draw lots of their fire (if it's Philips they won't be able to resist) and shift the conversation away from those preferred topics so they can play a peacemaker role. If it's Starmer v RLB v Nandy he probably gets knee-capped as a male, remainy candidate. Nandy probably gets trashed as not woke enough and disloyal for backing Smith prominently.
This election was the worst she has been though. Door step reaction utterly dire.
We are back to Corbyn being poison.
I think Nandy might be the best shout for a Kinnock-vs-Militant style clear out that gives Labour a shot not at 2024, but at 2029. Rayner not trusted by the left, RLB and Burgon too lefty and bovine, Starmer too metropolitan and won't carry the membership. But I don't think Labour will go for that.
The Con voter in me says to want an unelectable Corbynista like Burgon, but I just can't put the Jewish people I know through another election like that.
Stop it with your Burgon. Even I would vote for Johnson, if that huge pudding became Labour Leader.
Do you know that in civilised countries they get to have a choice that isn't just the lesser of two massive shits?
Worth noting BoZo's pisspoor rating. Not quite as bad as Jezza, but not too far off. I cannot see any reason for it to improve.
Er - doing as he has promised?
Check out his ratings in, say, February 2020.....
And then contrast with his ratings in February 2021!
Comments
It also showed that plenty of people were not prepared to vote for Labour if they didn't like the party very much (i.e. you need to earn their votes and can't assume they'll be automatically in the bag). This is neither new nor a Labour-specific issue. Yes it will have harmed the Labour brand. But I don't think it's the same as the party being long-term toxic in the same way that "The Nasty Party" (copyright T May) got, because it seems that many traditional Lab voters who went elsewhere in 2019 still identify with the party to some extent and will be willing to vote for it again, particularly if "trying to undo my Brexit vote" and "leadership in cahoots with terrorists, won't sign the national anthem" type doubts can be removed.
Toxicity is really about ceilings not floors, and Labour's performance at this election tells us more about their floor than their ceiling. (We also got to see some impression of the Tory ceiling under a "reaches the parts other leaders can't" kind of PM, so we have learned a little about Tory toxicity.) All the "brand strength" and "could you ever consider voting ... " polling, even during the Corbyn era, suggested Labour had a decent upside if they could only just exploit it, and were at an advantage relative to the Conservatives on this front. A new leader ought to be better-placed to reach out, if they were able to overcome the party's internal mechanics, which remain inward-looking.
Just watching the Laura K Brexit programme from earlier this evening and on a walk about, Boris is taking selfies with members of the public and it is all very nice. Then a woman comes up, takes a photo and then says look at his photo, shoves the phone in his face, and then says he looks just like you....he could be your love child....
I had almost given up on this bet earlier today, following the flatmates reported post-breakfast announcement of what I shall christen the “Granola Pact”. But now I’m not quite so sure.
As was the case with Brown and Blair, RLB is more closely connected with the leadership and is the presumed, heir apparent but lacks the presence of her junior colleague. RLB is drifting back out in the betting and Rayner’s odds suggest she may not be a non-runner after all.
More to the point is that the selectorate is heavily London-dominated. I don't think this is great for Nandy whose "thing" that that she's been working on for years is basically "Northern towns, Northern towns, Northern towns". If people are thinking "why did we lose - hold on, we could have done without losing all those Northern towns?" then maybe that bodes well for her. But I wonder whether other contenders, even if they are Northerners representing seats in The North, might have a more universal message that appeals more directly in London.
What is certainly true is that perhaps 55-60% of the membership thinks of itself as left-wing. But we don't have an agreement on what that actually means, so most of the potential candidates will get a hearing.
Care to share your thoughts on the current value bets in the Labour leadership election?
When it comes to a leadership election, this effect is not so powerful because the contenders are well-known.
Also as Francis says, plenty of "outriders" linked to this side of the party have independent media operations. If you want to get a feel for what they think/feel, look at their blogs etc. The Momentum emails are just the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand, remember that these people are not where the centre of the Labour party is, even with its new and increasingly left-wing membership, so don't get too caught up in it.
However, I think the leadership election may be different. With the NEC, most people don't really know the names, or if they do, don't see these people in the media very often. As a result many are happy to take guidance.
Most members are well aware of Long-Bailey, Starmer etc., and I've seen very few mentions of people being impressed by Long-Bailey. If Rayner was standing for leader, then I suspect a Momentum stamp of approval could push her over the line.
It's a very long wait unless Northern Ireland have an Easter Election.
If things are going badly, then the government will put of an election to the very last minute - either mid or late 2024.
If things are going really, really, really badly - to the extent that the Conservative Party has split - then we might have an earlier election. But it doesn't seem very likely.
If my analysis is correct, then a Nandy-style "let's build a bridge between Lewisham and Leigh again" coalition repair job, a Neo-Blairite push to recapture Middle England, and a leftier strategy of "we only need to get lucky once, which we will since the university-education ethnic-minority demographics are trending in our favour" might all represent missed opportunities. Someone with creativity and insight who can see through the shifting sands of Post-Brexit Britain and the Great Class/Income Dealignment might grasp how to sculpt an entirely new formula with the potential to win big again in the future - though they might not be granted the remit to attempt it.
Reckon there's scope for me to write a shortish header expounding on that post?
Northern Ireland Update.
Megan Fearon & Mairtin O'Muilleoir have apparently quit politics (stepped down).
They've probably been sacked to allow Martina Anderson & Elisha McCallion (Martina's Niece) to get their MLA seats.
Politics is a cruel world.
"Quick, I need a city beginning with A!!!"
"Aberdeen?"
"Too Scottish"
"Abergavenny?"
"Too Welsh"
"Andover?"
"God have you been there? No"
"OK, how about Abbotsford?"
"Brilliant! Scottish but sounds English! I'll take it!"
"Good"
Pause
"Now get off my doorstep and go home Francesca, you psycho"
https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1207083188625059840?s=20
The question is, how much of that toxicity attached to Corbyn has rubbed off on Labour?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbotsford
Two different ways to fail are (1) be so ideologically pure that you are unelectable; or (2) be so obsessed with appealing to diffferent parts of the electorate that you do no good even if you do win. Everyone's rightly focused on how Labour need to get away from (1) at the moment, but your idea sounds like (2) unless this new coalition actually represents something worth fighting for?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-independence-it-s-40-years-too-late-for-that-tkvn0mqdw
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/getting-uk-ready-next-phase-Brexit-negotiations.pdf
Anybody know:
* I'm a British citizen but not a UK resident, and the Labour Party took away my right to vote in British elections. But can I still join the Labour Party and vote on their leader?
* Logistically, would the ballot get to Japan and back in time?
I don't mean "try to appeal to everyone at once" since, as you've said, that way you're on a hiding to nothing. You do need to appeal to enough people though - one worry about a focus on rediscovering a way to talk to both Leigh and Lewisham is that at best that gets you back to 2017 or 2015 and that's not enough. (Scotland is a big issue of course.)
I'll chuck in a (3) - you can fail by fighting the last war, or the one before that. Your next winning coalition may not look like your previous ones, though it will surely incorporate elements of them. This often means appealing to people currently not considered part of the party's core base, and likely under-represented in the party membership, which is a problem with leadership elections!
Post-Brexit and post-class dealignment, there is a possibly unprecedented opportunity to radically shake up voter coalitions. Labour are in principle well-placed to take advantage of it - it ought to be easier to reshape your coalition from opposition than government, and Labour's "upside" (as represented by % of people who would at least consider voting for them) is likely still higher than the Tories. Labour are also in more desperate need of a shake-up, since their past winning coalitions included strong Scottish performances. They should at least reflect on the possible paths open to them, even if it takes them beyond their comfort zone. (I fear the current comfort zone of their activists is dangerously small.)
And I couldn't agree more about exclusionary ideas being a major problem, probably the major problem. The failure to recognise that not everyone has to care about intersectionality (even though I do, personally). The failure to recognise that small-c conservatives who work tirelessly for vulnerable people in their community deserve nothing but respect. The notion that such people need to be "educated"....
Mirror, 7 December 2019
Jeremy Corbyn unveils £10 billion plan for free personal care for the elderly
EXCLUSIVE The Labour leader said he would cap social care bills at £30,000 - reducing the number of people facing costs of £100k or more by 70,000
Jeremy Corbyn will today unveil a £10billion a year package to provide free personal care for the elderly.
And he will cap at £30,000 the amount anyone has to spend on being looked after in later life.
That will reduce by 70,000 the number of people now facing costs of £100,000 or more.
Got lost in the noise about privatising the water companies and free broadband though, I suspect. Was there any polling of the "do you recognise this manifesto promise" kind?
https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1206629863538360321?s=20
He can speak for Wales, but the other three? Forget it.
Labour’s share of MPs:
Wales 55%
England 34%
Scotland 2%
NI zero
The short answer is: they cannot.
Chronic low productivity and addiction to buying foreign goods and services are cultural phenomena. They take a lot of time to change, probably several generations.
The key is self-respect. There is not much of that about in England at the moment. The nation is rife with cads and bullies. Self-hatred is the order of the day.
Rather than looking at what 2017 Con voters and 2016 Leave voters think (or, more accurately, feel), ask yourself occasionally what Scots think (or, more accurately, feel).
The key to saving the Union lies in Scotland, not in England. But feel free to keep searching in the wrong place.
Linlithgow and Llanelli conspicuous by their absence.
I merely sought to pass comment on the consequences for the Government in terms of its support if it decides to dig in its heels. How it would go about trying to rescue the Union (if, indeed, this is even possible) is a separate matter.
The flow of imported goods is a more intractible problem, of course.
Regardless, these problems don't stop abruptly at the Tweed. The Scottish Government has one of the largest budget deficits in the Western world (cleared each year with English taxpayer's money,) a failing education system and an opioid addiction crisis comparable to that in the United States. Self-respect not much in evidence there, eh?
Past the Post system of voting, as it
allows voters to kick out politicians
who don’t deliver, both locally and
nationally.
Who said this before elevating defeated politician Zac Goldsmith to the Lords and putting him in government?
Suspect Starmer would be the best of those standing (probably), but he would have an immediate problem on the EU. He's been very pro-Remain, which is fine, but if we've left does he shift to Rejoin?
Check out his ratings in, say, February 2020.....
I may live to regret it but his odds at present seem to exhibit the classic Betfair centrist bias for metro candidates that its punters continually fall for.
Good tip to top up on Nandy at Ladbrokes.
I’ve done the same.
Usually end up with 'eXeter' and start again.
If he goes for No Deal, then I think the rejoin position would be best.
But if Boris gets a deal through then I think a rejoin position will be very difficult to defend. People won't want to reopen that issue for what will seem like minor technical issues.
(Interesting aside. At a do last weekend childhood friend commented 'I may be the only person here to have punched an MP.' Turns out that a certain MP was tooling around in class in 197x, and refused to stop - so he punched him to make him stop. Various opinions about the slipperiness or otherwise of certain other prominent local politicians.
Gossip - wunderbar.)
Quite how one engages the wibbling hatemongers of Sturgeon's Nutty Party is another question. Perhaps the problem is with the people in the leadership.
The Lib Dems seem to trumpet new members about two days later recently.
Are we suddenly going to find that all main parties have gone up by 100k?
Starmer is too London, too left and too second referendum for the majority of the country but on the upside he can string a sentence together and be on top of his brief. He’s clearly and wisely attempting to pull in support from the Corbynista wing in his Guardian editorial but it remains to be seen how big an issue gender is in this race.
Sorry to hear about the crickets! Try not to use horrible glue traps though...
As for the race, if all components of the Corbyn machine get fully behind RLB she'll be difficult to beat - because it's not just Momentum, it's Unite, and the outriders who have a disproportionate influence not on who they tell people to vote for, but in topics of conversation within the party, and do not play clean. It's a bit like the tabloids in the country. Yeah, they're read by a fraction of the population - but do help set the news agenda. I think Starmer or Nandy should be praying Philips (or another outspoken moderate) scrapes on to the ballot to draw lots of their fire (if it's Philips they won't be able to resist) and shift the conversation away from those preferred topics so they can play a peacemaker role. If it's Starmer v RLB v Nandy he probably gets knee-capped as a male, remainy candidate. Nandy probably gets trashed as not woke enough and disloyal for backing Smith prominently.