Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What happened when I switched the CON and LAB GE2019 vote shares on the Electoral Calculus seat pred

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 31 in General
imageWhat happened when I switched the CON and LAB GE2019 vote shares on the Electoral Calculus seat predictor – politicalbetting.com

For some time I’ve been planning a piece on how difficult it is going to be for LAB to win a majority at the next election and overnight I got down to it.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,560
    Test
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,923
    edited March 31
    1st Floor. With OGH in the dungeon.

    Thanks for the header, Mike.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,923
    OK. Intelligent sounding reflections.

    Mike, do you have any idea how this might adjust once there has been a Boundary Commission and the resulting changes?

    Or is this off the table for the next election now?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,600
    MattW said:

    OK. Intelligent sounding reflections.

    Mike, do you have any idea how this might adjust once there has been a Boundary Commission and the resulting changes?

    Or is this off the table for the next election now?

    The boundary review is on (again!), initially reporting this summer and being finalised by mid-2023. They’re staying with 650 seats.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55547685

    The thinking is that it moves 6-10 seats to the Tories, which should incentivise the government to get it passed, but as always the devil is in the detail of the proposals.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,600
    Macron and Merkel now calling Putin to beg for Sputnik vaccines.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9420785/Angela-Merkel-Emmanuel-Macron-call-Vladimir-Putin-discuss-getting-Sputnik-jab-EU.html

    But they want them to be made in the EU, don’t have a factory yet and haven’t approved Sputnik.

    Book domestic UK holidays this summer, folks!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,031

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,923
    edited March 31
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    OK. Intelligent sounding reflections.

    Mike, do you have any idea how this might adjust once there has been a Boundary Commission and the resulting changes?

    Or is this off the table for the next election now?

    The boundary review is on (again!), initially reporting this summer and being finalised by mid-2023. They’re staying with 650 seats.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55547685

    The thinking is that it moves 6-10 seats to the Tories, which should incentivise the government to get it passed, but as always the devil is in the detail of the proposals.
    Do we have potential interference in the process here from Activist Lawyers?
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    edited March 31
    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband.

    In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    edited March 31
    It's not so simple as assuming a Lab-SNP coalition would see them over the line, for at least two reasons.

    1. The British press will scaremonger massively at the prospect of Sturgeon holding the reins of Westminster power. This will work. It will frighten decent ordinary English and Welsh citizens to vote for anyone but Labour.

    2. The price of SNP coalition would be indyref2, probably leading to the break up of the Union and (ironically) the loss of all Labour seats north of the border anyway.

    Unless Labour win back their Scottish Westminster MPs, as far as I can see they're totally screwed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,031

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,056
    Whilst I agree with the general point of the header, for the first time I can envisage a future where the SNP don’t win the vast majority of seats in Scotland.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,962
    Psephologically the lead is on the money; politically it’s essentially a bet on the clown not fucking something up so badly that there’s no way back for him. The odds on that are probably fair, but I wouldn’t put my life savings on it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,533

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband.

    In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    Hang on... Thinking about that, that means the LibDems have 4x the number of Scottish MPs the Labour Party does.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,533
    MattW said:

    OK. Intelligent sounding reflections.

    Mike, do you have any idea how this might adjust once there has been a Boundary Commission and the resulting changes?

    Or is this off the table for the next election now?

    The number of Scottish constituencies will drop from 59 to 57.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    edited March 31
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    edited March 31
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband.

    In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    Hang on... Thinking about that, that means the LibDems have 4x the number of Scottish MPs the Labour Party does.
    Surely you realised that before? First time the Liberals outpolled Labour in Scotland since (I think) December 1910.

    Remember also Labour will lose a lot of seats in Wales on these boundary changes. Possibly as many as eight.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    edited March 31
    Maybe another way to explain that is that there is no scenario this side of the Rapture in which Labour could win a landslide in England at the same time as winning no seats in Scotland.

    Boris or his successor would have to be caught in flagrante delicto with a sheep. Even then, I'm not sure Labour would win 330 English seats. They need Scotland. Badly.

    Which is also of course why they oppose indyref2. Nothing to do with principles.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
    I haven’t checked the figures, but I’m fairly sure they would have won a majority on English seats alone in 1945 and 1966.

    The truth is - and it’s a truth Labour have never confronted - is that they are totally shit at winning elections. When in doubt, they retreat to their comfort zones and pile up huge majorities in safe seats while neglecting swing voters. In 1951 they got 49.5% of the vote and still lost. In 2017 they got 39.99% of the vote and were nowhere near power. Electoral calculus is of course a reflection of Corbyn’s especially poor performance in this regard in 2019, where he was barely even preaching to the choir.

    The genius of Blair and to a lesser extent Wilson (much less, as he proved in 1970) was to understand you have to speak to swing voters. So far, Starmer is struggling to do that. Equally, the situation he inherited is a very tough one.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    To paraphrase Private Frazer, they're doomed. Dooooooomed I tell ye.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,850
    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,031

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
    If you read to the end of my post you will see that I make exactly that point... I know it’s tempting to skip over the bit in brackets... 😜
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,850

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
    I think we all appreciate this by now; that Labour is not, because of the strength of SNP support and the places in which it is most concentrated, going to make much progress in Scotland; and, as a consequence, it is almost certainly going to need SNP votes to command a Commons majority. That notion plays perfectly well in London. Indeed, the metro left-libs approve of Nicola Sturgeon, just like they do of almost anyone who opposes Evil Tories. In the red wall, OTOH, the whole idea goes down like a cup of cold sick.

    Scotland is now a serious liability for Labour. It's a valuable weapon, already deployed in 2015, for the Tories to use against them. Come the next GE we should expect the same to happen again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 26,443
    tlg86 said:

    Whilst I agree with the general point of the header, for the first time I can envisage a future where the SNP don’t win the vast majority of seats in Scotland.

    If that's the first time that you've envisaged a future where the SNP don’t win the vast majority of seats in Scotland, you must be virtually unique on PB.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 30,600

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Whilst I disagree with you on the evils of face masks, you raise a very valid point about regulations around travel and behaviour in foreign countries.

    For all the talk of domestic ‘vaccine passports’ for bars and clubs, don’t put it past foreign governments to require various systems and processes to access the sort of venues you’d expect to spend your time on holiday. Also remember that quarantine regulations can be changed at short notice, and your insurer won’t necessarily cover spending the first few days of your break confined to your hotel room.

    The big one to watch for, is needing a (negative) PCR test before your *return* flight. Many fell foul of this one in my part of the world over the winter, and had an unscheduled two week extension to their holiday - either confined to their hotel room at their own expense, or in a government-run field hospital. This applies even if you’ve been vaccinated.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,031

    Maybe another way to explain that is that there is no scenario this side of the Rapture in which Labour could win a landslide in England at the same time as winning no seats in Scotland.

    Boris or his successor would have to be caught in flagrante delicto with a sheep. Even then, I'm not sure Labour would win 330 English seats. They need Scotland. Badly.

    Which is also of course why they oppose indyref2. Nothing to do with principles.

    Sure, but then Boris would likely out perform in Wales & Labour would need to compensate elsewhere
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    Charles said:

    Maybe another way to explain that is that there is no scenario this side of the Rapture in which Labour could win a landslide in England at the same time as winning no seats in Scotland.

    Boris or his successor would have to be caught in flagrante delicto with a sheep. Even then, I'm not sure Labour would win 330 English seats. They need Scotland. Badly.

    Which is also of course why they oppose indyref2. Nothing to do with principles.

    Sure, but then Boris would likely out perform in Wales
    Because of all the sheep?

    Haha very good :smiley:
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,923

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Spanish case rates are currently 100 new cases per million per day, which is the same as here. Compare France at 400.

    We won't be gong anytime soon imo.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    isam said:

    “The Conservatives have staged a turnaround in “Red Wall” constituencies, according to exclusive polling carried out for Channel 4 News.

    The results, by research company J.L. Partners, suggest Labour have seen a decline since November 2020, with its six point advantage turning into a four point Tory lead.

    It shows leadership has been a key driver in the turnaround in both parties’ standing.

    Sir Keir Starmer has fallen into negative territory, going from +7% to -3%.

    Boris Johnson has switched from a net positivity rating of -2% to +7%.”

    https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-poll-shows-conservative-lead-in-red-wall-seats


    Just this, from the previous thread.

    Right now Labour are very, very, lost.

    Anyone betting otherwise is taking a massive gamble, or has money to throw away.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,288

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    ‘Ordinary voters’ don’t live in large cities ?
    An alternative view is that both major parties have ideologues pretty unappealing to those outside of their supporters, but that the Tories command a larger, and more electorally efficient minority.

    It difficult to see how that will change this side of the next election.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    Nigelb said:

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    ‘Ordinary voters’ don’t live in large cities ?
    An alternative view is that both major parties have ideologues pretty unappealing to those outside of their supporters, but that the Tories command a larger, and more electorally efficient minority.

    It difficult to see how that will change this side of the next election.
    Well just this: https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-poll-shows-conservative-lead-in-red-wall-seats

    We ignore this at our peril. It's a sea change in my lifetime. And whilst I take the above point about Tony Blair in 2001, that's twenty years ago.

    Labour are nowhere near power. They're not on the starting blocks. They're not on the warm up lap. They're not even in the stadium.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 7,850

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    That's a slight oversimplification. Labour should continue to hold the bulk of seats in all the urban cores (broadly speaking, because they are younger and liable to contain disproportionate concentrations of metro left voters and of ethnic minorities,) along with other smaller cities and towns where the ethnic minority vote is large, and big university seats. They have also been able, up until now, to hold on in some white but especially hard-up areas (e.g. the South Wales valleys and the Durham coast,) but it'll be very interesting to see whether or not the Hartlepool by-election and especially the Senedd vote give any indication that these areas are weakening for Labour, and could provide more dominoes for the Conservatives to knock over next time.

    All that said, the broad thrust of your argument is correct. Labour risks becoming permanently trapped in its comfort zone - which is more than sufficient to win it a substantial Parliamentary bloc, but not nearly enough to win. If that happens then it will become a zombie opposition, facilitating continuous Conservative rule both by failing to win itself and by stifling the emergence of a successor party that might be more capable of so doing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,288
    WHO report on the possible origins of the pandemic is out,
    It’s far from conclusive - it would be a surprise if it were, given both the difficulty of pinning down the precise origins of viruses, and the difficulty of free enquiry in China - but the evidence suggests the virus did not originate in the lab.

    Good thread:
    https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1376954932004196352
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,432
    DavidL said:

    On topic I think that this is a little simplistic. Corbyn got a very poor distribution of votes in 2019 because only the most ideologically fanatical or unthinking fool could vote for such a man to be PM. If Labour were getting anything like 44.5% of the vote they would be appealing to an entirely different category of voter with different demographics and distributions so average swings really wouldn't tell you very much.

    It doesn't seem all that long to me since the talk in 2001 was could the Tories ever win again given the astonishing efficiency of the Labour vote under Blair where a tiny lead by comparison with the header gave him a very comfortable majority. A repeat of that without the efficiency boost that Scotland gave then is unlikely but there is nothing set in stone about the efficiency of votes under our oh so fun FPTP system.

    How did you rate the TV debate last night ?

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    But that’s exactly the point. That’s their core vote now. They don’t care about reaching out to others, including those who used to vote for them. It’s the strategy they’ve had for 80 years, applied to a different group of voters.

    That’s why @SandyRentool said the other day in great frustration that he wanted a Labour Party that represented the workers.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,079

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
    Pedantic, but 1997 was not a “once in a lifetime” result. The 2001 GE had almost exactly the same outcome
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,962
    Politico: The Biden administration is rethinking a costly system of government-run mass vaccination sites after data revealed the program is lagging well behind a much cheaper federal effort to distribute doses via retail pharmacies.

    The government has shipped millions of doses to the 21 mass vaccination hubs, or “pilot” community centers, in states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas. The hubs are part of a $4 billion federal system that funds more than 1,000 smaller vaccination locations across the country and provides other vaccination support — such as supplies — to states across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did not respond to repeated questions about how much the pilot sites cost.

    Despite the money the federal government has spent on the mass-vaccination pilot sites, they are administering just a fraction of the shots given across the country each day. Federal data show the retail pharmacy program — which has signed up 21 chains and 17,000 stores — can reach far more Americans in a shorter time, according to four senior officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The bottom line, those sources said, is that more Americans seem to be willing to walk to their local pharmacist to get the vaccine than to travel to a federal vaccination site for the shot.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455

    DavidL said:

    On topic I think that this is a little simplistic. Corbyn got a very poor distribution of votes in 2019 because only the most ideologically fanatical or unthinking fool could vote for such a man to be PM. If Labour were getting anything like 44.5% of the vote they would be appealing to an entirely different category of voter with different demographics and distributions so average swings really wouldn't tell you very much.

    It doesn't seem all that long to me since the talk in 2001 was could the Tories ever win again given the astonishing efficiency of the Labour vote under Blair where a tiny lead by comparison with the header gave him a very comfortable majority. A repeat of that without the efficiency boost that Scotland gave then is unlikely but there is nothing set in stone about the efficiency of votes under our oh so fun FPTP system.

    How did you rate the TV debate last night ?

    Didn't see it. Work is seriously out of hand at the moment. Interfering with cricket, PB and drinking time. Its really outrageous but I suppose I shouldn't complain. Some of my colleagues are not so fortunate.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,288
    ydoethur said:

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    But that’s exactly the point. That’s their core vote now. They don’t care about reaching out to others, including those who used to vote for them. It’s the strategy they’ve had for 80 years, applied to a different group of voters.

    That’s why @SandyRentool said the other day in great frustration that he wanted a Labour Party that represented the workers.
    They certainly aren’t going to change any time soon. Though as Blair showed, it’s not completely impossible in the longer run.
    For now the prospect for those of us enthusiastic for neither of the major parties is not appealing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,288
    IanB2 said:

    Politico: The Biden administration is rethinking a costly system of government-run mass vaccination sites after data revealed the program is lagging well behind a much cheaper federal effort to distribute doses via retail pharmacies.

    The government has shipped millions of doses to the 21 mass vaccination hubs, or “pilot” community centers, in states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas. The hubs are part of a $4 billion federal system that funds more than 1,000 smaller vaccination locations across the country and provides other vaccination support — such as supplies — to states across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did not respond to repeated questions about how much the pilot sites cost.

    Despite the money the federal government has spent on the mass-vaccination pilot sites, they are administering just a fraction of the shots given across the country each day. Federal data show the retail pharmacy program — which has signed up 21 chains and 17,000 stores — can reach far more Americans in a shorter time, according to four senior officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The bottom line, those sources said, is that more Americans seem to be willing to walk to their local pharmacist to get the vaccine than to travel to a federal vaccination site for the shot.

    Goodness, an administration which learns from its mistakes.
    Whatever next ?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,533
    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 37,509
    edited March 31

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
    Pedantic, but 1997 was not a “once in a lifetime” result. The 2001 GE had almost exactly the same outcome
    But that’s a Scottish lifetime, surely? Or a generation, at least.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,288
    Nigelb said:

    WHO report on the possible origins of the pandemic is out,
    It’s far from conclusive - it would be a surprise if it were, given both the difficulty of pinning down the precise origins of viruses, and the difficulty of free enquiry in China - but the evidence suggests the virus did not originate in the lab.

    Good thread:
    https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1376954932004196352

    Note that Andersen is an immunologist from the Scripps Research Institute.
    I take more notice of his hunches that those of @Leon ...

    https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1377117062082879488
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I agree. There is a significant risk for Europe that the pressure to open up their economies will be impossible to resist even although they are behind on vaccination. As they see the US and the UK open up and trade again I suspect that there will be a lot of anger directed at the political classes who have been so incompetent.

    As you pointed out yesterday by the Autumn they may well have caught up as the world increasingly becomes awash with vaccines but this summer is going to see a lot of cases and death in mainland Europe. Personally, I don't need HMG to tell me to stay away.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,288

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
    Pedantic, but 1997 was not a “once in a lifetime” result. The 2001 GE had almost exactly the same outcome
    So represented a continuation, not a once in a lifetime reversal of electoral fortunes of such magnitude.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 9,291
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I agree. There is a significant risk for Europe that the pressure to open up their economies will be impossible to resist even although they are behind on vaccination. As they see the US and the UK open up and trade again I suspect that there will be a lot of anger directed at the political classes who have been so incompetent.

    As you pointed out yesterday by the Autumn they may well have caught up as the world increasingly becomes awash with vaccines but this summer is going to see a lot of cases and death in mainland Europe. Personally, I don't need HMG to tell me to stay away.
    Why were there few cases and deaths in Europe last summer?

    There are obviously new variants this time, but seasonality being a big factor in European case numbers again would hardly be surprising.
  • LindonLightLindonLight Posts: 96
    edited March 31
    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband. In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    In 1997 Blair won 328 out of 529 English seats. That’s a majority of English seats (and very close to a majority in the UK Parliament with the break being 330).

    He also won 34/40 seats in Wales pushing him over the line.

    (I’m agreeing with your point, btw, is that it is very hard for Labour without Scotland - Blair is the exception that proves the rule)
    Yep but, with respect Charles, Tony Blair's 1997 General Election win was a once in lifetime Labour victory. The Conservatives lost 171 seats. It was a tsunami.

    I think you probably know that, and that it will not be repeated under Keir Starmer, as you acknowledge.

    We need to be real. I cannot see how Labour can win a General Election majority again unless they regain their base in Scotland.
    Pedantic, but 1997 was not a “once in a lifetime” result. The 2001 GE had almost exactly the same outcome
    So represented a continuation, not a once in a lifetime reversal of electoral fortunes of such magnitude.
    Labour lost a handful of seats in 2001 but the result was pretty close to 1997. I made a mistake down thread. It was the 2005 election where a lead of 2.8% gave Blair an overall majority of 60 which made people wonder if the Tories could win again. It really took the GFC and the incompetence of Brown to change that apparent dominance.

    I remain unpersuaded that there is anything any more inevitable about the efficiency that Boris achieved in 2019.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    You are correct about the mask rule - it has been pretty much the same rule for over a year and it is enforced. Certainly in my area it is largely complied with.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,773
    ydoethur said:

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    But that’s exactly the point. That’s their core vote now. They don’t care about reaching out to others, including those who used to vote for them. It’s the strategy they’ve had for 80 years, applied to a different group of voters.

    That’s why @SandyRentool said the other day in great frustration that he wanted a Labour Party that represented the workers.
    The a big reason why Starmer was chosen was because of the idea he’d be more electable. Now that may have been a misjudgement on the part of the party, but it’s clearly a sign that they are trying to win next time. Otherwise, they would have just voted for Long Bailey.

    I’d also say that I don’t think ‘workers’ are some kind of unified block all with the exact same interests or outlook on life, which might be why Labour can’t be that party anymore.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I agree. There is a significant risk for Europe that the pressure to open up their economies will be impossible to resist even although they are behind on vaccination. As they see the US and the UK open up and trade again I suspect that there will be a lot of anger directed at the political classes who have been so incompetent.

    As you pointed out yesterday by the Autumn they may well have caught up as the world increasingly becomes awash with vaccines but this summer is going to see a lot of cases and death in mainland Europe. Personally, I don't need HMG to tell me to stay away.
    Why were there few cases and deaths in Europe last summer?

    There are obviously new variants this time, but seasonality being a big factor in European case numbers again would hardly be surprising.
    I do think that the new variants are a game changer both in terms of infectivity and seriousness of infection but it is a good point. I very much hope you prove to be right.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    MattW said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Spanish case rates are currently 100 new cases per million per day, which is the same as here. Compare France at 400.

    We won't be gong anytime soon imo.
    Actually the current figure is 146 and rising.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,754
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Excellent threat. Real food for thought.

    Mike do you know how Scotland feeds into this? Have Labour ever won an outright majority off only seats south of the border?

    Another way to ask that is that if Labour continue to flounder in Scotland is their route to an overall majority impossible?

    (I know some will say that they can form a coalition with the SNP but we all know what the price of that would be.)

    Blair did, I believe
    I don't think so, Charles.

    Labour Party seats won in Scotland during General Elections:

    1997: 56
    2001: 56
    2005: 41 (boundary changes meant Blair lost 5 seats not 15)

    Gordon Brown took over and in:

    2010 Labour also won 41 seats in Scotland

    In 2015 Labour won 1 seat in Scotland, losing 40 of their MPs under Metropolitan Miliband.

    In 2017, Corbynism took them up to 7 seats in Scotland, losing all of those gains in 2019 when Labour again returned to 1 seat.

    I fail to see how Labour can possibly win a majority unless they win back their Scottish base.
    Hang on... Thinking about that, that means the LibDems have 4x the number of Scottish MPs the Labour Party does.
    Yes, that and Brown suggests to me that a Scottish leader of a national party boosts the vote considerably.

    Pity SLAB is fishing in such a small pool. A competent Scottish Leader nationally could be the way back.

    The other thing I note is that it is probably easier for Labour to have a majority after Scottish Independence than before.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I think that is right. By July a reasonable proportion of the most vulnerable will have been vaccinated.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I think that is right. By July a reasonable proportion of the most vulnerable will have been vaccinated.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,962
    13C already, at 0715 by the seaside in March. Today’s going to be a hot one!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,966
    IanB2 said:

    Politico: The Biden administration is rethinking a costly system of government-run mass vaccination sites after data revealed the program is lagging well behind a much cheaper federal effort to distribute doses via retail pharmacies.

    The government has shipped millions of doses to the 21 mass vaccination hubs, or “pilot” community centers, in states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas. The hubs are part of a $4 billion federal system that funds more than 1,000 smaller vaccination locations across the country and provides other vaccination support — such as supplies — to states across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did not respond to repeated questions about how much the pilot sites cost.

    Despite the money the federal government has spent on the mass-vaccination pilot sites, they are administering just a fraction of the shots given across the country each day. Federal data show the retail pharmacy program — which has signed up 21 chains and 17,000 stores — can reach far more Americans in a shorter time, according to four senior officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The bottom line, those sources said, is that more Americans seem to be willing to walk to their local pharmacist to get the vaccine than to travel to a federal vaccination site for the shot.

    Several studies have shown that the British public, and I believe, the American has at least as much trust in pharmacists ....... generally community ones, in shops ...... as they do in GP's.
    My (long-ago, now) experience was that being asked for advice could be a 'many times a day' experience, especially where the same pharmacist had ben visible in the pharmacy for several years.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,962

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I agree. There is a significant risk for Europe that the pressure to open up their economies will be impossible to resist even although they are behind on vaccination. As they see the US and the UK open up and trade again I suspect that there will be a lot of anger directed at the political classes who have been so incompetent.

    As you pointed out yesterday by the Autumn they may well have caught up as the world increasingly becomes awash with vaccines but this summer is going to see a lot of cases and death in mainland Europe. Personally, I don't need HMG to tell me to stay away.
    Why were there few cases and deaths in Europe last summer?

    There are obviously new variants this time, but seasonality being a big factor in European case numbers again would hardly be surprising.
    It has to be outdoor living plus a greater level of precautionary observance than was being exhibited in the UK at the time
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,754

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I think this is the key to the Red Wall poll yesterday. 37% have no idea what Starmer is for. They get that he is not Corbyn, and displays flags like a Jubilee summer fete, but where is the beef?

    https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1376956258230673408?s=19
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607

    IanB2 said:

    Politico: The Biden administration is rethinking a costly system of government-run mass vaccination sites after data revealed the program is lagging well behind a much cheaper federal effort to distribute doses via retail pharmacies.

    The government has shipped millions of doses to the 21 mass vaccination hubs, or “pilot” community centers, in states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas. The hubs are part of a $4 billion federal system that funds more than 1,000 smaller vaccination locations across the country and provides other vaccination support — such as supplies — to states across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did not respond to repeated questions about how much the pilot sites cost.

    Despite the money the federal government has spent on the mass-vaccination pilot sites, they are administering just a fraction of the shots given across the country each day. Federal data show the retail pharmacy program — which has signed up 21 chains and 17,000 stores — can reach far more Americans in a shorter time, according to four senior officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The bottom line, those sources said, is that more Americans seem to be willing to walk to their local pharmacist to get the vaccine than to travel to a federal vaccination site for the shot.

    Several studies have shown that the British public, and I believe, the American has at least as much trust in pharmacists ....... generally community ones, in shops ...... as they do in GP's.
    My (long-ago, now) experience was that being asked for advice could be a 'many times a day' experience, especially where the same pharmacist had ben visible in the pharmacy for several years.
    Here in Spain they are really good. They are heavily linked in via the prescription system and ultra helpful.
  • felixfelix Posts: 12,607
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I agree. There is a significant risk for Europe that the pressure to open up their economies will be impossible to resist even although they are behind on vaccination. As they see the US and the UK open up and trade again I suspect that there will be a lot of anger directed at the political classes who have been so incompetent.

    As you pointed out yesterday by the Autumn they may well have caught up as the world increasingly becomes awash with vaccines but this summer is going to see a lot of cases and death in mainland Europe. Personally, I don't need HMG to tell me to stay away.
    Why were there few cases and deaths in Europe last summer?

    There are obviously new variants this time, but seasonality being a big factor in European case numbers again would hardly be surprising.
    It has to be outdoor living plus a greater level of precautionary observance than was being exhibited in the UK at the time
    Yes - the mask compulsion for example.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,374
    Which is the 'Other' gain? I'm guessing the Devon Independent ahead of Jason Zadrozny?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,966
    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,754

    ydoethur said:

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    But that’s exactly the point. That’s their core vote now. They don’t care about reaching out to others, including those who used to vote for them. It’s the strategy they’ve had for 80 years, applied to a different group of voters.

    That’s why @SandyRentool said the other day in great frustration that he wanted a Labour Party that represented the workers.
    The a big reason why Starmer was chosen was because of the idea he’d be more electable. Now that may have been a misjudgement on the part of the party, but it’s clearly a sign that they are trying to win next time. Otherwise, they would have just voted for Long Bailey.

    I’d also say that I don’t think ‘workers’ are some kind of unified block all with the exact same interests or outlook on life, which might be why Labour can’t be that party anymore.
    Yes in the days of unionised heavy industry, there was a fairly clear and united body of workers, but those days are gone. The level of ground level activism over issues like wages, health and safety and employment fed through into wider political issues.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,914
    Foxy said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I think this is the key to the Red Wall poll yesterday. 37% have no idea what Starmer is for. They get that he is not Corbyn, and displays flags like a Jubilee summer fete, but where is the beef?

    https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1376956258230673408?s=19
    Clearly not being Corbyn is insufficient to win power, but it was the necessary first step. What Labour really needs is the LibDems to rise from the dead and begin to build that anti Tory coalition. Alas.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,966
    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    Politico: The Biden administration is rethinking a costly system of government-run mass vaccination sites after data revealed the program is lagging well behind a much cheaper federal effort to distribute doses via retail pharmacies.

    The government has shipped millions of doses to the 21 mass vaccination hubs, or “pilot” community centers, in states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas. The hubs are part of a $4 billion federal system that funds more than 1,000 smaller vaccination locations across the country and provides other vaccination support — such as supplies — to states across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did not respond to repeated questions about how much the pilot sites cost.

    Despite the money the federal government has spent on the mass-vaccination pilot sites, they are administering just a fraction of the shots given across the country each day. Federal data show the retail pharmacy program — which has signed up 21 chains and 17,000 stores — can reach far more Americans in a shorter time, according to four senior officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The bottom line, those sources said, is that more Americans seem to be willing to walk to their local pharmacist to get the vaccine than to travel to a federal vaccination site for the shot.

    Several studies have shown that the British public, and I believe, the American has at least as much trust in pharmacists ....... generally community ones, in shops ...... as they do in GP's.
    My (long-ago, now) experience was that being asked for advice could be a 'many times a day' experience, especially where the same pharmacist had ben visible in the pharmacy for several years.
    Here in Spain they are really good. They are heavily linked in via the prescription system and ultra helpful.
    And there are no chains. One of my beef's with Boots in particular was that from about the mid 80's onwards they regularly moved pharmacists between stores.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,754
    IanB2 said:

    13C already, at 0715 by the seaside in March. Today’s going to be a hot one!

    Global warming? Should have got started years ago...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,533
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I think that is right. By July a reasonable proportion of the most vulnerable will have been vaccinated.
    Even if Spain only manages 10% of its adult population a month (and I suspect they'll manage more than that) they will still be at more than 40% of the adult population by the end of July.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,944
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I think that is right. By July a reasonable proportion of the most vulnerable will have been vaccinated.
    Yes - in some countries you can already see the effects of most over 80s, people in care homes, and those at highest risk because of existing conditions having been vaccinated.
    In Germany it looks like vaccinations have managed to almost keep up with the third wave for those groups, but the third wave is just ahead of healthy over 70s. But lots of the healthy over 70s can keep themselves safe for a few weeks longer until they are vaccinated. What we're seeing in hospitals locally is more people in their 50s and 60s - people who can't avoid contacts because they have to go to work, or have children going to school etc.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,661

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    There still remains no real world evidence that compulsory mask wearing in public does anything to reduce the spread of Covid. There are dozens of countries where face mask wearing is mandatory in public and where Covid cases are very high, take France for example and the UK in December/ January.
    I don't understand why this fact is not questioned. Everyone assumes that face masks must work yet real world evidence does not back up that theory.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,966
    IanB2 said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    Long experience suggests, however, that these predictions that the opposition will be out of power for ten or fifteen years or potentially 'forever' are really nothing more than comments on the next election in line. Once we get to the medium term, something we can't currently foresee can easily change the game.

    Labour was written off under Kinnock, the Tories under IDS/Howard, the Republicans during Obama (and probably shortly to be again), etc. Yet sleaze, the financial crisis, Trump...something surprising tends to come along sooner or later.
    The Liberals never returned to power after 1918, although they'd been one of the two dominant parties since the Reform Act.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,738

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    There still remains no real world evidence that compulsory mask wearing in public does anything to reduce the spread of Covid. There are dozens of countries where face mask wearing is mandatory in public and where Covid cases are very high, take France for example and the UK in December/ January.
    I don't understand why this fact is not questioned. Everyone assumes that face masks must work yet real world evidence does not back up that theory.
    Mask wearing isn't a magic cure. It just reduces the chances of spreading to say x% rather than 3x% or 4x%.

    So its highly likely that watering masks knocks a significant percentage off R, which while not enough in some places to knock R below 1 is avoiding R hitting 2.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,914
    eek said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    There still remains no real world evidence that compulsory mask wearing in public does anything to reduce the spread of Covid. There are dozens of countries where face mask wearing is mandatory in public and where Covid cases are very high, take France for example and the UK in December/ January.
    I don't understand why this fact is not questioned. Everyone assumes that face masks must work yet real world evidence does not back up that theory.
    Mask wearing isn't a magic cure. It just reduces the chances of spreading to say x% rather than 3x% or 4x%.

    So its highly likely that watering masks knocks a significant percentage off R, which while not enough in some places to knock R below 1 is avoiding R hitting 2.
    It’s also a potent visual reminder that we all need to be a bit careful at the moment. The cost ? Looking a bit silly.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 39,776
    IanB2 said:

    13C already, at 0715 by the seaside in March. Today’s going to be a hot one!

    Just off for a nature ramble around Slapton Ley. First one for a year.

    This is more like it!

    (Sadly, no Emperor Moths lured into the garden to show you. Will have to go to Dartmoor....)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,455

    IanB2 said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    Long experience suggests, however, that these predictions that the opposition will be out of power for ten or fifteen years or potentially 'forever' are really nothing more than comments on the next election in line. Once we get to the medium term, something we can't currently foresee can easily change the game.

    Labour was written off under Kinnock, the Tories under IDS/Howard, the Republicans during Obama (and probably shortly to be again), etc. Yet sleaze, the financial crisis, Trump...something surprising tends to come along sooner or later.
    The Liberals never returned to power after 1918, although they'd been one of the two dominant parties since the Reform Act.
    They've been fully prepared for government at least a couple of times since though!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 22,754
    edited March 31
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,944
    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    Politico: The Biden administration is rethinking a costly system of government-run mass vaccination sites after data revealed the program is lagging well behind a much cheaper federal effort to distribute doses via retail pharmacies.

    The government has shipped millions of doses to the 21 mass vaccination hubs, or “pilot” community centers, in states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas. The hubs are part of a $4 billion federal system that funds more than 1,000 smaller vaccination locations across the country and provides other vaccination support — such as supplies — to states across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did not respond to repeated questions about how much the pilot sites cost.

    Despite the money the federal government has spent on the mass-vaccination pilot sites, they are administering just a fraction of the shots given across the country each day. Federal data show the retail pharmacy program — which has signed up 21 chains and 17,000 stores — can reach far more Americans in a shorter time, according to four senior officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The bottom line, those sources said, is that more Americans seem to be willing to walk to their local pharmacist to get the vaccine than to travel to a federal vaccination site for the shot.

    Several studies have shown that the British public, and I believe, the American has at least as much trust in pharmacists ....... generally community ones, in shops ...... as they do in GP's.
    My (long-ago, now) experience was that being asked for advice could be a 'many times a day' experience, especially where the same pharmacist had ben visible in the pharmacy for several years.
    Here in Spain they are really good. They are heavily linked in via the prescription system and ultra helpful.
    Unfortunately in Germany a doctor has to be involved in every vaccination, so it would need a change in the law to allow pharmacies to offer jabs.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,383
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
    The mistake that many unions made - and some are/have corrected, to their credit - is realising their changed role in the system. Which should be to help provide access to the employment laws you mention. The pitch - Union membership as insurance against problems at work.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,914
    edited March 31

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
    The mistake that many unions made - and some are/have corrected, to their credit - is realising their changed role in the system. Which should be to help provide access to the employment laws you mention. The pitch - Union membership as insurance against problems at work.
    If management and corporate leaders were generally effective and always cared for their workers you wouldn’t need unions. As such, unions retain an important role. The odds are stacked so heavily against the individual worker in any dispute
  • eekeek Posts: 11,738

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
    The mistake that many unions made - and some are/have corrected, to their credit - is realising their changed role in the system. Which should be to help provide access to the employment laws you mention. The pitch - Union membership as insurance against problems at work.
    Sadly there is a legacy of decades of unions bring completely useless at providing such access to employment laws.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,383
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
    The mistake that many unions made - and some are/have corrected, to their credit - is realising their changed role in the system. Which should be to help provide access to the employment laws you mention. The pitch - Union membership as insurance against problems at work.
    If management and corporate leaders were generally effective and always cared for their workers you wouldn’t need unions. As such, unions retain an important role. The odds are stacked so heavily against the individual worker in any dispute
    Yes - which is why "Unions as insurance" is such a sensible idea. Hell, it goes back to the roots of the services they used to provide and where they came from - working mens insurance clubs...
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,790
    Thank you, Mike, that's really interesting and, indeed, troubling.

    So from the pov of England & Wales, we really, really need Scotland in order to prevent a one-party state.

    Prior to the Alba party setting up shop, it could have been argued that it was a reciprocal arrangement to prevent a one-party state there as well. But probably not, now.

    Good morning, everybody.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 9,999
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I think this is the key to the Red Wall poll yesterday. 37% have no idea what Starmer is for. They get that he is not Corbyn, and displays flags like a Jubilee summer fete, but where is the beef?

    https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1376956258230673408?s=19
    Clearly not being Corbyn is insufficient to win power, but it was the necessary first step. What Labour really needs is the LibDems to rise from the dead and begin to build that anti Tory coalition. Alas.
    Indeed, the LibDems are key to a non-Conservative future.

    Those polled aren't paying attention to events if they are suggesting Labour are playing party politics with the pandemic. That would be my biggest criticism of Starmer's Labour, they have called Johnson out on absolutely nothing, excess deaths, PPE procurement corruption, track and trace profligacy and the September non-lockdowns.

    The media narrative is at present very much in Johnson's favour, and it is a false narrative. Can this continue?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,383
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
    The mistake that many unions made - and some are/have corrected, to their credit - is realising their changed role in the system. Which should be to help provide access to the employment laws you mention. The pitch - Union membership as insurance against problems at work.
    Sadly there is a legacy of decades of unions bring completely useless at providing such access to employment laws.
    "It would be possible to say without exaggeration that the miners' leaders were the stupidest men in England if we had not frequent occasion to meet the owners."

    Sums up much of the 20th cent. industrial relations in the UK.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,301

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I think this is the key to the Red Wall poll yesterday. 37% have no idea what Starmer is for. They get that he is not Corbyn, and displays flags like a Jubilee summer fete, but where is the beef?

    https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1376956258230673408?s=19
    Clearly not being Corbyn is insufficient to win power, but it was the necessary first step. What Labour really needs is the LibDems to rise from the dead and begin to build that anti Tory coalition. Alas.
    Indeed, the LibDems are key to a non-Conservative future.

    Those polled aren't paying attention to events if they are suggesting Labour are playing party politics with the pandemic. That would be my biggest criticism of Starmer's Labour, they have called Johnson out on absolutely nothing, excess deaths, PPE procurement corruption, track and trace profligacy and the September non-lockdowns.

    The media narrative is at present very much in Johnson's favour, and it is a false narrative. Can this continue?

    If those are the main reasons why people in the Red Wall are not voting Labour they are very far from insurmountable.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 13,383
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
    The mistake that many unions made - and some are/have corrected, to their credit - is realising their changed role in the system. Which should be to help provide access to the employment laws you mention. The pitch - Union membership as insurance against problems at work.
    Absolutely. I am in the HCSA, a union quite different to the BMA. There is no politics or climate change advocacy, which are fine things but not what I want from a union. What they do have is very formidable representatives for those hauled up before the beak. In comparison the BMA reps are supine and unprepared. I know, because I used to be the beak.

    When I get in trouble, I don't want a lapdog as my advocate, I want the pit bull.
    A French friend, when she came to work in the UK, joined the union. Family tradition where she came from etc.

    Was effective and capable as an organiser, membership grew in her workplace.

    Then she was turfed out of the union position, because someone who was politically active needed the role as part of building their career.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,023
    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Face masks are irritating enough wandering around shops or public buildings for a short time. I cannot imagine wearing one whilst sunbathing. It is also difficult to come up with a more pointless time in which to wear a mask in that you are outdoors, probably socially distant on your sunbed, and not particularly active, occasionally going for a dip in a chlorinated pool. You are just not going to pick up the virus in such a scenario, even if the person under the next parasol is infected. Yet another stupid regulation which fails to focus on the actual risks.

    The nightclub you might go to after your day by the pool is of course a completely different kettle of fish.
    Yes.

    The combination of sun, fresh air, and sea makes it all but impossible to spread the virus.

    Plus, of course, Brits will all be vaccinated by then.

    But here's my prediction: Spain will not, in fact, have these measures in place in July and August.
    I think that is right. By July a reasonable proportion of the most vulnerable will have been vaccinated.
    Even if Spain only manages 10% of its adult population a month (and I suspect they'll manage more than that) they will still be at more than 40% of the adult population by the end of July.
    Might there not be a danger in parts of Europe that a natural fall in case numbers and deaths caused by seasonality will significant boost vaccine hesitancy (and at a more dangerous overall level than you will get in eg. the UK where we are so far ahead of the curve)? People nervous/indifferent about getting vaccines are not going to be encouraged to change their minds if their respective national situations seem under control anyway.

    And of course, high levels of vaccination in the first wave is extremely important for averting trouble next winter because 1) it will mean an existing level of protection in the population against serious illness 2) it is much more simple running a one shot "booster" programme
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,923
    felix said:

    MattW said:

    It is reported this morning on the news that the Spanish authorities are desperate to have tourists back, but will also be slapping them with large fines if caught sunbathing without one of the evil masks on. I am inferring from this that people are forced to wear them outdoors basically the whole time except when exercising. These daft regulations apply to everyone from the age of six upwards.

    It has not been adequately explained why it would be that your typical family of four from some sun-starved corner of Lancashire would want to spend their entire holiday in a hot, sweaty gag, having to constantly force miserable children to keep the hot, sweaty gags on as well, and to come back afterwards with a neat little set of rectangular white patches burnt into their faces for weeks afterwards.

    I mean, ideally the UK Government will render the issue moot by telling them not to go anyway, but if and when foreign travel is allowed there will be a lot of people who will rush off to these sunshine destinations, oblivious to whatever madcap regulations exist there, and end up getting a very unpleasant surprise.

    Spanish case rates are currently 100 new cases per million per day, which is the same as here. Compare France at 400.

    We won't be gong anytime soon imo.
    Actually the current figure is 146 and rising.
    I think I quoted the 7 day average, but thanks.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,790
    kamski said:

    felix said:

    IanB2 said:

    Politico: The Biden administration is rethinking a costly system of government-run mass vaccination sites after data revealed the program is lagging well behind a much cheaper federal effort to distribute doses via retail pharmacies.

    The government has shipped millions of doses to the 21 mass vaccination hubs, or “pilot” community centers, in states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas. The hubs are part of a $4 billion federal system that funds more than 1,000 smaller vaccination locations across the country and provides other vaccination support — such as supplies — to states across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency did not respond to repeated questions about how much the pilot sites cost.

    Despite the money the federal government has spent on the mass-vaccination pilot sites, they are administering just a fraction of the shots given across the country each day. Federal data show the retail pharmacy program — which has signed up 21 chains and 17,000 stores — can reach far more Americans in a shorter time, according to four senior officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The bottom line, those sources said, is that more Americans seem to be willing to walk to their local pharmacist to get the vaccine than to travel to a federal vaccination site for the shot.

    Several studies have shown that the British public, and I believe, the American has at least as much trust in pharmacists ....... generally community ones, in shops ...... as they do in GP's.
    My (long-ago, now) experience was that being asked for advice could be a 'many times a day' experience, especially where the same pharmacist had ben visible in the pharmacy for several years.
    Here in Spain they are really good. They are heavily linked in via the prescription system and ultra helpful.
    Unfortunately in Germany a doctor has to be involved in every vaccination, so it would need a change in the law to allow pharmacies to offer jabs.
    Is that just vaccination, or does it apply to all injections? If so, that would make life very difficult for patients who (here) manage their own conditions by injecting themselves.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,855
    ydoethur said:

    I dunno y'doethur. I think part of the problem is that they haven't won in their previously safe seats. Ever since Ed Miliband they have been very Metropolitan. Miliband was disastrously metropolitan. Corbyn was hardly a Scottish vote winner and was also a middle class metropolitan, whatever his clan claim to the contrary. And now they have another Londoner metropolitan.

    They've lost Scotland and they've lost the Red Wall. They've lost their constituency base, retreating instead to policies that sound great to residents of Islington but totally and utterly out of touch with ordinary voters. I can't see Remainer Keir Starmer winning back the kind of people they need.

    So they'll probably continue to do well in London. And that will be it.

    But that’s exactly the point. That’s their core vote now. They don’t care about reaching out to others, including those who used to vote for them. It’s the strategy they’ve had for 80 years, applied to a different group of voters.

    That’s why @SandyRentool said the other day in great frustration that he wanted a Labour Party that represented the workers.
    Some of the comments this morning are a bit apocalyptic, since the poll in fact shows 18 Labour gains out of the 45 seats surveyed. There's a small shift to the Tories, as there has been nationally, so the previous poll showing 36 Labour gains is not replicated. A small swing back reinstates the 36. Given that we're talking about 3 years from now, it's silly to base long-term prediction on that happening or not happening. I'm more concerned about the 10-point YG lead nationally yesterday - that really is a substantial vaccine bounce. We'll see if it's sustained in other polls.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 13,058
    So France and Germany go begging to Russia at the same time Russia is building up forces opposite Ukraine.

    Great timing people
  • MattWMattW Posts: 6,923
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It was a slightly pointless point by not fire. He knows what I meant. 1997 was a once in a lifetime result, just as 1945 and 1979 were. The fact that 1983 and 2001 almost replicated them isn't pedantry. Okay, I suppose 'generation' would be less hyperbole :wink:

    We may need to put 2019 in the same category: a seismic shift.

    Ydoethur, the thing is that if we're saying that Labour have gone from representing the working class to representing the Metropolitan elite then fine but they won't win power from such a base. It's not even entirely true. There are large swathes of cities, especially in the north and east, which did not reap the Eurostar love-in of the Blairite years. It's a London centric party now.

    I really think Labour are in huge trouble. It's not simply about Sir Keir Starmer. It's their whole vision. What do they stand for and represent now that Boris has swung a sufficient number of working class voters behind his Brexit Britain?

    I will bet that 2019 was the political reboot for the tories and we should ignore the preceding pre-Brexit semi tory wins. I could see a scenario where Labour are out of power for at least another 10, perhaps 15, years. They need to find a reason for existing and right now I've no idea what it is. I don't think they do either.

    Anyone? What's their vision which is going to recapture the north?

    I've made suggestions before but the obvious ones are to address real issues for those who are missing out. So they should be championing the rights of casual workers with zero hour contracts and all the joys of "self employment". They should be focusing on those who can't get housing, who are stuck living at home with mum and dad until their mid 20s. They should be more radical about student debt which is now blighting an entire generation's opportunities to get their own home. They should be more realistic and pragmatic in drugs policy and help those afflicted rather than jailing them.

    Many of these groups are young and don't vote enough but they have relatives and friends who do and must be disappointed that the State shows so little interest in them. Once upon a time, under a different economic structure, trade unions would have represented many of these people but they are no longer relevant. Nevertheless, they need a champion and Labour could be it.
    Did you watch "The Syndicate" last night? Exactly the sort of people you describe, who need a champion. The firm where the young people worked was taken over, and they were told that they would, in the future, be on pro hours contracts.
    I didn't, I was working until late, but yes. A huge swathe of our workforce are being casualised. It was an existing trend but it seems to have been given a huge boost by Covid, the lockdown and delivery culture. Who is going to speak for these people? If its not Labour what the hell is Labour for?
    I think that the paradox is that the rise of the gig economy and a casualised workforce is a response to the success of private sector unions in the past. Many of the issues that drove unionisation became law over the decades, holiday pay, sick pay, prevention of arbitrary dismissal, health and safety etc etc. When these things all became law, unions lost much of their purpose.

    The rise of the gig economy, and it goes far beyond Deliveroo with casual workers in all sorts of academic and office jobs, is a way of circumventing these laws. We have looser employment protections than many EU countries, tighter than the USA, but it does show through in job creation and flexibility.

    Perhaps there is a sweetspot where workers are protected from abusive employers yet hiring/firing are permissable to the point that the economy is flexible and dynamic, but we don't seem to have found it yet.

    An alternative is to redesign a Universal Credit type scheme so that gig and ZHC workers have a safety net via the government as bread and butter, with the gig job as the jam. It would make lives easier and less hand to mouth, and might even incentivise gig employers into better terms and conditions.
    The mistake that many unions made - and some are/have corrected, to their credit - is realising their changed role in the system. Which should be to help provide access to the employment laws you mention. The pitch - Union membership as insurance against problems at work.
    Sadly there is a legacy of decades of unions bring completely useless at providing such access to employment laws.
    That was the pitch from the EETPU in the 1980s, and also in a different way from MSF - services for members.

Sign In or Register to comment.