So I wonder why Tony Blairs political analysis will ever be taken seriously again...
We not only got another leader but one he liked and wanted being guided by his fan club within the party.
This could not be more what Blair wanted outside of personally leading the party.
20 points ahead?!
20 points ahead?!
Tony you are a few decades behind the country, you need to take up something less taxing like golf or crossword puzzles.
Centrism is an electoral joke.
Is it? Johnson seems to be doing pretty good with centrism.
For the Labour party it is, also feel free to argue with me here but I don't think Johnsons appeal comes from being a centrist.
The last time Labour properly embraced centrism it won massive majorities.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
But being stuck in the last century is exactly what led Blair to being so disastrously wrong in his comments I mentioned above!
We need to move on from leaders selected in the past century because the electorate has moved on!
What Labour are doing now, which is going hilariously wrong is embracing centrism.
If Labour wants to win votes centrism is suicide as we can clearly see on the evidence. Stop talking with regards to what you want and look at the actual evidence instead.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
When was that, 50 years ago?
Your example is from a leader selected decades ago as well, the world has massive massively changed since Blairs original massive victory which combined with Conservative weakness gave him the next couple.
Atlee, Wilson, Blair, all are about as relevant as each other given the passage of time.
But instead of arguing how many decades ago counts and how many doesn't why don't we just look at evidence we have from right now in 2021?
Labour being centrist is a huge vote loser, it is much preferred by Tories on here that Labour is centrist. Call me cynical but are you sure it isn't just because you prefer the Tories to have an easy ride?
Hung parliament up against a lefty or easy historical gains against a centrist, I can understand why so many Tories are desperate for Labour to keep centre.
Labour lost big under Corbyn and now looks likely to lose big under Starmer.
Ahh right when is Starmer getting a hung parliament then?
If the left can get big losses and hung parliaments then where is the centrist hung parliament?
Also how come the centrist is losing from the low point of the left wing person?
It is almost as if all these things add up to a centrist being less electable than a left winger.
I think the talk of centrist vs left wing is a bonkers one.
The question is what works? What makes peoples' lives better? What is it people are crying out for?
That's not left vs right; it's a pragmatic focus on peoples' problems rather than an obsession with (for example) Palestine.
The reason we got 40% is because we brought in left wing ideas to make people lives better rather than the usual Labour obsession with supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia nonsense you get with centrist Labour.
I know, I know, but you don't like it.
That is fine.
Labour got that 40% without YOUR vote. Labour left wing ideas to improve peoples lives are very unpopular on this forum but capable of getting 40% in the real world.
Centrist Labour is nowhere near capable of doing that.
Stop defining yourself by who you are not, and start defining yourself by what you will do for others.
So long as your obsession is with not being "centrist" Labour, which you have hilariously managed to define as support for Saudi Arabia, you will continue to fail the people say you love.
The Labour right have been big Saudi supporters for a while, if you are going to criticise the left opposing the occupation of Palestine it is also fair me to criticise their Israeli and Saudi support.
Or are only left wing people allowed to be criticised for their foreign policy views?
Labour has done more successfully (without looking into the distant past) recently on the left and worse in the centre, if Labour wants to win and help people then it needs to be on the left.
The evidence is very clear tonight, on the left wing low point Starmer is losing badly. Centrism does not work electorally for Labour.
Cherry picking. Labour did pretty well under Blair. Or was he some secret Corbynite?
Labour did quite well under Atlee as well, or was his program of nationalisation actually some centrist move?
Although personally I prefer to concentrate on leaders selected this century as they have some relevance to the modern day.
So I wonder why Tony Blairs political analysis will ever be taken seriously again...
We not only got another leader but one he liked and wanted being guided by his fan club within the party.
This could not be more what Blair wanted outside of personally leading the party.
20 points ahead?!
20 points ahead?!
Tony you are a few decades behind the country, you need to take up something less taxing like golf or crossword puzzles.
Centrism is an electoral joke.
Is it? Johnson seems to be doing pretty good with centrism.
For the Labour party it is, also feel free to argue with me here but I don't think Johnsons appeal comes from being a centrist.
The last time Labour properly embraced centrism it won massive majorities.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
But being stuck in the last century is exactly what led Blair to being so disastrously wrong in his comments I mentioned above!
We need to move on from leaders selected in the past century because the electorate has moved on!
What Labour are doing now, which is going hilariously wrong is embracing centrism.
If Labour wants to win votes centrism is suicide as we can clearly see on the evidence. Stop talking with regards to what you want and look at the actual evidence instead.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
When was that, 50 years ago?
Your example is from a leader selected decades ago as well, the world has massive massively changed since Blairs original massive victory which combined with Conservative weakness gave him the next couple.
Atlee, Wilson, Blair, all are about as relevant as each other given the passage of time.
But instead of arguing how many decades ago counts and how many doesn't why don't we just look at evidence we have from right now in 2021?
Labour being centrist is a huge vote loser, it is much preferred by Tories on here that Labour is centrist. Call me cynical but are you sure it isn't just because you prefer the Tories to have an easy ride?
Hung parliament up against a lefty or easy historical gains against a centrist, I can understand why so many Tories are desperate for Labour to keep centre.
Labour lost big under Corbyn and now looks likely to lose big under Starmer.
Ahh right when is Starmer getting a hung parliament then?
If the left can get big losses and hung parliaments then where is the centrist hung parliament?
Also how come the centrist is losing from the low point of the left wing person?
It is almost as if all these things add up to a centrist being less electable than a left winger.
I think the talk of centrist vs left wing is a bonkers one.
The question is what works? What makes peoples' lives better? What is it people are crying out for?
That's not left vs right; it's a pragmatic focus on peoples' problems rather than an obsession with (for example) Palestine.
The reason we got 40% is because we brought in left wing ideas to make people lives better rather than the usual Labour obsession with supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia nonsense you get with centrist Labour.
I know, I know, but you don't like it.
That is fine.
Labour got that 40% without YOUR vote. Labour left wing ideas to improve peoples lives are very unpopular on this forum but capable of getting 40% in the real world.
Centrist Labour is nowhere near capable of doing that.
Stop defining yourself by who you are not, and start defining yourself by what you will do for others.
So long as your obsession is with not being "centrist" Labour, which you have hilariously managed to define as support for Saudi Arabia, you will continue to fail the people say you love.
The Labour right have been big Saudi supporters for a while, if you are going to criticise the left opposing the occupation of Palestine it is also fair me to criticise their Israeli and Saudi support.
Or are only left wing people allowed to be criticised for their foreign policy views?
Labour has done more successfully (without looking into the distant past) recently on the left and worse in the centre, if Labour wants to win and help people then it needs to be on the left.
The evidence is very clear tonight, on the left wing low point Starmer is losing badly. Centrism does not work electorally for Labour.
Cherry picking. Labour did pretty well under Blair. Or was he some secret Corbynite?
Labour did quite well under Atlee as well, or was his program of nationalisation actually some centrist move?
Although personally I prefer to concentrate on leaders selected this century as they have some relevance to the modern day.
But that's the problem. Labour have not had a leader selected this century who has done well electorally.
The implications for Wales are quite something considering that PC & Lab split the left vote far more in Assembly elections...
Indeed. If the Brexit vote breaks to the Tories Labour are in for a truly horrible day. Ones to watch:
All seats in the north (five) Both seats in Newport Bridgend Vale of Glamorgan (both should be straightforward Tory gains anyway, in fairness) Torfaen Even Blaenau Gwent might come into play.
Of course, that does assume the vote will break Tory. I have been doubtful about this up to now, but equally, Labour’s longstanding tribal loyalty seems to be breaking down. If they can’t hold their vote in Ystradgynlais, you wonder a bit where they will.
So I wonder why Tony Blairs political analysis will ever be taken seriously again...
We not only got another leader but one he liked and wanted being guided by his fan club within the party.
This could not be more what Blair wanted outside of personally leading the party.
20 points ahead?!
20 points ahead?!
Tony you are a few decades behind the country, you need to take up something less taxing like golf or crossword puzzles.
Centrism is an electoral joke.
Is it? Johnson seems to be doing pretty good with centrism.
For the Labour party it is, also feel free to argue with me here but I don't think Johnsons appeal comes from being a centrist.
The last time Labour properly embraced centrism it won massive majorities.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
But being stuck in the last century is exactly what led Blair to being so disastrously wrong in his comments I mentioned above!
We need to move on from leaders selected in the past century because the electorate has moved on!
What Labour are doing now, which is going hilariously wrong is embracing centrism.
If Labour wants to win votes centrism is suicide as we can clearly see on the evidence. Stop talking with regards to what you want and look at the actual evidence instead.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
When was that, 50 years ago?
Your example is from a leader selected decades ago as well, the world has massive massively changed since Blairs original massive victory which combined with Conservative weakness gave him the next couple.
Atlee, Wilson, Blair, all are about as relevant as each other given the passage of time.
But instead of arguing how many decades ago counts and how many doesn't why don't we just look at evidence we have from right now in 2021?
Labour being centrist is a huge vote loser, it is much preferred by Tories on here that Labour is centrist. Call me cynical but are you sure it isn't just because you prefer the Tories to have an easy ride?
Hung parliament up against a lefty or easy historical gains against a centrist, I can understand why so many Tories are desperate for Labour to keep centre.
Labour lost big under Corbyn and now looks likely to lose big under Starmer.
Ahh right when is Starmer getting a hung parliament then?
If the left can get big losses and hung parliaments then where is the centrist hung parliament?
Also how come the centrist is losing from the low point of the left wing person?
It is almost as if all these things add up to a centrist being less electable than a left winger.
I think the talk of centrist vs left wing is a bonkers one.
The question is what works? What makes peoples' lives better? What is it people are crying out for?
That's not left vs right; it's a pragmatic focus on peoples' problems rather than an obsession with (for example) Palestine.
The reason we got 40% is because we brought in left wing ideas to make people lives better rather than the usual Labour obsession with supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia nonsense you get with centrist Labour.
I know, I know, but you don't like it.
That is fine.
Labour got that 40% without YOUR vote. Labour left wing ideas to improve peoples lives are very unpopular on this forum but capable of getting 40% in the real world.
Centrist Labour is nowhere near capable of doing that.
Stop defining yourself by who you are not, and start defining yourself by what you will do for others.
So long as your obsession is with not being "centrist" Labour, which you have hilariously managed to define as support for Saudi Arabia, you will continue to fail the people say you love.
The Labour right have been big Saudi supporters for a while, if you are going to criticise the left opposing the occupation of Palestine it is also fair me to criticise their Israeli and Saudi support.
Or are only left wing people allowed to be criticised for their foreign policy views?
Labour has done more successfully (without looking into the distant past) recently on the left and worse in the centre, if Labour wants to win and help people then it needs to be on the left.
The evidence is very clear tonight, on the left wing low point Starmer is losing badly. Centrism does not work electorally for Labour.
Cherry picking. Labour did pretty well under Blair. Or was he some secret Corbynite?
Labour did quite well under Atlee as well, or was his program of nationalisation actually some centrist move?
Although personally I prefer to concentrate on leaders selected this century as they have some relevance to the modern day.
His foreign policy viz-a-viz the Soviet Union wasn't exactly what you'd call leftist.
Believe Attlee was pretty much at the center of the Labour Party along with Bevin, between Morrison on the right and Cripps & Bevin on the left.
So I wonder why Tony Blairs political analysis will ever be taken seriously again...
We not only got another leader but one he liked and wanted being guided by his fan club within the party.
This could not be more what Blair wanted outside of personally leading the party.
20 points ahead?!
20 points ahead?!
Tony you are a few decades behind the country, you need to take up something less taxing like golf or crossword puzzles.
Centrism is an electoral joke.
Is it? Johnson seems to be doing pretty good with centrism.
For the Labour party it is, also feel free to argue with me here but I don't think Johnsons appeal comes from being a centrist.
The last time Labour properly embraced centrism it won massive majorities.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
But being stuck in the last century is exactly what led Blair to being so disastrously wrong in his comments I mentioned above!
We need to move on from leaders selected in the past century because the electorate has moved on!
What Labour are doing now, which is going hilariously wrong is embracing centrism.
If Labour wants to win votes centrism is suicide as we can clearly see on the evidence. Stop talking with regards to what you want and look at the actual evidence instead.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
When was that, 50 years ago?
Your example is from a leader selected decades ago as well, the world has massive massively changed since Blairs original massive victory which combined with Conservative weakness gave him the next couple.
Atlee, Wilson, Blair, all are about as relevant as each other given the passage of time.
But instead of arguing how many decades ago counts and how many doesn't why don't we just look at evidence we have from right now in 2021?
Labour being centrist is a huge vote loser, it is much preferred by Tories on here that Labour is centrist. Call me cynical but are you sure it isn't just because you prefer the Tories to have an easy ride?
Hung parliament up against a lefty or easy historical gains against a centrist, I can understand why so many Tories are desperate for Labour to keep centre.
Labour lost big under Corbyn and now looks likely to lose big under Starmer.
Ahh right when is Starmer getting a hung parliament then?
If the left can get big losses and hung parliaments then where is the centrist hung parliament?
Also how come the centrist is losing from the low point of the left wing person?
It is almost as if all these things add up to a centrist being less electable than a left winger.
I think the talk of centrist vs left wing is a bonkers one.
The question is what works? What makes peoples' lives better? What is it people are crying out for?
That's not left vs right; it's a pragmatic focus on peoples' problems rather than an obsession with (for example) Palestine.
The reason we got 40% is because we brought in left wing ideas to make people lives better rather than the usual Labour obsession with supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia nonsense you get with centrist Labour.
I know, I know, but you don't like it.
That is fine.
Labour got that 40% without YOUR vote. Labour left wing ideas to improve peoples lives are very unpopular on this forum but capable of getting 40% in the real world.
Centrist Labour is nowhere near capable of doing that.
"the usual Labour obsession with supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia nonsense you get with centrist Labour"
It's funny, because I don't remember ever seeing those centrists waving banners about Saudi Arabia or Israel... Instead, I remember them talking about the NHS and pensions and homes and jobs.
Just as a matter of interest @TheJezziah, why did Corbyn in 2019 do worse than Milliband in 2015 or Brown in 2010?
What were his secret centrist tendencies that dragged him down?
Of Blair in 2005 or Blair in 2001 or Blair in 1997.
Come to mention it, the only person that Corbyn 2019 seemed to beat was... ummm...
Fuck me. He was beaten by Foot in 1983, who managed 209 seats against Corbyn's 202.
Brown 29.0%
Ed Miliband 30.4%
Corbyn 40% 32.1%
Difference is the Tories with Brexit being a big vote winner for them.
Corbyn not only got huge numbers more to vote for him in 2017, he got more numbers in 2019 at his low point after being forced to adopt an electorally disastrous 2nd referendum policy and the loss of Scotland before he even took over!
If you look at England only voters Corbyn stands out even more, I think he even took a higher percentage in England alone than Blairs first victory let alone the second and third.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
So I wonder why Tony Blairs political analysis will ever be taken seriously again...
We not only got another leader but one he liked and wanted being guided by his fan club within the party.
This could not be more what Blair wanted outside of personally leading the party.
20 points ahead?!
20 points ahead?!
Tony you are a few decades behind the country, you need to take up something less taxing like golf or crossword puzzles.
Centrism is an electoral joke.
Is it? Johnson seems to be doing pretty good with centrism.
For the Labour party it is, also feel free to argue with me here but I don't think Johnsons appeal comes from being a centrist.
The last time Labour properly embraced centrism it won massive majorities.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
But being stuck in the last century is exactly what led Blair to being so disastrously wrong in his comments I mentioned above!
We need to move on from leaders selected in the past century because the electorate has moved on!
What Labour are doing now, which is going hilariously wrong is embracing centrism.
If Labour wants to win votes centrism is suicide as we can clearly see on the evidence. Stop talking with regards to what you want and look at the actual evidence instead.
The last time they properly embraced a left wing manifesto they won a massive mandate.
When was that, 50 years ago?
Your example is from a leader selected decades ago as well, the world has massive massively changed since Blairs original massive victory which combined with Conservative weakness gave him the next couple.
Atlee, Wilson, Blair, all are about as relevant as each other given the passage of time.
But instead of arguing how many decades ago counts and how many doesn't why don't we just look at evidence we have from right now in 2021?
Labour being centrist is a huge vote loser, it is much preferred by Tories on here that Labour is centrist. Call me cynical but are you sure it isn't just because you prefer the Tories to have an easy ride?
Hung parliament up against a lefty or easy historical gains against a centrist, I can understand why so many Tories are desperate for Labour to keep centre.
Labour lost big under Corbyn and now looks likely to lose big under Starmer.
Ahh right when is Starmer getting a hung parliament then?
If the left can get big losses and hung parliaments then where is the centrist hung parliament?
Also how come the centrist is losing from the low point of the left wing person?
It is almost as if all these things add up to a centrist being less electable than a left winger.
I think the talk of centrist vs left wing is a bonkers one.
The question is what works? What makes peoples' lives better? What is it people are crying out for?
That's not left vs right; it's a pragmatic focus on peoples' problems rather than an obsession with (for example) Palestine.
The reason we got 40% is because we brought in left wing ideas to make people lives better rather than the usual Labour obsession with supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia nonsense you get with centrist Labour.
I know, I know, but you don't like it.
That is fine.
Labour got that 40% without YOUR vote. Labour left wing ideas to improve peoples lives are very unpopular on this forum but capable of getting 40% in the real world.
Centrist Labour is nowhere near capable of doing that.
"the usual Labour obsession with supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia nonsense you get with centrist Labour"
It's funny, because I don't remember ever seeing those centrists waving banners about Saudi Arabia or Israel... Instead, I remember them talking about the NHS and pensions and homes and jobs.
It is unpopular in the Labour party so you don't talk about, you just accept expensive trips in exchange for voting the right way over and above what pesky normal people believe.
People want public services looked after and the things mentioned in the Hartlepool polling above. Centrist Labour doesn't have the money left over after pursuing adventures in the middle east in connection with their pet obsessions. This is why left wing Labour gets more votes.
BTW, does anyone know why the predecessor to current Hartlepool constituency, was called "The Hartlepools"
Which sound even dumber than West Bromwich West. Or West Bromwich East.
Yes. The original Hartlepool village/town was called Old Hartlepool, also known as The Headland. The newer area of Hartlepool was called West Hartlepool. Therefore the constituency was The Hartlepools, meaning Old Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. This documentary from 1963 mentions West Hartlepool quite a bit.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
Of all the Labour leaders selected this century he is the best vote winner, although that does limit you to a pool of...
Keir Starmer Ed Milliband Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
One reason why the UK, especially England, is more conservative-Conservative now than in 1945, is because of the contribution of the Labour Party to the increased personal prosperity and material security of the mass of the people. Not all, but most, including many who in 1945 had been ill-housed, low-paid, under-educated & very insecure for a LONG time prior.
Similar story with Democratic Party of FDR & LBJ. Nothing succeeds like a little success in making folks increasing more interested in keeping what they've got than in seeking a Great Society or a New Deal.
Assuming Hartlepool is lost and Tracy Brabin wins in West Yorkshire (and she resigns her seat as she’s indicated she will) Batley and Spen is surely absolute must win for Starmer.
One reason why the UK, especially England, is more conservative-Conservative now than in 1945, is because of the contribution of the Labour Party to the increased personal prosperity and material security of the mass of the people. Not all, but most, including many who in 1945 had been ill-housed, low-paid, under-educated & very insecure for a LONG time prior.
Similar story with Democratic Party of FDR & LBJ. Nothing succeeds like a little success in making folks increasing more interested in keeping what they've got than in seeking a Great Society or a New Deal.
It also might explain the movement of the university educated class away from conservative values, because they want to somehow distinguish themselves from the upwardly mobile working classes.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
Of all the Labour leaders selected this century he is the best vote winner, although that does limit you to a pool of...
Keir Starmer Ed Milliband Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
But it didn’t, did it? He still lost. He was still out of power. He was unable to implement a single policy. He had no ‘massive mandate,’ because that under our system only goes to the winning party.
The fact is, Corbyn was in denial about what had happened, claiming he had won when he hadn’t and using it as an excuse to cling on to leadership he was totally unsuited to (it wasn’t only his policies that turned the PLP against him, his laziness, disorganisation and rudeness were factors as well).
Had he quit after 2017 and let a younger and/or more intelligent left winger take over, his leadership might have been a springboard for the left, but he didn’t and Labour have been reduced to rubble - the first ever official opposition to suffer a net loss of seats nine years after leaving government.
BTW, does anyone know why the predecessor to current Hartlepool constituency, was called "The Hartlepools"
Which sound even dumber than West Bromwich West. Or West Bromwich East.
Yes. The original Hartlepool village/town was called Old Hartlepool, also known as The Headland. The newer area of Hartlepool was called West Hartlepool. Therefore the constituency was The Hartlepools, meaning Old Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. This documentary from 1963 mentions West Hartlepool quite a bit.
Just looked at first few minutes (so far) strongly reminds me of one of my former hometowns, Aliquippa PA. Substitute steel mill for shipyard, 1980s for 1960s.
One reason why the UK, especially England, is more conservative-Conservative now than in 1945, is because of the contribution of the Labour Party to the increased personal prosperity and material security of the mass of the people. Not all, but most, including many who in 1945 had been ill-housed, low-paid, under-educated & very insecure for a LONG time prior.
Similar story with Democratic Party of FDR & LBJ. Nothing succeeds like a little success in making folks increasing more interested in keeping what they've got than in seeking a Great Society or a New Deal.
That’s very true. The problem with the Labour Party is that they find it hard to champion their successes. They feel a need to live in a world where there is a down-trodden proletariat being exploited by the evil Tories.
Centrist Labour doesn't have the money left over after pursuing adventures in the middle east in connection with their pet obsessions.
When it comes to Middle Eastern adventures, left wing Labour is present but not involved.
The Labour rights Middle Eastern adventures are too pricey in blood and money for most voters liking, Labour lefts views don't actually require sending troops aboard to kill people, people like that!
Assuming Hartlepool is lost and Tracy Brabin wins in West Yorkshire (and she resigns her seat as she’s indicated she will) Batley and Spen is surely absolute must win for Starmer.
Centrist Labour doesn't have the money left over after pursuing adventures in the middle east in connection with their pet obsessions.
When it comes to Middle Eastern adventures, left wing Labour is present but not involved.
The Labour rights Middle Eastern adventures are too pricey in blood and money for most voters liking, Labour lefts views don't actually require sending troops aboard to kill people, people like that!
Like it so much that they twice reject the person who was doing it, while voting in the ‘Middle Eastern adventurer’ with a substantial majority in the one chance they had?
One reason why the UK, especially England, is more conservative-Conservative now than in 1945, is because of the contribution of the Labour Party to the increased personal prosperity and material security of the mass of the people. Not all, but most, including many who in 1945 had been ill-housed, low-paid, under-educated & very insecure for a LONG time prior.
Similar story with Democratic Party of FDR & LBJ. Nothing succeeds like a little success in making folks increasing more interested in keeping what they've got than in seeking a Great Society or a New Deal.
It also might explain the movement of the university educated class away from conservative values, because they want to somehow distinguish themselves from the upwardly mobile working classes.
Certainly culturally & psychologically, yes. And thus politically. Including many who see themselves as very much pro-working class, big Woodie Guthrie fans (though that's pretty dated now) that kind of thing.
Just as a matter of interest @TheJezziah, why did Corbyn in 2019 do worse than Milliband in 2015 or Brown in 2010?
What were his secret centrist tendencies that dragged him down?
Of Blair in 2005 or Blair in 2001 or Blair in 1997.
Come to mention it, the only person that Corbyn 2019 seemed to beat was... ummm...
Fuck me. He was beaten by Foot in 1983, who managed 209 seats against Corbyn's 202.
Brown 29.0%
Ed Miliband 30.4%
Corbyn 40% 32.1%
Difference is the Tories with Brexit being a big vote winner for them.
Corbyn not only got huge numbers more to vote for him in 2017, he got more numbers in 2019 at his low point after being forced to adopt an electorally disastrous 2nd referendum policy and the loss of Scotland before he even took over!
If you look at England only voters Corbyn stands out even more, I think he even took a higher percentage in England alone than Blairs first victory let alone the second and third.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
You claim to care about the numbers, but this post demonstrates you don't give a shit.
If you get 40% of the vote, but 60% of the voters are prepared to tactically vote against you, then you are fucked.
On the other hand, if you get 35%, but people are tactically voting for you, then you're in Number 10.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
Of all the Labour leaders selected this century he is the best vote winner, although that does limit you to a pool of...
Keir Starmer Ed Milliband Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
But it didn’t, did it? He still lost. He was still out of power. He was unable to implement a single policy. He had no ‘massive mandate,’ because that under our system only goes to the winning party.
The fact is, Corbyn was in denial about what had happened, claiming he had won when he hadn’t and using it as an excuse to cling on to leadership he was totally unsuited to (it wasn’t only his policies that turned the PLP against him, his laziness, disorganisation and rudeness were factors as well).
Had he quit after 2017 and let a younger and/or more intelligent left winger take over, his leadership might have been a springboard for the left, but he didn’t and Labour have been reduced to rubble - the first ever official opposition to suffer a net loss of seats nine years after leaving government.
Sorry 'massive mandate'?
That was me and someone else talking about Blair and Atlee (or maybe Wilson) neither of us were talking about elections Labour had failed to win when the other person mentioned 'massive mandate'. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making there.
The Labour right were waiting to move back to the centre right after the election, the reason the votes increased was because of the move left. The PLP wanted to reverse that, as they have under Starmer.
Who is going to make even more losses than Corbyn's low point, whilst being given a much easier ride by almost everybody, because the political alignment is less electable.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
What time is the result due ? I thought it was 4am
5:30 I last heard, a few hours ago.
They tend to underestimate how long it will take rather than overestimate.
Also, there could be some candidates on the cusp of losing their deposit, so at least some ballots get recounted to determine if the make the threshold, or not.
Just as a matter of interest @TheJezziah, why did Corbyn in 2019 do worse than Milliband in 2015 or Brown in 2010?
What were his secret centrist tendencies that dragged him down?
Of Blair in 2005 or Blair in 2001 or Blair in 1997.
Come to mention it, the only person that Corbyn 2019 seemed to beat was... ummm...
Fuck me. He was beaten by Foot in 1983, who managed 209 seats against Corbyn's 202.
Brown 29.0%
Ed Miliband 30.4%
Corbyn 40% 32.1%
Difference is the Tories with Brexit being a big vote winner for them.
Corbyn not only got huge numbers more to vote for him in 2017, he got more numbers in 2019 at his low point after being forced to adopt an electorally disastrous 2nd referendum policy and the loss of Scotland before he even took over!
If you look at England only voters Corbyn stands out even more, I think he even took a higher percentage in England alone than Blairs first victory let alone the second and third.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
You claim to care about the numbers, but this post demonstrates you don't give a shit.
If you get 40% of the vote, but 60% of the voters are prepared to tactically vote against you, then you are fucked.
On the other hand, if you get 35%, but people are tactically voting for you, then you're in Number 10.
But you aren't talking about the numbers anymore.
We have moved away from the numbers to your political assessment of what the numbers mean there though.
The Conservatives vote in 2017 was massively boosted by Brexit, there was some voting against Corbyn, probably even a little bit more than against the previous couple of leaders, but the number of extra votes brought in from going left was much more than those gained by the Tories from going left.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
Of all the Labour leaders selected this century he is the best vote winner, although that does limit you to a pool of...
Keir Starmer Ed Milliband Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
But it didn’t, did it? He still lost. He was still out of power. He was unable to implement a single policy. He had no ‘massive mandate,’ because that under our system only goes to the winning party.
The fact is, Corbyn was in denial about what had happened, claiming he had won when he hadn’t and using it as an excuse to cling on to leadership he was totally unsuited to (it wasn’t only his policies that turned the PLP against him, his laziness, disorganisation and rudeness were factors as well).
Had he quit after 2017 and let a younger and/or more intelligent left winger take over, his leadership might have been a springboard for the left, but he didn’t and Labour have been reduced to rubble - the first ever official opposition to suffer a net loss of seats nine years after leaving government.
Sorry 'massive mandate'?
That was me and someone else talking about Blair and Atlee (or maybe Wilson) neither of us were talking about elections Labour had failed to win when the other person mentioned 'massive mandate'. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making there.
The Labour right were waiting to move back to the centre right after the election, the reason the votes increased was because of the move left. The PLP wanted to reverse that, as they have under Starmer.
Who is going to make even more losses than Corbyn's low point, whilst being given a much easier ride by almost everybody, because the political alignment is less electable.
So the ‘last time Labour embraced left wing policies they won a massive mandate’ was Attlee in 1945?
Leaving aside the fact that this simply isn’t true (whatever you think of Corbyn’s policies 1983 was more recent) you have also said you want to talk about leaders elected in this century. Attlee was elected nearly a hundred years ago (86, to be precise).
Which is why I assumed you were talking about 2017, since after all the left have been claiming that as a win for four years.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Why would he do that? Brexit is in its infancy - a good chance it could go really wrong. Most people with a brain recognise that Brexit is a clusterf*ck - it just needs to play out as such,
Waiting game may be damaging in the short term but should pay dividends later.
Centrist Labour doesn't have the money left over after pursuing adventures in the middle east in connection with their pet obsessions.
When it comes to Middle Eastern adventures, left wing Labour is present but not involved.
The Labour rights Middle Eastern adventures are too pricey in blood and money for most voters liking, Labour lefts views don't actually require sending troops aboard to kill people, people like that!
Like it so much that they twice reject the person who was doing it, while voting in the ‘Middle Eastern adventurer’ with a substantial majority in the one chance they had?
That seems to be the one that scarred them to it, it took a while for everyone to realise quite what a tragic idea it was. Blair got out (or last elected) whilst the Iraq war was a less unpopular a decision than it is now, hence only Corbyn getting as high as 40% since then.
Richard Moss @BBCRichardMoss 1mIn In case you were wondering...counting is still continuing in Hartlepool. Declaration time now unclear. Could be 6.15. We know Labour has lost - the party’s conceded - but we await the final tally and scale of the defeat.
Centrist Labour doesn't have the money left over after pursuing adventures in the middle east in connection with their pet obsessions.
When it comes to Middle Eastern adventures, left wing Labour is present but not involved.
The Labour rights Middle Eastern adventures are too pricey in blood and money for most voters liking, Labour lefts views don't actually require sending troops aboard to kill people, people like that!
Like it so much that they twice reject the person who was doing it, while voting in the ‘Middle Eastern adventurer’ with a substantial majority in the one chance they had?
That seems to be the one that scarred them to it, it took a while for everyone to realise quite what a tragic idea it was. Blair got out (or last elected) whilst the Iraq war was a less unpopular a decision than it is now, hence only Corbyn getting as high as 40% since then.
To be pedantic, he got 39.9%.
Only one Labour leader has topped 40% since 1970, and that was Blair.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Why would he do that? Brexit is in its infancy - a good chance it could go really wrong. Most people with a brain recognise that Brexit is a clusterf*ck - it just needs to play out as such,
Waiting game may be damaging in the short term but should pay dividends later.
It's been decided that it's a clusterf*ck, has it? Simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
Richard Moss @BBCRichardMoss 1mIn In case you were wondering...counting is still continuing in Hartlepool. Declaration time now unclear. Could be 6.15. We know Labour has lost - the party’s conceded - but we await the final tally and scale of the defeat.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Fair point.
Although, to be fair, I can't think of any big set piece speeches from Starter since Covid hit.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Why would he do that? Brexit is in its infancy - a good chance it could go really wrong. Most people with a brain recognise that Brexit is a clusterf*ck - it just needs to play out as such,
Waiting game may be damaging in the short term but should pay dividends later.
It's been decided that it's a clusterf*ck, has it? Simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
Just look what it’s done to our vaccine roll out…..
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
Of all the Labour leaders selected this century he is the best vote winner, although that does limit you to a pool of...
Keir Starmer Ed Milliband Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
But it didn’t, did it? He still lost. He was still out of power. He was unable to implement a single policy. He had no ‘massive mandate,’ because that under our system only goes to the winning party.
The fact is, Corbyn was in denial about what had happened, claiming he had won when he hadn’t and using it as an excuse to cling on to leadership he was totally unsuited to (it wasn’t only his policies that turned the PLP against him, his laziness, disorganisation and rudeness were factors as well).
Had he quit after 2017 and let a younger and/or more intelligent left winger take over, his leadership might have been a springboard for the left, but he didn’t and Labour have been reduced to rubble - the first ever official opposition to suffer a net loss of seats nine years after leaving government.
Sorry 'massive mandate'?
That was me and someone else talking about Blair and Atlee (or maybe Wilson) neither of us were talking about elections Labour had failed to win when the other person mentioned 'massive mandate'. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making there.
The Labour right were waiting to move back to the centre right after the election, the reason the votes increased was because of the move left. The PLP wanted to reverse that, as they have under Starmer.
Who is going to make even more losses than Corbyn's low point, whilst being given a much easier ride by almost everybody, because the political alignment is less electable.
So the ‘last time Labour embraced left wing policies they won a massive mandate’ was Attlee in 1945?
Leaving aside the fact that this simply isn’t true (whatever you think of Corbyn’s policies 1983 was more recent) you have also said you want to talk about leaders elected in this century. Attlee was elected nearly a hundred years ago (86, to be precise).
Which is why I assumed you were talking about 2017, since after all the left have been claiming that as a win for four years.
So which is it?
Left wing losses didn't count as the last time they 'properly embraced' for the same reason centrist losses didn't.
I was being generous by not being as picky with the original statement as you are here. I mean why didn't 2010 Brown count as centrism? he isn't on the left of the party by any means.
It was the other person that made the statement originally and clearly meant Blair when they said it. I was following the logic as I saw it.
So basically, take it up with him, I'd agree it was imprecise.
Lastly yes I said I want to talk about leaders selected this century as leader which is why Atlee and Blair both don't count, they are both decades in the past and not completely relevant to voters concerns today (but he brought up a leader selected in a past century first which is why I mentioned him)
I think at this point your argument is with whoever I was arguing with prior to you jumping in, we seem to mostly agree!
Labour needs to decide where it can actually win votes
There will be more votes for Labour to mine in the South, over time. The question is how long it will take to gain traction in Southern seats, and how deep and how widespread the new support could be.
The doomsday scenario for them is that Labour's voter distribution becomes more and more inefficient. The Tories could well end up knocking over most of what's left of the Red Wall, whilst holding on in many potential new Labour targets in the Home Counties with reduced but still comfortable majorities.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
Of all the Labour leaders selected this century he is the best vote winner, although that does limit you to a pool of...
Keir Starmer Ed Milliband Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
But it didn’t, did it? He still lost. He was still out of power. He was unable to implement a single policy. He had no ‘massive mandate,’ because that under our system only goes to the winning party.
The fact is, Corbyn was in denial about what had happened, claiming he had won when he hadn’t and using it as an excuse to cling on to leadership he was totally unsuited to (it wasn’t only his policies that turned the PLP against him, his laziness, disorganisation and rudeness were factors as well).
Had he quit after 2017 and let a younger and/or more intelligent left winger take over, his leadership might have been a springboard for the left, but he didn’t and Labour have been reduced to rubble - the first ever official opposition to suffer a net loss of seats nine years after leaving government.
Sorry 'massive mandate'?
That was me and someone else talking about Blair and Atlee (or maybe Wilson) neither of us were talking about elections Labour had failed to win when the other person mentioned 'massive mandate'. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making there.
The Labour right were waiting to move back to the centre right after the election, the reason the votes increased was because of the move left. The PLP wanted to reverse that, as they have under Starmer.
Who is going to make even more losses than Corbyn's low point, whilst being given a much easier ride by almost everybody, because the political alignment is less electable.
So the ‘last time Labour embraced left wing policies they won a massive mandate’ was Attlee in 1945?
Leaving aside the fact that this simply isn’t true (whatever you think of Corbyn’s policies 1983 was more recent) you have also said you want to talk about leaders elected in this century. Attlee was elected nearly a hundred years ago (86, to be precise).
Which is why I assumed you were talking about 2017, since after all the left have been claiming that as a win for four years.
So which is it?
Left wing losses didn't count as the last time they 'properly embraced' for the same reason centrist losses didn't.
I was being generous by not being as picky with the original statement as you are here. I mean why didn't 2010 Brown count as centrism? he isn't on the left of the party by any means.
It was the other person that made the statement originally and clearly meant Blair when they said it. I was following the logic as I saw it.
So basically, take it up with him, I'd agree it was imprecise.
Lastly yes I said I want to talk about leaders selected this century as leader which is why Atlee and Blair both don't count, they are both decades in the past and not completely relevant to voters concerns today (but he brought up a leader selected in a past century first which is why I mentioned him)
I think at this point your argument is with whoever I was arguing with prior to you jumping in, we seem to mostly agree!
I can’t agree with you there because it’s impossible to make out a clear line of argument. You said ‘the last time Labour embraced left wing policies they won a massive mandate.’ You now appear to be saying that by definition if they didn’t win a massive mandate it’s because they didn’t embrace left wing politics. Are you saying then that Corbyn was not left wing? Or that he won a massive mandate?
You also seem to be saying you don’t want to talk about the twentieth century, but that you were talking about it.
BTW, does anyone know why the predecessor to current Hartlepool constituency, was called "The Hartlepools"
Which sound even dumber than West Bromwich West. Or West Bromwich East.
Locally we have a New Old Baltimore Road.
Did you catch my post re: Harford Co, MD, named after John Harford, out-of-wedlock Calvert heir & last proprietor of Maryland?
Nope. Thanks for that.
Even his friends said he was a bastard.
William of Normandy was the one.
The bastard to his friends, and much worse to his enemies.
John Pollexfen Bastard (1756-1816) British Tory politician, landowner and colonel of the East Devon Militia
"According to the Oxford Companion to Children's Literature, Bastard indirectly inspired the familiar form of the children's rhyme "Old Mother Hubbard..." after instructing its author Sarah Catherine Martin, his sister-in-law, to "run away and write one of your stupid little rhymes."
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Why would he do that? Brexit is in its infancy - a good chance it could go really wrong. Most people with a brain recognise that Brexit is a clusterf*ck - it just needs to play out as such,
Waiting game may be damaging in the short term but should pay dividends later.
It's been decided that it's a clusterf*ck, has it? Simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
Australia's international borders might not fully reopen until the middle or second half of 2022, Trade Minister Dan Tehan said on Friday, in a blow to airlines and the tourism sector.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Why would he do that? Brexit is in its infancy - a good chance it could go really wrong. Most people with a brain recognise that Brexit is a clusterf*ck - it just needs to play out as such,
Waiting game may be damaging in the short term but should pay dividends later.
It's been decided that it's a clusterf*ck, has it? Simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
Ah yes, those Brexit unicorns...
I'm not claiming that. You are the one making unsubstantiated claims.
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Wrong. He hasn’t done a big set piece speech where he says that the voters got it right. That’s what he needs to do.
Why would he do that? Brexit is in its infancy - a good chance it could go really wrong. Most people with a brain recognise that Brexit is a clusterf*ck - it just needs to play out as such,
Waiting game may be damaging in the short term but should pay dividends later.
You may be right. But it will need to be as obviously bad in the same way that it’s been obviously good in terms of the vaccine.
Big mystery — why did Starmer go to Bath. where he was manhandled out of a pub? It's one of the biggest LD vs Con areas in the country, with Labour having very little support.
Where would most people rather go? Bath or Hartlepool?
John Craig saying scale of victory ever more apparent.... table groaning under the weight of votes.. they might even need another table....
In the discussion I've just been watching, the political correspondent was suggesting that the Conservatives have come to embody "a certain sort of Englishness" - that they've captured English identity in the same manner as the SNP in Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Welsh Labour.
I wouldn't go that far. The Conservatives continue to rattle on about Britain, they - like everyone else - won't countenance an English Parliament, and they've certainly not started grievance mongering and banging the drum for independence. HOWEVER... Labour's decision to set up devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales to give itself new power bases has backfired in the most spectacular fashion. It's probably going to destroy the Union, and sink Labour along with it - a fate richly and thoroughly deserved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Leaving Brexit aside, I sympathise with Starmer but don't think he is the answer on current form. It's a tough gig at the moment being leader of an opposition party, but he needs to do much better. The fact that a Man Utd footballer is a rallying point for opposition to this wretched Government rather than the Labour party is damning.
Labour needs to provide a credible *and* radical alternative. Corbyn may have been a terrible leader but there was a vision that people could latch onto - there was hope for a better tomorrow, especially for the under 50's.
I personally will give more time for Starmer but he needs to up his game and be radical (and relevant). If that means moving to the left, so be it. If there is no radical agenda that makes a difference to people's lives then it's game over for GE 2024.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
He lost both the votes.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
Of all the Labour leaders selected this century he is the best vote winner, although that does limit you to a pool of...
Keir Starmer Ed Milliband Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
But it didn’t, did it? He still lost. He was still out of power. He was unable to implement a single policy. He had no ‘massive mandate,’ because that under our system only goes to the winning party.
The fact is, Corbyn was in denial about what had happened, claiming he had won when he hadn’t and using it as an excuse to cling on to leadership he was totally unsuited to (it wasn’t only his policies that turned the PLP against him, his laziness, disorganisation and rudeness were factors as well).
Had he quit after 2017 and let a younger and/or more intelligent left winger take over, his leadership might have been a springboard for the left, but he didn’t and Labour have been reduced to rubble - the first ever official opposition to suffer a net loss of seats nine years after leaving government.
Sorry 'massive mandate'?
That was me and someone else talking about Blair and Atlee (or maybe Wilson) neither of us were talking about elections Labour had failed to win when the other person mentioned 'massive mandate'. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making there.
The Labour right were waiting to move back to the centre right after the election, the reason the votes increased was because of the move left. The PLP wanted to reverse that, as they have under Starmer.
Who is going to make even more losses than Corbyn's low point, whilst being given a much easier ride by almost everybody, because the political alignment is less electable.
So the ‘last time Labour embraced left wing policies they won a massive mandate’ was Attlee in 1945?
Leaving aside the fact that this simply isn’t true (whatever you think of Corbyn’s policies 1983 was more recent) you have also said you want to talk about leaders elected in this century. Attlee was elected nearly a hundred years ago (86, to be precise).
Which is why I assumed you were talking about 2017, since after all the left have been claiming that as a win for four years.
So which is it?
Left wing losses didn't count as the last time they 'properly embraced' for the same reason centrist losses didn't.
I was being generous by not being as picky with the original statement as you are here. I mean why didn't 2010 Brown count as centrism? he isn't on the left of the party by any means.
It was the other person that made the statement originally and clearly meant Blair when they said it. I was following the logic as I saw it.
So basically, take it up with him, I'd agree it was imprecise.
Lastly yes I said I want to talk about leaders selected this century as leader which is why Atlee and Blair both don't count, they are both decades in the past and not completely relevant to voters concerns today (but he brought up a leader selected in a past century first which is why I mentioned him)
I think at this point your argument is with whoever I was arguing with prior to you jumping in, we seem to mostly agree!
I can’t agree with you there because it’s impossible to make out a clear line of argument. You said ‘the last time Labour embraced left wing policies they won a massive mandate.’ You now appear to be saying that by definition if they didn’t win a massive mandate it’s because they didn’t embrace left wing politics. Are you saying then that Corbyn was not left wing? Or that he won a massive mandate?
You also seem to be saying you don’t want to talk about the twentieth century, but that you were talking about it.
It was someone else's logic, or what I could tease out of it.
Either Gordon Brown is on the left of the Labour party or his logic involved going back to the last winner from that alignment.
The first is illogical, so it must be the second.
Attlee and Blair at both leaders selected to lead Labour in the 20th Century, happy to stop talking about both, someone brought up the latter before I did the former.
Sad to see Jezziah delighted and celebrating a poor Labour performance. Clearly part of the problem.
TBH I haven't celebrated like I planned, I am just a bit sad, I should be enjoying it much more, what I am doing however is setting out how Labour could do better and have been doing better.
Leaving Brexit aside, I sympathise with Starmer but don't think he is the answer on current form. It's a tough gig at the moment being leader of an opposition party, but he needs to do much better. The fact that a Man Utd footballer is a rallying point for opposition to this wretched Government rather than the Labour party is damning.
Labour needs to provide a credible *and* radical alternative. Corbyn may have been a terrible leader but there was a vision that people could latch onto - there was hope for a better tomorrow, especially for the under 50's.
I personally will give more time for Starmer but he needs to up his game and be radical (and relevant). If that means moving to the left, so be it. If there is no radical agenda that makes a difference to people's lives then it's game over for GE 2024.
Labour need a leader with charisma... but they cannot out- Boris Boris.
Labour win Doncaster Mayor roundv1 needs round 2
John Craig says it looks as though the Tory votes are about double that of Labour.. crikey.
Have done a LOT of politicking in Bellingham, Washington just south of the Canadian border. A much larger town, and very progressive / Democratic in large part due to Western Washington University.
Lefty-hippie-student element commonly referred to as "Hamsters".
In 2019, these voters helped elect the first Sikh American as Whatcom County Commissioner.
Incidentally, during the Pig War of 1859, until the Army arrived in the San Juan Islands, the American interest viz-a-viz Perfidious Albion was represented by the Sheriff of Whatcom Co. an office that was only a few years old; same was true of his opposite number on Vancouver Island.
I see the Labour left are already calling for Starmer’s head. Just like they did when Corbyn lost a by-election.
Labour has to go back to the centre, away from Corbynism and also away from Brexit. And fast.
For me Starmer has a year now to make progress. Then I’m calling time
Going back to the centre is not the way to go. The Tories have moved to the left and have some of their tanks are on the centre ground now.
Being radical is the way to go - be bold and be radical and be relevant. There is much that the Labour party should be espousing and failing to do so. The ground is fertile for radical politics. History has told us that Labour only wins when it is radical.
I think this evening's results are both massively significant... and impermanent.
The Conservatives have scooped up the UKIP/BXP vote. That's a lot of DNV/WNV/ex-Lab voters who have gone to them. And that's a great achievement, which bodes well for them keeping the "Red Wall" seats in 2024.
But there is also a reminder here. Labour won these seats because their denizens felt that they had been forgotten and left behind by the party of government. (That party, most of the time, being the Conservative Party.) They have given the Conservatives a chance, because the Conservatives delivered Brexit and delivered vaccines.
But go back a mere fifteen years. In many cases these places gave the LibDems a chance. And when the LibDems did nothing for them, then dumped them like third period French.
Having an external enemy - the EU, the metropolitan elite, the woke - helps. But it isn't the same as jobs and homes and flourishing shops and safe streets. Akron, Ohio loved that Trump spoke to them. But to win these voters long term, you don't need just to speak to them, you need to turn their lives and their communities around.
Winning is easy. Governing and maintaining a coalition is harder.
All true, but you can.win voters and hold them longer than you may deserve as well. When they go they go in droves, but having switched sometimes people are set. Big question if these ones are.
Sad to see Jezziah delighted and celebrating a poor Labour performance. Clearly part of the problem.
TBH I haven't celebrated like I planned, I am just a bit sad, I should be enjoying it much more, what I am doing however is setting out how Labour could do better and have been doing better.
Would you like Labour to do better?
Of course. Labour will not do better until it’s left and right bury the hatchet and work together.
I couldn’t give a shit if Labour is led from the left or the right. But whoever leads Labour needs to know that it’s position as a major party under FPTP is at risk. And to maintain that either wing of the party needs to appeal beyond its comfort zone.
You calling Labour supporters evil the other day is the cancer at the heart of the party. Your celebration today is a core reason why Labour makes no progress. The fact you are celebrating the defeat of hard working candidates should be a matter of shame.
I see the Labour left are already calling for Starmer’s head. Just like they did when Corbyn lost a by-election.
Labour has to go back to the centre, away from Corbynism and also away from Brexit. And fast.
For me Starmer has a year now to make progress. Then I’m calling time
Going back to the centre is not the way to go. The Tories have moved to the left and have some of their tanks are on the centre ground now.
Being radical is the way to go - be bold and be radical and be relevant. There is much that the Labour party should be espousing and failing to do so. The ground is fertile for radical politics. History has told us that Labour only wins when it is radical.
Blair won by promising to stick to Tory spending plans...
Labour really thought we would forget about their Brexit betrayal. As you sow, so you shall reap.
It's not just about Brexit. The problem is white working-class provincial voters don't have much in common with big city metropolitanistas and vice versa. I'm not sure how they can keep that coalition of voters together.
Spot on.
If the Labour Party embraces the provincial WWC vote, they risk losing the globalist, metropolitan elite to the LibDems.
Simply they need to step back and ask what's the coalition that gets to 40%?
Corbyn 2017.
An election when Labour accepted Brexit.
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
I agree it's *part* of the problem. But Starmer has accepted Brexit. There's no policy of rejoin or even of EEA from Starmer.
Nobody believes that. The assumption is that if Starmer becomes PM he begins to unwind brexit and chip away at the existing deal with a bunch of side deals that will make brexit look a lot like EU membership.
Starmer was always going to struggle on brexit, he was remainer and anti brexit schemer in chief for four years. People won't forget that easily.
He should be winning people like me over, but I'd struggle to vote for a Labour party led by Starmer. My gut feeling is that he's only in it to try and reverse brexit.
Comments
Although personally I prefer to concentrate on leaders selected this century as they have some relevance to the modern day.
Which sound even dumber than West Bromwich West. Or West Bromwich East.
All seats in the north (five)
Both seats in Newport
Bridgend
Vale of Glamorgan (both should be straightforward Tory gains anyway, in fairness)
Torfaen
Even Blaenau Gwent might come into play.
Of course, that does assume the vote will break Tory. I have been doubtful about this up to now, but equally, Labour’s longstanding tribal loyalty seems to be breaking down. If they can’t hold their vote in Ystradgynlais, you wonder a bit where they will.
Believe Attlee was pretty much at the center of the Labour Party along with Bevin, between Morrison on the right and Cripps & Bevin on the left.
It's funny, because I don't remember ever seeing those centrists waving banners about Saudi Arabia or Israel... Instead, I remember them talking about the NHS and pensions and homes and jobs.
Ed Miliband 30.4%
Corbyn 40% 32.1%
Difference is the Tories with Brexit being a big vote winner for them.
Corbyn not only got huge numbers more to vote for him in 2017, he got more numbers in 2019 at his low point after being forced to adopt an electorally disastrous 2nd referendum policy and the loss of Scotland before he even took over!
If you look at England only voters Corbyn stands out even more, I think he even took a higher percentage in England alone than Blairs first victory let alone the second and third.
Corbyn was by Labour standards a vote winning machine, yes you may not like it, but the numbers they don't lie.
If the level of a successful Labour leader is ‘didn’t lose quite as badly as his predecessors nine years into opposition facing a divisive and exhausted government, but still lost as many elections as his four predecessors added together’ then God help us all.
People want public services looked after and the things mentioned in the Hartlepool polling above. Centrist Labour doesn't have the money left over after pursuing adventures in the middle east in connection with their pet obsessions. This is why left wing Labour gets more votes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxAKfnbFWe0
Labours behaviour on Brexit since is what’s totally fucked them.
The vaccines has vindicated Brexit massively and obviously. And Labour still hasn’t accepted it.
Until they do, they are going to struggle to compete.
Keir Starmer
Ed Milliband
Gordon Brown
and Jeremy Corbyn, so if you wanted to put a more negative spin on it you could call him the best of a bad bunch.
A hung parliament is a form of success, over and above just completely losing anyway, it does give you some potential for influence in governing. It obviously isn't actually winning.
Similar story with Democratic Party of FDR & LBJ. Nothing succeeds like a little success in making folks increasing more interested in keeping what they've got than in seeking a Great Society or a New Deal.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1390521075528839176?s=20
The fact is, Corbyn was in denial about what had happened, claiming he had won when he hadn’t and using it as an excuse to cling on to leadership he was totally unsuited to (it wasn’t only his policies that turned the PLP against him, his laziness, disorganisation and rudeness were factors as well).
Had he quit after 2017 and let a younger and/or more intelligent left winger take over, his leadership might have been a springboard for the left, but he didn’t and Labour have been reduced to rubble - the first ever official opposition to suffer a net loss of seats nine years after leaving government.
But equally, that independent candidate might prove more resilient than the Refukers.
If you get 40% of the vote, but 60% of the voters are prepared to tactically vote against you, then you are fucked.
On the other hand, if you get 35%, but people are tactically voting for you, then you're in Number 10.
That was me and someone else talking about Blair and Atlee (or maybe Wilson) neither of us were talking about elections Labour had failed to win when the other person mentioned 'massive mandate'. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making there.
The Labour right were waiting to move back to the centre right after the election, the reason the votes increased was because of the move left. The PLP wanted to reverse that, as they have under Starmer.
Who is going to make even more losses than Corbyn's low point, whilst being given a much easier ride by almost everybody, because the political alignment is less electable.
Also, there could be some candidates on the cusp of losing their deposit, so at least some ballots get recounted to determine if the make the threshold, or not.
We have moved away from the numbers to your political assessment of what the numbers mean there though.
The Conservatives vote in 2017 was massively boosted by Brexit, there was some voting against Corbyn, probably even a little bit more than against the previous couple of leaders, but the number of extra votes brought in from going left was much more than those gained by the Tories from going left.
Edit: My question was answered above!
Would have thought they should open one.
Leaving aside the fact that this simply isn’t true (whatever you think of Corbyn’s policies 1983 was more recent) you have also said you want to talk about leaders elected in this century. Attlee was elected nearly a hundred years ago (86, to be precise).
Which is why I assumed you were talking about 2017, since after all the left have been claiming that as a win for four years.
So which is it?
Waiting game may be damaging in the short term but should pay dividends later.
Labour needs to decide where it can actually win votes
The bastard to his friends, and much worse to his enemies.
@BBCRichardMoss 1mIn In case you were wondering...counting is still continuing in Hartlepool. Declaration time now unclear. Could be 6.15. We know Labour has lost - the party’s conceded - but we await the final tally and scale of the defeat.
https://twitter.com/BBCRichardMoss/status/1390527352149512192?s=20
Only one Labour leader has topped 40% since 1970, and that was Blair.
Admittedly Corbyn came closer than any other.
Beeb just reporting that Labour says it has lost Hartlepool.
"Shadow Transport Secretary Jim McMahon says defeat is 'clear'."
Although, to be fair, I can't think of any big set piece speeches from Starter since Covid hit.
I was being generous by not being as picky with the original statement as you are here. I mean why didn't 2010 Brown count as centrism? he isn't on the left of the party by any means.
It was the other person that made the statement originally and clearly meant Blair when they said it. I was following the logic as I saw it.
So basically, take it up with him, I'd agree it was imprecise.
Lastly yes I said I want to talk about leaders selected this century as leader which is why Atlee and Blair both don't count, they are both decades in the past and not completely relevant to voters concerns today (but he brought up a leader selected in a past century first which is why I mentioned him)
I think at this point your argument is with whoever I was arguing with prior to you jumping in, we seem to mostly agree!
The doomsday scenario for them is that Labour's voter distribution becomes more and more inefficient. The Tories could well end up knocking over most of what's left of the Red Wall, whilst holding on in many potential new Labour targets in the Home Counties with reduced but still comfortable majorities.
Either way, I do agree Starmer should say Labour got Brexit wrong
You also seem to be saying you don’t want to talk about the twentieth century, but that you were talking about it.
"According to the Oxford Companion to Children's Literature, Bastard indirectly inspired the familiar form of the children's rhyme "Old Mother Hubbard..." after instructing its author Sarah Catherine Martin, his sister-in-law, to "run away and write one of your stupid little rhymes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pollexfen_Bastard
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1390528116255232002?s=20
Labour has to go back to the centre, away from Corbynism and also away from Brexit. And fast.
For me Starmer has a year now to make progress. Then I’m calling time
I wouldn't go that far. The Conservatives continue to rattle on about Britain, they - like everyone else - won't countenance an English Parliament, and they've certainly not started grievance mongering and banging the drum for independence. HOWEVER... Labour's decision to set up devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales to give itself new power bases has backfired in the most spectacular fashion. It's probably going to destroy the Union, and sink Labour along with it - a fate richly and thoroughly deserved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Labour needs to provide a credible *and* radical alternative. Corbyn may have been a terrible leader but there was a vision that people could latch onto - there was hope for a better tomorrow, especially for the under 50's.
I personally will give more time for Starmer but he needs to up his game and be radical (and relevant). If that means moving to the left, so be it. If there is no radical agenda that makes a difference to people's lives then it's game over for GE 2024.
Either Gordon Brown is on the left of the Labour party or his logic involved going back to the last winner from that alignment.
The first is illogical, so it must be the second.
Attlee and Blair at both leaders selected to lead Labour in the 20th Century, happy to stop talking about both, someone brought up the latter before I did the former.
Lab 43.8%
Con 28.5%
So goes to Round 2 (50%+1 required)
Would you like Labour to do better?
Con: 43.5% (+22.9)
LDem: 27.1% (+27.1)
Lab: 26.0% (-25.1)
Grn: 3.4% (+1.2)
No UKIP (-25.4) as prev.
Con GAIN from Lab
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1390531341394092034?s=20
Labour win Doncaster Mayor roundv1 needs round 2
John Craig says it looks as though the Tory votes are about double that of Labour.. crikey.
Anne Elizabeth Palmer (LAB) - 246
John Robert Riddle (CON) - 852
Kevin Robert Hodson Smith (LD) - 333
CON HOLD
Have done a LOT of politicking in Bellingham, Washington just south of the Canadian border. A much larger town, and very progressive / Democratic in large part due to Western Washington University.
Lefty-hippie-student element commonly referred to as "Hamsters".
In 2019, these voters helped elect the first Sikh American as Whatcom County Commissioner.
Incidentally, during the Pig War of 1859, until the Army arrived in the San Juan Islands, the American interest viz-a-viz Perfidious Albion was represented by the Sheriff of Whatcom Co. an office that was only a few years old; same was true of his opposite number on Vancouver Island.
Grn: 52.2% (+29.9)
Con: 42.3% (-0.1)
Lab: 4.0% (-3.4)
LDem: 1.5% (-3.3)
Grn GAIN from Con
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1390529834774843399?s=20
Being radical is the way to go - be bold and be radical and be relevant. There is much that the Labour party should be espousing and failing to do so. The ground is fertile for radical politics. History has told us that Labour only wins when it is radical.
Lab: 46.5% (+21.1)
Con: 43.8% (+9.3)
Grn: 6.4% (+2.8)
LDem: 3.3% (-12.7)
Lab GAIN from Con
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1390528769174261760?s=20
Doubling down on telling current Labour voters to go elsewhere is not a good plan, it has gone terribly so far.
I couldn’t give a shit if Labour is led from the left or the right. But whoever leads Labour needs to know that it’s position as a major party under FPTP is at risk. And to maintain that either wing of the party needs to appeal beyond its comfort zone.
You calling Labour supporters evil the other day is the cancer at the heart of the party. Your celebration today is a core reason why Labour makes no progress. The fact you are celebrating the defeat of hard working candidates should be a matter of shame.
Starmer was always going to struggle on brexit, he was remainer and anti brexit schemer in chief for four years. People won't forget that easily.
He should be winning people like me over, but I'd struggle to vote for a Labour party led by Starmer. My gut feeling is that he's only in it to try and reverse brexit.