Mr. Pioneers, your question does rather disregard the fact that votes have been specifically held on both the EU and Scotland leaving the UK.
Not at all - they were in previous parliaments. My point here is simple.
In 2019 Brexit was not settled. The Tories campaigned on Get Brexit Done. They won a majority of 80 despite a majority of votes being cast for parties who wanted to stop Brexit
In 2021 the union is not settled. The SNP and Greens campaigned for independence and won a majority of 8 despite a majority of votes being cast for unionist parties.
The same principle either applies to both of it is not a principle at all. The Tories clearly won the 2019 election. The pro-indy parties clearly won the 2021 election. The people who support "seats count not votes" argue the reverse north of the border. I am just enquiring as to if they are English supremacists or hypocrites.
Mr. Jonathan, not sure I do talk disparagingly about London, to be honest.
Also, I'm staunchly against a Yorkshire assembly. I like Yorkshire. It's splendid. That doesn't mean imposing a stupid political division within England is sensible for either England or Yorkshire.
Dividing England with such political meddling when we've seen what the constitutional dicking about has created in Scotland would be a marvellous act of failing to learn the most obvious of lessons. How many days would pass before a London demagogue complains of taxes being sent elsewhere and argues for London to 'keep its own money'? How many days before a Yorkshire demagogue complains of spending per head being so much lower than London and demanding a 'fair share'?
Looking at the bitterness and entrenched political divide in Scotland seeking to replicate that within England itself is nuts.
And how would the powers work? Do you suppose to make these pathetic little fiefdoms glorified parish councils with less power than Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly, or do you suppose England would be well-served by having different healthcare, education, and taxation rates on either side of the Pennines?
Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.
The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.
Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:
..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats
It’s a fair point, though I wonder how many voted remain because that’s what Labour was telling them to do.
Ultimately I think Labour needs to choose between going after its old voters and effectively take for granted its current core vote or going after remainers in places like Woking. Personally I think the first of those is the way to go.
I don't get the feeling that Remain/Rejoin is giving up any time soon. Meanwhile Leave/Stay out is wrapped in the Union Flag/Global Britain.
I think that the 'deal' with India, where people can go either way for two years might blow up in the Government's face; there are a lot more jobs here that young Indians would be willing to do than the other way around.
None of the divides have gone away- indeed some are yet to really surface.
Take Leave to be more global vs. Leave to be protectionist. Farmers don't want cheaper imports, and I suspect manufacturing towns don't either. That dog won't bark until the first new trade deal.
Or Remain and want EEA at least now vs. Remain and renengage more gradually.
Or what should Labour do? There looks to be an unavoidable trade-off between Hartlepool and Peterborough going on. Embrace Brexit or see it as a problem to do something about? I suspect it's impossible to be dispassionate about that one, but I don't see how going into an idelogical space which is already occupied, where the bulk of your supporters don't want to go and where you wouldn't be believed anyway is meant to work.
One other observation. There were some split tickets yesterday- in WM, the Conservatives won the mayoralty but not the PCC, in Cambs the Conservatives lost the mayoralty but held on to the PCC. A fair number of people are rationally looking at records and promises and judging appropriately. So having delivered Brexit, can Brexit- let alone this Brexit- deliver? Your guess is probably almost as good as mine.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
Scotland has just given the SNP its biggest ever vote and elected a comfortable majority of independence MSPs.
No it wasn't. In 2011 Alex Salmond won an outright SNP majority.
The SNP this time fell short, gaining only 1 seat, and more Scottish people voted for unionist parties than independence.
Another example of a poster projecting their own wishful thinking on behalf of the electorate and failing to read what has actually happened.
The SNP failed in their objective to win an outright majority. The Sunday Telegraph today is right: the pressure on Scottish independence is now off. There won't be one.
This was a triumphant election for the union. Welsh Labour, an avowedly unionist party, won with the Welsh Conservatives, an avowedly unionist party, second. Plaid were a poor third.
Unionism won across the whole UK by a clear and convincing majority.
So I said "The SNP has just been given its biggest ever vote" and you said no, that was 2011.
In 2021 the SNP gained 2.386m votes In 2011 the SNP gained 1.779m votes
I think I am projecting my ability to count...
The second half of your sentence boldly proclaimed about MSPs and I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. In 2011 Alex Salmond's SNP won an outright majority. Sturgeon failed to do the same.
Populations grow and turnouts vary so the Trump 'I won more votes' argument is a poor one.
Love, it is literally the argument I made which you said wasn't true. It is true. You can move on to try and make a second argument - that growth in votes doesn't count - and that's fine but my point was a simple and demonstrable fact not open to debate.
So, your second argument. That seats count and not votes. There is an 8 seat majority for independence. You say seats won count and not votes cast. Great - 72 seats is a majority for independence in a parliament of 129.
So there is a mandate according to your own argument made to try and claim there is no mandate
You and I do not want an Independence referendum. I personally campaigned for candidates to stop it. We lost, they won. Here in the NE region we lost a LibDem MSP - pro union - for a Green MSP - pro independence.
I have the basic principle that democratic mandates always apply whether you like the result or not. What is your principle?
I agree with you on this, but I suppose one argument is that wins don't give a mandate for things beyond your power, eg Newham cannot do anything they want as the scope of their power is limited even though they have overwhelming mandate from the electorate.
Of course that doesn't counter that given we have devolved assemblies if they ask for an indy ref that's a mandate but playing devils advocate.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
We seem to be on the hunt for differences rather than similarities these days, and of course if you go searching for it you will find it where none was before. Tell people they are different and they come to believe it - even Scotland and England are not as far apart on most issues as each suggests.
Sit on a bus and start a conversation with the person next to you in the north and the south and the reactions are very different indeed.
Mr. Jonathan, not sure I do talk disparagingly about London, to be honest.
Also, I'm staunchly against a Yorkshire assembly. I like Yorkshire. It's splendid. That doesn't mean imposing a stupid political division within England is sensible for either England or Yorkshire.
Dividing England with such political meddling when we've seen what the constitutional dicking about has created in Scotland would be a marvellous act of failing to learn the most obvious of lessons. How many days would pass before a London demagogue complains of taxes being sent elsewhere and argues for London to 'keep its own money'? How many days before a Yorkshire demagogue complains of spending per head being so much lower than London and demanding a 'fair share'?
Looking at the bitterness and entrenched political divide in Scotland seeking to replicate that within England itself is nuts.
And how would the powers work? Do you suppose to make these pathetic little fiefdoms glorified parish councils with less power than Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly, or do you suppose England would be well-served by having different healthcare, education, and taxation rates on either side of the Pennines?
To be clear, I never said anything about dividing anything. I appreciate your long term campaign for English politics. But to deny that there are separate strong English regional identities, which are currently being exploited by the Tories is naive.
Even if Nicola Sturgeon had been beaten into sixth place behind the unionist parties, George Galloway and Alba, she would have claimed the result of the Scottish parliament election as a mandate for another independence referendum. As it is, she now claims that mandate on the grounds that a majority of members of the new parliament are pro-independence.
Of course, a majority of the previous parliament was pro-independence too, which is why she was first minister, with the support of the Scottish Greens. .....
....So Boris Johnson will continue to say “now is not the time” for another independence referendum, and public opinion in Scotland will continue to agree with him. Sturgeon’s notional mandate was undermined by her words during the campaign, when she said: “I’m asking people to vote for me as first minister to continue to lead us through a global pandemic, then to implement a bold transformative manifesto to kick start that recovery, and drive that recovery, then when we’re out of the crisis to give people in Scotland the choice over what kind of future we want and the country we want to build.”
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Good for them, more areas should be more competitive. Long hard slog, mind.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.
The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.
Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:
..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats
It’s a fair point, though I wonder how many voted remain because that’s what Labour was telling them to do.
Ultimately I think Labour needs to choose between going after its old voters and effectively take for granted its current core vote or going after remainers in places like Woking. Personally I think the first of those is the way to go.
I don't get the feeling that Remain/Rejoin is giving up any time soon. Meanwhile Leave/Stay out is wrapped in the Union Flag/Global Britain.
I think that the 'deal' with India, where people can go either way for two years might blow up in the Government's face; there are a lot more jobs here that young Indians would be willing to do than the other way around.
None of the divides have gone away- indeed some are yet to really surface.
Take Leave to be more global vs. Leave to be protectionist. Farmers don't want cheaper imports, and I suspect manufacturing towns don't either. That dog won't bark until the first new trade deal.
Or Remain and want EEA at least now vs. Remain and renengage more gradually.
Or what should Labour do? There looks to be an unavoidable trade-off between Hartlepool and Peterborough going on. Embrace Brexit or see it as a problem to do something about? I suspect it's impossible to be dispassionate about that one, but I don't see how going into an idealogical space which is already occupied, where the bulk of your supporters don't want to go and where you wouldn't be believed anyway is meant to work.
Looks like Labour have decided to do each other rather than engage on the issues. UK Labour is going to continue to be a shitshow whilst in London and Wales and Manchester and Liverpool semi-independent Labour fiefdoms quietly get on with it
Regarding Labour in Wales, I was advised on this very forum that Drakeford was so degenerate and twisted that Labour stood no chance, yet not only have they bagged an increase in seats but Drakeford himself is being lauded...
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Good for them, more areas should be more competitive. Long hard slog, mind.
Long hard slog and then it tips. I cite Scotland and the Red Wall. When the Tories have a bad year, which they will, it will be a lot of fun.
And from the same article: Moreover, while Labour might want the [Brexit] issue to fall off the political agenda, it is not clear that its political opponents will take the same view. Rather, the party might find itself isolated in its reluctance to talk about the subject. The Conservatives will wish to try to keep their new political coalition together by extolling the benefits that Brexit has brought and, under their stewardship at least, will continue to deliver. Meanwhile, having voted against the trade deal, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP will be keen to argue the very opposite case – and in so doing hope to erode Labour's support
Johnson is going to fight the next election on a message of Labour = Rejoin, Brexit Betrayed.
As I pointed out yesterday the key to these election results seemed to be being in charge during the pandemic using the power of the State and the printed money to help people. Drakeford, Johnson and Sturgeon, they all benefited from this phenomena in varying degrees. You could even make the case that Burnham, Street and Houchen also benefited. Lots of profile, lots of attention, lots of "caring". It definitely helps politicians win our votes.
Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.
The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.
Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:
..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats
It’s a fair point, though I wonder how many voted remain because that’s what Labour was telling them to do.
Ultimately I think Labour needs to choose between going after its old voters and effectively take for granted its current core vote or going after remainers in places like Woking. Personally I think the first of those is the way to go.
I don't get the feeling that Remain/Rejoin is giving up any time soon. Meanwhile Leave/Stay out is wrapped in the Union Flag/Global Britain.
I think that the 'deal' with India, where people can go either way for two years might blow up in the Government's face; there are a lot more jobs here that young Indians would be willing to do than the other way around.
None of the divides have gone away- indeed some are yet to really surface.
Take Leave to be more global vs. Leave to be protectionist. Farmers don't want cheaper imports, and I suspect manufacturing towns don't either. That dog won't bark until the first new trade deal.
Or Remain and want EEA at least now vs. Remain and renengage more gradually.
Or what should Labour do? There looks to be an unavoidable trade-off between Hartlepool and Peterborough going on. Embrace Brexit or see it as a problem to do something about? I suspect it's impossible to be dispassionate about that one, but I don't see how going into an idealogical space which is already occupied, where the bulk of your supporters don't want to go and where you wouldn't be believed anyway is meant to work.
Looks like Labour have decided to do each other rather than engage on the issues. UK Labour is going to continue to be a shitshow whilst in London and Wales and Manchester and Liverpool semi-independent Labour fiefdoms quietly get on with it
Regarding Labour in Wales, I was advised on this very forum that Drakeford was so degenerate and twisted that Labour stood no chance, yet not only have they bagged an increase in seats but Drakeford himself is being lauded...
To be fair the PM is a twisted degenerate in England and also does well.....
And from the same article: Moreover, while Labour might want the [Brexit] issue to fall off the political agenda, it is not clear that its political opponents will take the same view. Rather, the party might find itself isolated in its reluctance to talk about the subject. The Conservatives will wish to try to keep their new political coalition together by extolling the benefits that Brexit has brought and, under their stewardship at least, will continue to deliver. Meanwhile, having voted against the trade deal, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP will be keen to argue the very opposite case – and in so doing hope to erode Labour's support
Johnson is going to fight the next election on a message of Labour = Rejoin, Brexit Betrayed.
Unless he's going to go VERY early, it's a bit early to forecast what Johnson will do!
Mr. Jonathan, I'm not denying, of course, a strong Yorkshire identity. That doesn't mean every single identity needs its own assembly or parliament.
It is undeniable, though, that we have a very centralised system compared to (say) the French régions, the German länder, or the US states.
We don’t need to create another layer of elected politicians, but we do need to give more power to those we already have in county halls across the country.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Good for them, more areas should be more competitive. Long hard slog, mind.
Long hard slog and then it tips. I cite Scotland and the Red Wall. When the Tories have a bad year, which they will, it will be a lot of fun.
You are very loyal but it might be 10 yrs hence and Labour still nowhere near winning.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
I agree that there isn't too much of a southern identity in England - the division between lowland and highland Scots has always struck me as much stronger.
I don't agree that the Conservatives take the south-outside-London for granted, though. They certainly expect its support, but they have been pretty ruthless in courting it, for example in protecting and extending Green Belts and farm subsidies, despite the free market principles they usually claim to be committed to.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
It would surely be clearer if the candidates were listed in a single column
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Good for them, more areas should be more competitive. Long hard slog, mind.
Long hard slog and then it tips. I cite Scotland and the Red Wall. When the Tories have a bad year, which they will, it will be a lot of fun.
You are very loyal but it might be 10 yrs hence and Labour still nowhere near winning.
It will be joyous when the soft blue underbelly falls.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Yes. There were 2,645,558 ballots cast so even if we count only those rejected for not expressing a first preference or for too many X's, that is an error rate of 4.2 per cent almost certainly due to the poorly designed ballot paper.
If we add in those where the same candidate was voted for twice, the error rate was 14.3 per cent but even 4.2 per cent is alarmingly high.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
How many mayoral elections have seen the 1st round leader lose after the second round? In London its 0.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
Thanks.
Roy Hattersley is always someone I think of who's proud to be English but very much of the Left.
Scotland has just given the SNP its biggest ever vote and elected a comfortable majority of independence MSPs.
No it wasn't. In 2011 Alex Salmond won an outright SNP majority.
The SNP this time fell short, gaining only 1 seat, and more Scottish people voted for unionist parties than independence.
Another example of a poster projecting their own wishful thinking on behalf of the electorate and failing to read what has actually happened.
The SNP failed in their objective to win an outright majority. The Sunday Telegraph today is right: the pressure on Scottish independence is now off. There won't be one.
This was a triumphant election for the union. Welsh Labour, an avowedly unionist party, won with the Welsh Conservatives, an avowedly unionist party, second. Plaid were a poor third.
Unionism won across the whole UK by a clear and convincing majority.
So I said "The SNP has just been given its biggest ever vote" and you said no, that was 2011.
In 2021 the SNP gained 2.386m votes In 2011 the SNP gained 1.779m votes
I think I am projecting my ability to count...
The second half of your sentence boldly proclaimed about MSPs and I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. In 2011 Alex Salmond's SNP won an outright majority. Sturgeon failed to do the same.
Populations grow and turnouts vary so the Trump 'I won more votes' argument is a poor one.
Love, it is literally the argument I made which you said wasn't true. It is true. You can move on to try and make a second argument - that growth in votes doesn't count - and that's fine but my point was a simple and demonstrable fact not open to debate.
So, your second argument. That seats count and not votes. There is an 8 seat majority for independence. You say seats won count and not votes cast. Great - 72 seats is a majority for independence in a parliament of 129.
So there is a mandate according to your own argument made to try and claim there is no mandate
You and I do not want an Independence referendum. I personally campaigned for candidates to stop it. We lost, they won. Here in the NE region we lost a LibDem MSP - pro union - for a Green MSP - pro independence.
I have the basic principle that democratic mandates always apply whether you like the result or not. What is your principle?
I agree with you on this, but I suppose one argument is that wins don't give a mandate for things beyond your power, eg Newham cannot do anything they want as the scope of their power is limited even though they have overwhelming mandate from the electorate.
Of course that doesn't counter that given we have devolved assemblies if they ask for an indy ref that's a mandate but playing devils advocate.
The problem with "it's beyond your power" is that democratic consent can never apply - if England can always say no regardless of what Scotland votes for then it's not really a democracy. "You can vote any way you like but you can never leave".
As I understand the practicalities, Scotland is within its rights to pass a bill for a referendum. The UK can strike it down as without Holyroods power, but it can't stop Holyrood passing that bill.
Some people say nippy has no intention of holding a vote. Perhaps. And the obvious thing to do is to pass the bill and have England slap it down. She both gets to stay in office without the faff of a referendum and significantly boosts her party's electoral chances of a 5th term in office.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
And from the same article: Moreover, while Labour might want the [Brexit] issue to fall off the political agenda, it is not clear that its political opponents will take the same view. Rather, the party might find itself isolated in its reluctance to talk about the subject. The Conservatives will wish to try to keep their new political coalition together by extolling the benefits that Brexit has brought and, under their stewardship at least, will continue to deliver. Meanwhile, having voted against the trade deal, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP will be keen to argue the very opposite case – and in so doing hope to erode Labour's support
Johnson is going to fight the next election on a message of Labour = Rejoin, Brexit Betrayed.
Unless he's going to go VERY early, it's a bit early to forecast what Johnson will do!
What else is he going to campaign on? He can't say Labour are going to invent a new strain of covid. The economy will neither be as good as anyone hopes or as bad as anyone fears. Exchange hope and fear for us Johnson haters.
Labour emerged from the December 2019 general election badly battered and bruised. In the wake of a contest whose principal purpose was to bring an end to the seemingly endless debate about how Brexit should be settled, it found itself with fewer MPs than at any time since 1935. It is little wonder that the party is debating how it can improve its fortunes now that Brexit has been resolved.
The search for an answer is, however, less straightforward than many in the party seem to appreciate. Although a dominant narrative as to the way forward seems to have emerged, there is an alternative perspective that raises questions about the viability of this approach.
Buried in that article is a key fact that underpins Labour’s dilemma, and one that is often ignored as commentators (and certain PB’ers) rush to label “Leave seats”:
..nearly two‐thirds (64 per cent) of Labour's support in 2017 in pro‐Leave seats that elected a Labour MP came from those who had voted Remain. In short, any success in winning back red wall seats will be heavily reliant on retaining the support of Remain voters in these seats
It’s a fair point, though I wonder how many voted remain because that’s what Labour was telling them to do.
Ultimately I think Labour needs to choose between going after its old voters and effectively take for granted its current core vote or going after remainers in places like Woking. Personally I think the first of those is the way to go.
I don't get the feeling that Remain/Rejoin is giving up any time soon. Meanwhile Leave/Stay out is wrapped in the Union Flag/Global Britain.
I think that the 'deal' with India, where people can go either way for two years might blow up in the Government's face; there are a lot more jobs here that young Indians would be willing to do than the other way around.
None of the divides have gone away- indeed some are yet to really surface.
Take Leave to be more global vs. Leave to be protectionist. Farmers don't want cheaper imports, and I suspect manufacturing towns don't either. That dog won't bark until the first new trade deal.
Or Remain and want EEA at least now vs. Remain and renengage more gradually.
Or what should Labour do? There looks to be an unavoidable trade-off between Hartlepool and Peterborough going on. Embrace Brexit or see it as a problem to do something about? I suspect it's impossible to be dispassionate about that one, but I don't see how going into an idelogical space which is already occupied, where the bulk of your supporters don't want to go and where you wouldn't be believed anyway is meant to work.
One other observation. There were some split tickets yesterday- in WM, the Conservatives won the mayoralty but not the PCC, in Cambs the Conservatives lost the mayoralty but held on to the PCC. A fair number of people are rationally looking at records and promises and judging appropriately. So having delivered Brexit, can Brexit- let alone this Brexit- deliver? Your guess is probably almost as good as mine.
I hope the shift in long term party loyalties does bring with it more voters willing to consider the candidates, their records and suitability for the role, not just the colour of their rosette.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
Of course, he went mad.
It's worth nothing even Blair got some of it wrong. He was shedding working class votes as early as 2001 (dire turnout) and it continued thereafter.
One of his first acts post 1997 was to remove immigration restrictions and controls, and that only accelerated after 2004, together with starting the "rub noses in diversity" narrative.
Nicola Sturgeon wants a second Scottish referendum – but will she get one? The First Minister faces two obstacles to a fresh vote: Boris Johnson and the Scottish people’s own caution.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Worthing won't be blue for too much longer.
It's going the way of Hove.
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
Of course, he went mad.
It's worth nothing even Blair got some of it wrong. He was shedding working class votes as early as 2001 (dire turnout) and it continued thereafter.
One of his first acts post 1997 was to remove immigration restrictions and controls, and that only accelerated after 2004, together with starting the "rub noses in diversity" narrative.
Balirs mob came up with that poisonous mantra for Red Wall constituencies "they have nowhere else to go". Looks like they have.
Oooh, I'd forgotten I'd laid Brian Rose as well. SNP No Maj - win SNP 64-65 seats - win Rose Not for MAyor - win Labour for Hartepool - I..., ahem, masterfully cut my loses and didn't lose as much as I might have.
Really, if you think Labour has already lost in 2024 and 2029, they may as well concentrate on the areas actually going in their favour, as they will one day lead to some kind of success.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
How many mayoral elections have seen the 1st round leader lose after the second round? In London its 0.
For it to matter, you either need a closeish balance between the top three (as in Cambs) or independents so that the initial sifting makes a difference. Of course, if I were a governing party facing split opposition, I'd totes see the benefits of changing to FPTP...
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
If I was in charge of Labour .... well.
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young (40s), articulate leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Really, if you think Labour has already lost in 2024 and 2029, they may as well concentrate on the areas actually going in their favour, as they will one day lead to some kind of success.
Its more likely that Labour will be irrelevant and the LDs and the Greens come to the fore. If Scotland gets independence Labour will.never win again...
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Worthing won't be blue for too much longer.
It's going the way of Hove.
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when the ice goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Worthing is a satellite of Brighton, with lots of young people moving there.
Such effects are far more diluted across the rest of the South. Where they concentrate or cluster, Portsmouth South or Canterbury, Labour will win.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
If I was in charge of Labour .... well.
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young, articulate (40s) leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Cancelling all student loan debt would be a great Labour policy.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
If I was in charge of Labour .... well.
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young, articulate (40s) leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Cancelling all student loan debt would be a great Labour policy.
Most people know that is fantasy politics just as Corbyn offered free broadband and holidays to the moon.
Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?
Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.
That doesn’t really wash as an explanation, given that the same could have been said of areas like the North East.
The explanation is that voters didn’t feel like giving governments a kicking when said governments were in the middle of potentially saving their lives through the vaccination programme.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Worthing won't be blue for too much longer.
It's going the way of Hove.
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Not sure that idea works for the broader south - scrolling through all of the results there were more examples of Tory gains even in these areas, than losses. I think the chinks you refer to are largely in specific and limited areas. The whole Brighton/Hove extension of London/Oxfors/Cambridge thing actually has liomited scope to extend much further. It links to a University/Lifestyle vibe which is not mainstream.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
If I was in charge of Labour .... well.
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young, articulate (40s) leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Cancelling all student loan debt would be a great Labour policy.
Most people know that is fantasy politics just as Corbyn offered free broadband and holidays to the moon.
Actually, the Welsh Tories suggested cancelling student loans for this year (which would be a start).
And pb.com's hero of the hour, the Drake rejected it.
The Welsh Tories are right -- the minimum that should happen is remission of all fees for the COVID years.
(Though I personally would be bolder and do as @Dura_Ace suggests).
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
That ballot paper does look like a poor design, with two columns of candidates and two columns of votes split on the page.
They should really have made it one column of candidates, but that would probably have been more expensive for the printer with 20 candidates on the ballot. They did get £160k in lost deposits though, which should have covered the cost of printing.
It really annoys me to see stuff like this though, dozens of people must have been involved in signing off the design, yet it still happens.
For those claiming the the "answer" to Indyref 2 is to define the outcomes before the vote, does the outcome of the vote on Thursday give Nippy a mandate or not?
Isn't Politics For All just the worst account ever? They're down to tweeting about other tweets people have made
They lost me when they’d tweet about stories in newspapers but without linking to them. Poor netiquette. He managed to upset Guido too, for screenshotting and republishing rather than quoting or retweeting.
Michael Gove is asked by @RidgeOnSunday whether the UK government would go to the Supreme Court to block attempts by SNP to hold a 2nd indy referendum:
Really, if you think Labour has already lost in 2024 and 2029, they may as well concentrate on the areas actually going in their favour, as they will one day lead to some kind of success.
Its more likely that Labour will be irrelevant and the LDs and the Greens come to the fore. If Scotland gets independence Labour will.never win again...
The LD's electing Clegg after the tragic descent into alcohol by Kennedy shows what a poor leader can do. And yes I know a lot of people agreed with him.
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Not sure that idea works for the broader south - scrolling through all of the results there were more examples of Tory gains even in these areas, than losses. I think the chinks you refer to are largely in specific and limited areas. The whole Brighton/Hove extension of London/Oxford/Cambridge thing actually has liomited scope to extend much further. It links to a University/Lifestyle vibe which is not mainstream.
Not sure that's true. Waverley is a counter-example. There is no significant university population, it's a bit far from London to commute, the lifestyle is deep Surrey rather than London (Pizza Express is about as exotic as it gets, and estate agents far outnumber bookshops), and there were swings of over 30% against the Tories in several divisions. These mostly benefited the LibDems, though Labour doubled its vote too. The area is overwhelmingly white and middle-aged to elderly.
Some of the LD surge is personal support built up over years from social media. But a lot of it is just alienation from Govrernment populism and Brexitry - this was a deeply Remain area, and people don't feel much in common with the Government at any level.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
That ballot paper does look like a poor design, with two columns of candidates and two columns of votes split on the page.
They should really have made it one column of candidates, but that would probably have been more expensive for the printer with 20 candidates on the ballot. They did get £160k in lost deposits though, which should have covered the cost of printing.
It really annoys me to see stuff like this though, dozens of people must have been involved in signing off the design, yet it still happens.
How long were the ballot papers in the other Mayoral contests and was there the same level of confusion.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
If I was in charge of Labour .... well.
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young (40s), articulate leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Yes and no.
I think you're right- the sensible place to start is where you are and reach out from there. For Labour, that's certainly the young, tapering off into older working people (parents with children but not grandchildren, say) but fading massively when you get to the retired. It's the "Vote Labour; we have work to do" thing I moodled on yesterday. There are some consequences for that, though.
The now-blue wall goes, because the point about places like Hartlepool is the demographic shift to them being places where the young leave and the old stay behind. (I'm assuming that people leave more because they can, rather than because they're forced to).
It means that Labour have to go on the basis that B***** is a problem to be solved not an opportunity to be grasped, because that's largely what young and working-age people think.
But for now, it probably means sticking with Starmer- until someone else who passes the "could you really imagine them on the steps of No 10" test comes along. But less conspicuous and isolated than now. Lots of bright younger people around him, with SKS as the father figure.
Michael Gove is asked by @RidgeOnSunday whether the UK government would go to the Supreme Court to block attempts by SNP to hold a 2nd indy referendum:
Oh it is - block a referendum vote and when it occurs independence would win.
That I sent to say you want a vote, but you can't let the grieve xe continue to build and allow the SNP to use independence as an avoidance tactic everything awkward questions are asked.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
That ballot paper does look like a poor design, with two columns of candidates and two columns of votes split on the page.
They should really have made it one column of candidates, but that would probably have been more expensive for the printer with 20 candidates on the ballot. They did get £160k in lost deposits though, which should have covered the cost of printing.
It really annoys me to see stuff like this though, dozens of people must have been involved in signing off the design, yet it still happens.
How long were the ballot papers in the other Mayoral contests and was there the same level of confusion.
West Midlands had five candidates, and c.2% rejected.
Rumor of the day: the Emergent Bioscience AZ and J&J vaccines that have not been FDA approved due to contamination have been shipped to Canada, Japan and the EU in contravention of US export controls and are waiting on dispensation from the US before becoming available.
So they are shipping out contaminated vaccines? Or the "contamination" was political?
I think they're going with "if the US never approves these vaccines, then we're not breaking export restrictions. And there are people in other countries who'd pay good money for these vaccines, even if they might be a little contaminated."
Presumably they’re not actually contaminated vaccines, but rather the output of the factory which had an earlier problem with handling of vaccine ingredients.
Yes, I think that's a fair summary.
Still, not a great look for the Olympic games if it turns out the Japanese vaccine supply comes from a plant that couldn't get its vaccines approved due to contamination.
I thought one of the issues for Japan is that they will not approve vaccines until they have been tested on Japanese and demonstrated to work on Japanese?
There was that but now it seems like there are quite a few doses of the Pfizer one approved and sitting in freezers and the bottleneck is in the injecting them into people part, which for reasons that aren't entirely clear seems to have taken the government by surprise.
Michael Gove is asked by @RidgeOnSunday whether the UK government would go to the Supreme Court to block attempts by SNP to hold a 2nd indy referendum:
Oh it is - block a referendum vote and when it occurs independence would win.
That I sent to say you want a vote, but you can't let the grieve xe continue to build and allow the SNP to use independence as an avoidance tactic everything awkward questions are asked.
The UK gov will avoid being the ones to challenge it in court though. They’ll leave that dirty work to a Scottish Remain campaign group.
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Not sure that idea works for the broader south - scrolling through all of the results there were more examples of Tory gains even in these areas, than losses. I think the chinks you refer to are largely in specific and limited areas. The whole Brighton/Hove extension of London/Oxford/Cambridge thing actually has liomited scope to extend much further. It links to a University/Lifestyle vibe which is not mainstream.
Not sure that's true. Waverley is a counter-example. There is no significant university population, it's a bit far from London to commute, the lifestyle is deep Surrey rather than London (Pizza Express is about as exotic as it gets, and estate agents far outnumber bookshops), and there were swings of over 30% against the Tories in several divisions. These mostly benefited the LibDems, though Labour doubled its vote too. The area is overwhelmingly white and middle-aged to elderly.
Some of the LD surge is personal support built up over years from social media. But a lot of it is just alienation from Govrernment populism and Brexitry - this was a deeply Remain area, and people don't feel much in common with the Government at any level.
Do you really think support is built up by social media I find that difficult to believe.
Ah good old Waverley, yes Farnham is ripe for a Lib Dem takeover, as is Guildford and Winchester. These seats would have flipped had it not been for Corbyn standing for Labour.
I have never seen such visceral hatred for the Tories in any election apart from 2019, in these areas.
Ah good old Waverley, yes Farnham is ripe for a Lib Dem takeover, as is Guildford and Winchester. These seats would have flipped had it not been for Corbyn standing for Labour.
I have never seen such visceral hatred for the Tories in any election apart from 2019, in these areas.
It's not really a 'Union' any more if all that is holding it together is a refusal to permit Scotland to leave. It's like saying the Fritzls were a close family.
Michael Gove is asked by @RidgeOnSunday whether the UK government would go to the Supreme Court to block attempts by SNP to hold a 2nd indy referendum:
Oh it is - block a referendum vote and when it occurs independence would win.
That I sent to say you want a vote, but you can't let the grieve xe continue to build and allow the SNP to use independence as an avoidance tactic everything awkward questions are asked.
The UK gov will avoid being the ones to challenge it in court though. They’ll leave that dirty work to a Scottish Remain campaign group.
The Scotland Act says that is for the attorney general.
I am more and more convinced that Labour is suffering from the same identity crisis that has hit centre-left parties all over the democratic world since the deindustrialisation and the collapse of Communism. However, that was masked to a large extent in the 90s and 00s for Labour by the political genius of Tony Blair and the Conservative mistakes that he ruthlessly exploited.
From that, it follows that Labour's best strategy is to find another political genius, and wait for the Conservatives to screw up. Not a very satisfying one, and maybe very long-term, but maybe more effective than targeting whatever micro-sliver of the electoral is fashionable that week.
Blair is a 'once in a century' phenomenon.
Early Blair -- with his boyish good looks, his nous, his ability to project warmth and compassion, his powerful communication skills, his intelligence & his articulacy -- was just a political magician. We'll never see his like again ...
I would agree with all of that, except Blair's intelligence, which I never rated.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
If I was in charge of Labour .... well.
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young, articulate (40s) leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Cancelling all student loan debt would be a great Labour policy.
They wouldn’t even need to cancel it. Make it interest free would be effectively cost neutral (as it’s the interest that means they never pay it back) and make a huge difference.
But for now, it probably means sticking with Starmer- until someone else who passes the "could you really imagine them on the steps of No 10" test comes along. But less conspicuous and isolated than now. Lots of bright younger people around him, with SKS as the father figure.
Not easy.
Mmm .... SKS will look like Jimmy Saville surrounded by young girls in skimpy tops in an old rerun of TOTP
We agree on the approach, but SKS looks grey and ancient. He's not the right casting.
He's older than Boris. He's older than Nicola. He's even older than Ed Davey. And he looks even older & greyer than he is. Boris and Nicola exude energy & confidence. SKS doesn't.
Politics is also about ruthlessness. SKS has got to go. Sorry.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
That ballot paper does look like a poor design, with two columns of candidates and two columns of votes split on the page.
They should really have made it one column of candidates, but that would probably have been more expensive for the printer with 20 candidates on the ballot. They did get £160k in lost deposits though, which should have covered the cost of printing.
It really annoys me to see stuff like this though, dozens of people must have been involved in signing off the design, yet it still happens.
How long were the ballot papers in the other Mayoral contests and was there the same level of confusion.
West Midlands had five candidates, and c.2% rejected.
That's still too high, of course. I wonder if the answer is to require a greater number of nominators. For a GE the figure's 10. If that's the same for Mayors, I suggest it's too low; maybe 50. There would still be joke, weird, or publicity seeking candidates, but maybe not so many.
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Not sure that idea works for the broader south - scrolling through all of the results there were more examples of Tory gains even in these areas, than losses. I think the chinks you refer to are largely in specific and limited areas. The whole Brighton/Hove extension of London/Oxford/Cambridge thing actually has liomited scope to extend much further. It links to a University/Lifestyle vibe which is not mainstream.
Not sure that's true. Waverley is a counter-example. There is no significant university population, it's a bit far from London to commute, the lifestyle is deep Surrey rather than London (Pizza Express is about as exotic as it gets, and estate agents far outnumber bookshops), and there were swings of over 30% against the Tories in several divisions. These mostly benefited the LibDems, though Labour doubled its vote too. The area is overwhelmingly white and middle-aged to elderly.
Some of the LD surge is personal support built up over years from social media. But a lot of it is just alienation from Govrernment populism and Brexitry - this was a deeply Remain area, and people don't feel much in common with the Government at any level.
Agree. I would only add that quite a significant proportion of the home counties/southern 'respectable' middle classes really don't approve of Boris Johnson for a mixture of reasons. Theresa May types, I guess. I suspect many of those would return to the Tories once Boris is gone.
Interesting re the Opinium, am I right in thinking the Tory vote was lower than their predictions (by 4%?) any ideas why that happened? I used to think Wales had shy Tory voters who said Labour but voted blue?
Wales has a strong muscle memory of its Labour-voting heritage. The pencil poises over Conservative - then reverts to putting an X against Labour. Still, the Blues had their best result in Wales on Thursday. Just at the expense of UKIP, LibDems and PC rather than Labour.
That doesn’t really wash as an explanation, given that the same could have been said of areas like the North East.
The explanation is that voters didn’t feel like giving governments a kicking when said governments were in the middle of potentially saving their lives through the vaccination programme.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
There are some lovely green shoots. In truest, of true blue Worthing, Labour took half of the county seats this week.
Worthing won't be blue for too much longer.
It's going the way of Hove.
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Not sure that idea works for the broader south - scrolling through all of the results there were more examples of Tory gains even in these areas, than losses. I think the chinks you refer to are largely in specific and limited areas. The whole Brighton/Hove extension of London/Oxfors/Cambridge thing actually has liomited scope to extend much further. It links to a University/Lifestyle vibe which is not mainstream.
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
We seem to be on the hunt for differences rather than similarities these days, and of course if you go searching for it you will find it where none was before. Tell people they are different and they come to believe it - even Scotland and England are not as far apart on most issues as each suggests.
Sit on a bus and start a conversation with the person next to you in the north and the south and the reactions are very different indeed.
I remember my Scottish father going to stay with mum's long-expat cousin in Orpington. He was out in her garden doing some tidying up and started talking to the neighbour over the fence at the back end as he did at home. Cousin-in-law was absolutely astounded - she'd been there 30+ years and never even spoken to him.
Most people know that is fantasy politics just as Corbyn offered free broadband and holidays to the moon.
Who gives a fuck? Plenty of young people would come out and vote for it. See also: legal ganja.
Legalising pot would be a marginal issue at most. Nowhere near as many votes versus all the other reasons people change their votes.
What I would be inclined is to give the power to decriminalise it to Police and Crime Commissioners. They should know what their patch want. They can get profile they currently lack for taking the stand.
Yesterday we discussed the poor design of the London Mayor ballot paper. In particular the instructions around columns A and B when the candidates were listed in two columns. It was suggested one test of whether voters were actually confused would be the number of spoiled ballots, especially those with too many X's. Helpfully, these have been detailed on the official return. (Hat-tip to countbinface.com for the picture.)
The number of ballot papers rejected on first preference votes was as follows:- (a) Unmarked 18,071 (b) Uncertain 8,672 (c) Voting for too many 87,214 (d) Writing identifying voter 167 (e) Want of official mark 77 Total 114,201
The number of ballot papers rejected on second preference votes was as follows:- (a) Uncertain 965 (b) Voting for too many 7,037 Total 8,002
In particular, those voters who expressed no first preference or who voted for too many candidates were very likely confused by the ballot paper. That is 112,232 voters.
In addition, it was acceptable and logical for supporters of Sadiq Khan and Shaun Bailey in particular to cast only a first preference vote. This was done by 319,978 voters. However, it is arguable that the 265,343 voters who cast the same first and second preference votes misunderstood either the process or the ballot paper.
That seems like a massive number of rejected votes even in a city its size.
Of course Priti Patel wants to abandon this system in favour of FPTP. I wonder if the next election will in fact be conducted that way?
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
That ballot paper does look like a poor design, with two columns of candidates and two columns of votes split on the page.
They should really have made it one column of candidates, but that would probably have been more expensive for the printer with 20 candidates on the ballot. They did get £160k in lost deposits though, which should have covered the cost of printing.
It really annoys me to see stuff like this though, dozens of people must have been involved in signing off the design, yet it still happens.
How long were the ballot papers in the other Mayoral contests and was there the same level of confusion.
West Midlands had five candidates, and c.2% rejected.
That's still too high, of course. I wonder if the answer is to require a greater number of nominators. For a GE the figure's 10. If that's the same for Mayors, I suggest it's too low; maybe 50. There would still be joke, weird, or publicity seeking candidates, but maybe not so many.
The £10k deposit should have put off a few of them, but apparently not in London.
I’d like to know who paid Binface’s deposit, they deserve an MBE for services to making Election Day fun!
I think the Tories need to be a bit careful with Scotland. It’s one issue in which there is quite a big divide between the party and their voters. I suspect most would happily let Scotland have another referendum and if they vote to leave, all the better.
But for now, it probably means sticking with Starmer- until someone else who passes the "could you really imagine them on the steps of No 10" test comes along. But less conspicuous and isolated than now. Lots of bright younger people around him, with SKS as the father figure.
Not easy.
Mmm .... SKS will look like Jimmy Saville surrounded by young girls in skimpy tops in an old rerun of TOTP
We agree on the approach, but SKS looks grey and ancient. He's not the right casting.
He's older than Boris. He's older than Nicola. He's even older than Ed Davey. And he looks even older & greyer than he is. Boris and Nicola exude energy & confidence. SKS doesn't.
Politics is also about ruthlessness. SKS has got to go. Sorry.
Age isn't very important in generating enthusiasm. Corbyn. Sanders. Even Biden, though mainly as the anti-Trump. But you need energy and confidence (which Corbyn and Sanders had and indeed have), coupled with confidence that they won't enthusiastically steer the ship onto the rocks (not so much).
Asked what the SNP will do if Boris Johnson says no to another referendum, Keith Brown says he has never thought the PM would "veto Scottish democracy" & adds there has been a change in language from the Westminster govt - "it will happen, it's going to happen" #ridge https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1391306761957675009
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Not sure that idea works for the broader south - scrolling through all of the results there were more examples of Tory gains even in these areas, than losses. I think the chinks you refer to are largely in specific and limited areas. The whole Brighton/Hove extension of London/Oxford/Cambridge thing actually has liomited scope to extend much further. It links to a University/Lifestyle vibe which is not mainstream.
Not sure that's true. Waverley is a counter-example. There is no significant university population, it's a bit far from London to commute, the lifestyle is deep Surrey rather than London (Pizza Express is about as exotic as it gets, and estate agents far outnumber bookshops), and there were swings of over 30% against the Tories in several divisions. These mostly benefited the LibDems, though Labour doubled its vote too. The area is overwhelmingly white and middle-aged to elderly.
Some of the LD surge is personal support built up over years from social media. But a lot of it is just alienation from Govrernment populism and Brexitry - this was a deeply Remain area, and people don't feel much in common with the Government at any level.
Agree. I would only add that quite a significant proportion of the home counties/southern 'respectable' middle classes really don't approve of Boris Johnson for a mixture of reasons. Theresa May types, I guess. I suspect many of those would return to the Tories once Boris is gone.
That is undoubtedly correct.
Also, bear in mind that (being generous) the LibDems did not advance at all on their council position in 2016/17, when the treachery of the Coalition was much fresher. Their bandwidth is being eaten by the Greens, who can also take the votes of the Remainy Tories as easily as the LibDems.
Asked what the SNP will do if Boris Johnson says no to another referendum, Keith Brown says he has never thought the PM would "veto Scottish democracy" & adds there has been a change in language from the Westminster govt - "it will happen, it's going to happen" #ridge https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1391306761957675009
I think the Tories need to be a bit careful with Scotland. It’s one issue in which there is quite a big divide between the party and their voters. I suspect most would happily let Scotland have another referendum and if they vote to leave, all the better.
That's interesting observation. It does seem that the closer one gets to the mental fugue state that is tory party membership the greater the salience of 𝓞𝓤𝓡 𝓟𝓡𝓔𝓒𝓘𝓞𝓤𝓢 𝓤𝓝𝓘𝓞𝓝.
Obviously I don't know any tories IRL but I have heard more than one political neutral/unengaged say that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think the Tories need to be a bit careful with Scotland. It’s one issue in which there is quite a big divide between the party and their voters. I suspect most would happily let Scotland have another referendum and if they vote to leave, all the better.
That's interesting observation. It does seem that the closer one gets to the mental fugue state that is tory party membership the greater the salience of 𝓞𝓤𝓡 𝓟𝓡𝓔𝓒𝓘𝓞𝓤𝓢 𝓤𝓝𝓘𝓞𝓝.
Obviously I don't know any tories IRL but I have heard more than one political neutral/unengaged say that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
All those Tory election posters of Alex Salmond picking the English voters' pockets etc. Who would have thought it?
Inspired by and to echo Casino. There is one big difference that might explain the difference between Labour in England And Wales.
In Wales, Labour have been very comfortable with Welsh national Identity and the politics that go with it. The red dragon has always been part of the left in Wales. It’s obvious.
Whereas in Scotland the union-independence debate has complicated the issue and split Labour front Scottish identity and the Saltire. In England the previous shenanigans of the far right coupled with Brexit have seriously distanced the left for this sort of politics. On,y when Labour coupled itself with the local identity ( Manchester) did it succeed.
The best thing Labour can do now is to break up what's left of the UK party and found fraternal national parties. Labour does very well in Wales and very badly in England and Scotland. Create wholly separate registrations and let the parties do their own thing.
As long as there is a compact to have one whip in Westminster, they will be able to win more seats by saying different things to the different electorates.
It needs to solve the problem in England. There are plenty of regions that do not have a voice. For example, the south fully taken for granted by the Tories for decades is ripe for the plucking. There is a southern identity.
Is there? Other than jokes between the two I've never noticed much actual difference between north and south identities (the midlands tends to get overlooked). More locally focused ones perhaps, in the north, less so in the south.
Agreed it's taken for granted, but if that is going to bite them I dont think it will for awhile.
We seem to be on the hunt for differences rather than similarities these days, and of course if you go searching for it you will find it where none was before. Tell people they are different and they come to believe it - even Scotland and England are not as far apart on most issues as each suggests.
Sit on a bus and start a conversation with the person next to you in the north and the south and the reactions are very different indeed.
I remember my Scottish father going to stay with mum's long-expat cousin in Orpington. He was out in her garden doing some tidying up and started talking to the neighbour over the fence at the back end as he did at home. Cousin-in-law was absolutely astounded - she'd been there 30+ years and never even spoken to him.
Though such cultural schisms can occur between G1 and EH1..
It’s marvellous. Some of these places have been governed by Tories for decades. They need a breath of fresh air, hopefully when tide goes out for Boris the process will accelerate across the South.
Not sure that idea works for the broader south - scrolling through all of the results there were more examples of Tory gains even in these areas, than losses. I think the chinks you refer to are largely in specific and limited areas. The whole Brighton/Hove extension of London/Oxford/Cambridge thing actually has liomited scope to extend much further. It links to a University/Lifestyle vibe which is not mainstream.
Not sure that's true. Waverley is a counter-example. There is no significant university population, it's a bit far from London to commute, the lifestyle is deep Surrey rather than London (Pizza Express is about as exotic as it gets, and estate agents far outnumber bookshops), and there were swings of over 30% against the Tories in several divisions. These mostly benefited the LibDems, though Labour doubled its vote too. The area is overwhelmingly white and middle-aged to elderly.
Some of the LD surge is personal support built up over years from social media. But a lot of it is just alienation from Govrernment populism and Brexitry - this was a deeply Remain area, and people don't feel much in common with the Government at any level.
Agree. I would only add that quite a significant proportion of the home counties/southern 'respectable' middle classes really don't approve of Boris Johnson for a mixture of reasons. Theresa May types, I guess. I suspect many of those would return to the Tories once Boris is gone.
If you look at Boris's performance in traditional true blue areas, the home counties and the shires, its actually pretty underwhelming.
Why? because Boris is about to denude the wealth of these areas with a combination of higher taxes and faster inflation.
As the tories go cock-a-hoop about the red wall, they are very exposed to leaving the back door open.
For the tories to get hammered, it is only necessary for tory voters to sit on their hands. As the horrendous bills for lockdown come in, I think they increasingly will.
I think the Tories need to be a bit careful with Scotland. It’s one issue in which there is quite a big divide between the party and their voters. I suspect most would happily let Scotland have another referendum and if they vote to leave, all the better.
That's interesting observation. It does seem that the closer one gets to the mental fugue state that is tory party membership the greater the salience of 𝓞𝓤𝓡 𝓟𝓡𝓔𝓒𝓘𝓞𝓤𝓢 𝓤𝓝𝓘𝓞𝓝.
Obviously I don't know any tories IRL but I have heard more than one political neutral/unengaged say that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
All those Tory election posters of Alex Salmond picking the English voters' pockets etc. Who would have thought it?
At least it showed him only picking their pockets. Imagine what they would show now...
Comments
Also, I'm staunchly against a Yorkshire assembly. I like Yorkshire. It's splendid. That doesn't mean imposing a stupid political division within England is sensible for either England or Yorkshire.
Dividing England with such political meddling when we've seen what the constitutional dicking about has created in Scotland would be a marvellous act of failing to learn the most obvious of lessons. How many days would pass before a London demagogue complains of taxes being sent elsewhere and argues for London to 'keep its own money'? How many days before a Yorkshire demagogue complains of spending per head being so much lower than London and demanding a 'fair share'?
Looking at the bitterness and entrenched political divide in Scotland seeking to replicate that within England itself is nuts.
And how would the powers work? Do you suppose to make these pathetic little fiefdoms glorified parish councils with less power than Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly, or do you suppose England would be well-served by having different healthcare, education, and taxation rates on either side of the Pennines?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPD5q6DC43M
Take Leave to be more global vs. Leave to be protectionist. Farmers don't want cheaper imports, and I suspect manufacturing towns don't either. That dog won't bark until the first new trade deal.
Or Remain and want EEA at least now vs. Remain and renengage more gradually.
Or what should Labour do? There looks to be an unavoidable trade-off between Hartlepool and Peterborough going on. Embrace Brexit or see it as a problem to do something about? I suspect it's impossible to be dispassionate about that one, but I don't see how going into an idelogical space which is already occupied, where the bulk of your supporters don't want to go and where you wouldn't be believed anyway is meant to work.
One other observation. There were some split tickets yesterday- in WM, the Conservatives won the mayoralty but not the PCC, in Cambs the Conservatives lost the mayoralty but held on to the PCC. A fair number of people are rationally looking at records and promises and judging appropriately. So having delivered Brexit, can Brexit- let alone this Brexit- deliver? Your guess is probably almost as good as mine.
And do other Mayoral elections have the same percentage of rejected votes. or the same number of candidates, which might in fact be a big part of the cause of the bother?
Of course that doesn't counter that given we have devolved assemblies if they ask for an indy ref that's a mandate but playing devils advocate.
Even if Nicola Sturgeon had been beaten into sixth place behind the unionist parties, George Galloway and Alba, she would have claimed the result of the Scottish parliament election as a mandate for another independence referendum. As it is, she now claims that mandate on the grounds that a majority of members of the new parliament are pro-independence.
Of course, a majority of the previous parliament was pro-independence too, which is why she was first minister, with the support of the Scottish Greens. .....
....So Boris Johnson will continue to say “now is not the time” for another independence referendum, and public opinion in Scotland will continue to agree with him. Sturgeon’s notional mandate was undermined by her words during the campaign, when she said: “I’m asking people to vote for me as first minister to continue to lead us through a global pandemic, then to implement a bold transformative manifesto to kick start that recovery, and drive that recovery, then when we’re out of the crisis to give people in Scotland the choice over what kind of future we want and the country we want to build.”
In other words, “now is not the time”.
So we're saying that Labour needs to give up on power till 2097?
Regarding Labour in Wales, I was advised on this very forum that Drakeford was so degenerate and twisted that Labour stood no chance, yet not only have they bagged an increase in seats but Drakeford himself is being lauded...
We don’t need to create another layer of elected politicians, but we do need to give more power to those we already have in county halls across the country.
I don't agree that the Conservatives take the south-outside-London for granted, though. They certainly expect its support, but they have been pretty ruthless in courting it, for example in protecting and extending Green Belts and farm subsidies, despite the free market principles they usually claim to be committed to.
If we add in those where the same candidate was voted for twice, the error rate was 14.3 per cent but even 4.2 per cent is alarmingly high.
Roy Hattersley is always someone I think of who's proud to be English but very much of the Left.
As I understand the practicalities, Scotland is within its rights to pass a bill for a referendum. The UK can strike it down as without Holyroods power, but it can't stop Holyrood passing that bill.
Some people say nippy has no intention of holding a vote. Perhaps. And the obvious thing to do is to pass the bill and have England slap it down. She both gets to stay in office without the faff of a referendum and significantly boosts her party's electoral chances of a 5th term in office.
It's going the way of Hove.
One of his first acts post 1997 was to remove immigration restrictions and controls, and that only accelerated after 2004, together with starting the "rub noses in diversity" narrative.
Now grow up.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2a0dbd14-af4b-11eb-b6c0-5386bb38660a?shareToken=5940283d84ad0ea4f163cecdfdf16cf7
..
SNP No Maj - win
SNP 64-65 seats - win
Rose Not for MAyor - win
Labour for Hartepool - I..., ahem, masterfully cut my loses and didn't lose as much as I might have.
Dodds is out, let's see how reliable my source was on her replacement...
For it to matter, you either need a closeish balance between the top three (as in Cambs) or independents so that the initial sifting makes a difference.
Of course, if I were a governing party facing split opposition, I'd totes see the benefits of changing to FPTP...
Labour have been forced onto profitless territory (Leave or Remain, Union or Independence) by very, very canny opponents (Boris and Nicola). Labour need to get off this terrain ... and fast.
Labour needs a really smart politician to force the political debate back onto much, much more favourable grounds.
I would probably say inter-generational fairness is what Labour should be talking a lot about -- house ownership, life chances, wealth and career progression amongst the young and middle aged. These generations clearly have been shafted by the Boomers, who now expect free social care in their declining years!!
And COVID is a natural entry point -- it is the young who have been really shafted by COVID. It is outrageous that young people are being charged 9k in fees and they can't even get to University.
I would get rid of Disaster Starmer and appoint a young (40s), articulate leader as a standard bearer for a younger-generation.
The leader should be some of the people that Starmer is busy sacking like Rayner (age 41) or Nandy (41). Labour could build an election-winning coalition by trying to get the votes of almost everyone under 50.
Labour certainly can't win on the topics the Tories and the SNP want to talk about. And Labour themselves seem to want to talk about topics that are not broad enough to build an election-winning coalition, like trans rights or BLM.
Remember Quebec is still part of Canada, though it hasn't signed the Canadian constitution. Federal politicians just stopped talking about and making it an issue. Sure, the desire for an independent Quebec is still there, but it is not dominating the Canadian political discourse.
In politics, you don't have to accept your opponents framing of the debate.
Obviously, this needs a bold, clever and imaginative politician to drive the debate onto better grounds & Disaster Starmer completely lacks the skill-set.
As I said right at the beginning, Starmer may be worthy but he is not nimble enough to beat Boris or Nicola.
Such effects are far more diluted across the rest of the South. Where they concentrate or cluster, Portsmouth South or Canterbury, Labour will win.
Should help pay for my self-catering holiday next month.
https://twitter.com/markdiffley1/status/1391296089693859844?s=21
Of course, the very Woke and achingly right-on Left-wing Guardian columnist Afua Hirsch went to... a private school.
And pb.com's hero of the hour, the Drake rejected it.
The Welsh Tories are right -- the minimum that should happen is remission of all fees for the COVID years.
(Though I personally would be bolder and do as @Dura_Ace suggests).
They should really have made it one column of candidates, but that would probably have been more expensive for the printer with 20 candidates on the ballot. They did get £160k in lost deposits though, which should have covered the cost of printing.
It really annoys me to see stuff like this though, dozens of people must have been involved in signing off the design, yet it still happens.
Michael Gove is asked by @RidgeOnSunday whether the UK government would go to the Supreme Court to block attempts by SNP to hold a 2nd indy referendum:
"We're not going to go there."
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1391296517479223308
It needs at least some of the respectable middle-aged.
Jeremy Thorpe to Harold Macmillan
Some of the LD surge is personal support built up over years from social media. But a lot of it is just alienation from Govrernment populism and Brexitry - this was a deeply Remain area, and people don't feel much in common with the Government at any level.
I think you're right- the sensible place to start is where you are and reach out from there. For Labour, that's certainly the young, tapering off into older working people (parents with children but not grandchildren, say) but fading massively when you get to the retired. It's the "Vote Labour; we have work to do" thing I moodled on yesterday. There are some consequences for that, though.
The now-blue wall goes, because the point about places like Hartlepool is the demographic shift to them being places where the young leave and the old stay behind. (I'm assuming that people leave more because they can, rather than because they're forced to).
It means that Labour have to go on the basis that B***** is a problem to be solved not an opportunity to be grasped, because that's largely what young and working-age people think.
But for now, it probably means sticking with Starmer- until someone else who passes the "could you really imagine them on the steps of No 10" test comes along. But less conspicuous and isolated than now. Lots of bright younger people around him, with SKS as the father figure.
Not easy.
That I sent to say you want a vote, but you can't let the grieve xe continue to build and allow the SNP to use independence as an avoidance tactic everything awkward questions are asked.
There is a mandate for indyref2.
My @scotonsunday column. 👇
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scottish-election-2021-snp-now-has-mandate-for-independence-referendum-unionists-need-to-start-preparing-their-arguments-kirsty-strickland-3229413
I have never seen such visceral hatred for the Tories in any election apart from 2019, in these areas.
What on Earth is going on, Starmer is rapidly losing my confidence.
We agree on the approach, but SKS looks grey and ancient. He's not the right casting.
He's older than Boris. He's older than Nicola. He's even older than Ed Davey. And he looks even older & greyer than he is. Boris and Nicola exude energy & confidence. SKS doesn't.
Politics is also about ruthlessness. SKS has got to go. Sorry.
There would still be joke, weird, or publicity seeking candidates, but maybe not so many.
What I would be inclined is to give the power to decriminalise it to Police and Crime Commissioners. They should know what their patch want. They can get profile they currently lack for taking the stand.
I’d like to know who paid Binface’s deposit, they deserve an MBE for services to making Election Day fun!
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1391306761957675009
Also, bear in mind that (being generous) the LibDems did not advance at all on their council position in 2016/17, when the treachery of the Coalition was much fresher. Their bandwidth is being eaten by the Greens, who can also take the votes of the Remainy Tories as easily as the LibDems.
Obviously I don't know any tories IRL but I have heard more than one political neutral/unengaged say that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
Why? because Boris is about to denude the wealth of these areas with a combination of higher taxes and faster inflation.
As the tories go cock-a-hoop about the red wall, they are very exposed to leaving the back door open.
For the tories to get hammered, it is only necessary for tory voters to sit on their hands. As the horrendous bills for lockdown come in, I think they increasingly will.