So for all his flaws, Starmer has made tangible progress.
Rallings and Thrasher say NEV of 40% Con, 30% Labour. The BBC are wrong.
NEV and PNS are slightly different calculations. Anyway it's more or less as bad for Labour as 2017 - can't exactly see Glasto next year giving chants of "Oh Sir Keir Starmer" though.
He never won a GE but Miliband's local election results look amazing next to this lot.
40 /30 v incumbent Govt is a disaster which ever way you look at it.
Yes but it's easy to pick at occasional examples and forget they are not the norm - a simple scroll through all the results from southern England yesterday reveals more Tory gains than for LD or Labour albeit less dramatic than in the north.
I think you're perhaps looking at borough by-elections with varying date comparisons? On a like-for-like basis, the Conservatives lost two seats on the county council in Kent, three in East Sussex, four in West Sussex and ten in Surrey. That covers most of what is usually called the south, no?
I take your point but why would you not look at the broad picture of all the elections recorded yesterday. Even in the examples you quote not all of the losses were to Labour or the LDs.
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
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 platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
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.
A great post. And very similar to what I would (and indeed did) advocate as the best approach for the LibDems, to try and recapture their campaigning edge, get a bit of attention, and try to rebuild what was, pre-tuition fees, a strong emerging power base among younger voters prior to 2010. For the LDs it offers the additional advantage that their desire for closer links with Europe can be slotted in as a subsidiary issue - as indeed can political reform - rather than sticking out as headlines. The LibDems liberal agenda (votes at 16, decriminalising cannabis, civil liberties etc. slots in nicely as well). As a third (or worse) party they desperately need an overarching theme they can continue to bang away at, and one that isn't all about Europe.
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been driven back to a base of seats that are mostly overweight in the people who would be on the losing side of addressing intergenerational unfairness (because they are better off, rather than old, and won't like the party's former proposal for a Mansion Tax, etc,)
Anyway, I thought I'd do a comparison with Prof Thrashers Five Scenarios to see where we stand on the local elections (expectation compared with outcome).
Current: Con +239, Lab -301, LD -8, UKIP -43, Greens/Ind/Others +115 (+70 Greens, +45 Ind/Others) (The Green/Ind/Other split wasn't given for four of the scenarios, so I've lumped them together. I'm assuming a UKIP wipeout was the default in all scenarios as well) Still to come: Con defending 144, Lab defending 94, LD defending 36, UKIP defending 6, Greens/Others defending 13 (11 Greens, 2 Independents). Scenario 1: National polling scores: Con +240. Lab +60, Green/Ind/Others -2 Scenario 2: Above, adjusted for LD overperformance locally: Con +120, Lab -50, LD -70, Green/Ind/Oth +48 Scenario 3: National picture ignored; solely local and pure Con-v-LD: Con -150, Lab +70, LD +70, Green/Ind/Oth +58 Scenario 4: Local voters swing behind Greens and Indies to oppose Tories: Con +0, Lab +0, LD -70, Green/Ind/Oth +70 (+30 Greens, +40 Ind/Others) Scenario 5: Excellent Labour ground campaign: Con -150, Lab +300, LD -100, Green/Ind/Oth -2 (UKIP assumed -48 in all of these)
From this, unless the Tories do exceptionally badly in defending the 144 councillors they have out of the 292, they have exceeded every scenario. Labour have already chalked up a far worse performance than any scenario given, even if they win every single seat yet to be announced (spoiler: they won't) The Lib Dems have done considerably better than every scenario other than the one where local voters ignored the national picture (and, to be honest, I wasn't holding my breath for that one). They may even end up with a net increase, which looked unlikely this time yesterday. The Greens have outperformed even the one where they are seen as the key challengers to swing behind.
Cons = Very happy Greens = Very happy LDs = Reasonably pleased/relieved, under the circumstances Labour = Very unhappy
Which is the point to remember that most of us, including me, thought these bars were at the very ranges of likely performance!
Priorities A full range of NHS services delivered locally (including restoring a full A&E department including intensive and high dependency care, and consultant-led maternity services at Dewsbury and District Hospital.) More school places for children and restoration of parental choice over preferred schools. A "clean" Brexit. "A managed and controlled immigration system. A reduction in foreign aid. A crackdown on crime and anti-social behaviour. Police reform. More support for the armed forces, including veterans, and increased investment in defence. Against the proposed travellers’ site close to Junction 27 in Birstall.
On topic I think its vindication for what @isam and I were pointing out months ago while people were talking about Starmer's supposed lead on leader ratings against Boris (on Net metrics) when the Gross metrics showed Boris was in the lead.
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.
Not easy.
A massive dilemma.
The problem in replacing Starmer is all those ghoulish figures that would emerge from the shadows like Burgon and Long- Bailey. And heaven forbid one might win.
I have noticed @squareroot2 has been trolling @CorrectHorseBattery by stating Labour are finished and Horse might as well vote Green or LD (who?) clearly exciteable fanboi nonsense in the wake of Hartlepool, however should the ghost of Corbyn reappear again, Root's premonition could indeed come to pass.
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.
Why ? Why is there a hatred of the Tories ?
I think a combination of being very anti-Brexit but also a lot of them feel like the Tory Party isn't really representing them anymore, I'd call them Cameronites around here.
It's the sort of place the Lib Dems could do a lot of damage in, if they weren't rubbish.
Many older conservative people also defer, not to Churchill or Cameron, but to our greatest ever peacetime prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
Everything Thatcher ever stood for has been completely junked.
Yes very good point, Thatcher is popular around these parts too. I say "these parts", what I mean is this is where I'm from, I don't live there now.
And to the shock of some of the "woke watchers", that's not a huge issue around here either. I think it's one of not liking Brexit and the move to the left, which many of this lot don't like at all.
I can't think this is a unique occurrence.
When these voters do not like the conservatives for some reason, they simply do not vote. The depth of the tory devastation of 1997 was partly because conservatives did not turn up.
In 18 months time we will have the spectacle of the tories desperately trying to tell bedrock voters why they should stay loyal even though they are getting hit for six on taxes, consumer prices are soaring and they STILL can't go to the Marbella Beach Club on holiday.
It will not be pleasant.
There have been definite seeds sown in the shires to indicate how the Tory Party might next lose a general. The trouble as with most things in politics, is the branding of the alternatives.
You’re not going to get the Uk Green Party, seen as a front for commies and plastic sandal wearers, winning Guildford. Nor Labour for that matter, as I struggle to believe an Even Newer Labour rebrand would work for ages if ever, given the Corbyn years.
And then there’s the Lib Dems. The classic NOTA vote. It’s plausible enough I suppose that they could win Guildford and take away the Tory majority but then what? Some stitched together rainbow coalition of nationalist parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, making the yellows demise permanent this time? And would such a coalition really really get a parliamentary majority to push through PR without a referendum?
Personally I still think there’s space for a newly branded party. One borne out of local activism, quietly proud of Britain while still being to the left of centre on welfare, the environment and social issues. The Lib Dems without the self flagellation on the EU and branding hang ups from the Coalition years I suppose. The trouble is that Johnson has also positioned his tanks on a lot of that turf too.
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
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.
A great post. And very similar to what I would (and indeed did) advocate as the best approach for the LibDems, to try and recapture their campaigning edge, get a bit of attention, and try to rebuild what was, pre-tuition fees, a strong emerging power base among younger voters prior to 2010. For the LDs it offers the additional advantage that their desire for closer links with Europe can be slotted in as a subsidiary issue - as indeed can political reform - rather than sticking out as headlines. The LibDems liberal agenda (votes at 16, decriminalising cannabis, civil liberties etc. slots in nicely as well). As a third (or worse) party they desperately need an overarching theme they can continue to bang away at, and one that isn't all about Europe.
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been driven back to a base of seats that are mostly overweight in the people who would be on the losing side of addressing intergenerational unfairness (because they are better off, rather than old, and won't like the party's former proposal for a Mansion Tax, etc,)
The Mansion Tax was Vince Cable's preferred policy. The traditional Liberal answer to que question of taxing wealth was site value rating (for local government) or site value taxation (at the national level). Interestingly enough, this was a policy that the Labour Party picked up in the election where they did relatively well - though only to the extent that they would "think about it".
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.
Not easy.
A massive dilemma.
The problem in replacing Starmer is all those ghoulish figures that would emerge from the shadows like Burgon and Long- Bailey. And heaven forbid one might win.
I have noticed @squareroot2 has been trolling @CorrectHorseBattery by stating Labour are finished and Horse might as well vote Green or LD (who?) clearly exciteable fanboi nonsense in the wake of Hartlepool, however should the ghost of Corbyn reappear again, Root's premonition could indeed come to pass.
Is it still £3 to join?
Didn't they make it about £24?
Turned out to be quite the money spinner for Corbyn...
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...
Perhaps the Welsh spent a year moaning about Drakeford before they voted for him? We'll have to ask Big_G whether that's the sort of thing they get up to there
We see something similar in France. However unpopular is Macron, the alternative is even worse.
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.
Why ? Why is there a hatred of the Tories ?
I think a combination of being very anti-Brexit but also a lot of them feel like the Tory Party isn't really representing them anymore, I'd call them Cameronites around here.
It's the sort of place the Lib Dems could do a lot of damage in, if they weren't rubbish.
Many older conservative people also defer, not to Churchill or Cameron, but to our greatest ever peacetime prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
Everything Thatcher ever stood for has been completely junked.
Yes very good point, Thatcher is popular around these parts too. I say "these parts", what I mean is this is where I'm from, I don't live there now.
And to the shock of some of the "woke watchers", that's not a huge issue around here either. I think it's one of not liking Brexit and the move to the left, which many of this lot don't like at all.
I can't think this is a unique occurrence.
When these voters do not like the conservatives for some reason, they simply do not vote. The depth of the tory devastation of 1997 was partly because conservatives did not turn up.
In 18 months time we will have the spectacle of the tories desperately trying to tell bedrock voters why they should stay loyal even though they are getting hit for six on taxes, consumer prices are soaring and they STILL can't go to the Marbella Beach Club on holiday.
It will not be pleasant.
There have been definite seeds sown in the shires to indicate how the Tory Party might next lose a general. The trouble as with most things in politics, is the branding of the alternatives.
You’re not going to get the Uk Green Party, seen as a front for commies and plastic sandal wearers, winning Guildford. Nor Labour for that matter, as I struggle to believe an Even Newer Labour rebrand would work for ages if ever, given the Corbyn years.
And then there’s the Lib Dems. The classic NOTA vote. It’s plausible enough I suppose that they could win Guildford and take away the Tory majority but then what? Some stitched together rainbow coalition of nationalist parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, making the yellows demise permanent this time? And would such a coalition really really get a parliamentary majority to push through PR without a referendum?
Personally I still think there’s space for a newly branded party. One borne out of local activism, quietly proud of Britain while still being to the left of centre on welfare, the environment and social issues. The Lib Dems without the self flagellation on the EU and branding hang ups from the Coalition years I suppose. The trouble is that Johnson has also positioned his tanks on a lot of that turf too.
What a puzzle this all is for the Oppo parties.
Indeed. And everything now, is to the left of the the tories. Everything. Reform/Reclaim got precisely nowhere on super Thursday.
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.
A great post. And very similar to what I would (and indeed did) advocate as the best approach for the LibDems, to try and recapture their campaigning edge, get a bit of attention, and try to rebuild what was, pre-tuition fees, a strong emerging power base among younger voters prior to 2010. For the LDs it offers the additional advantage that their desire for closer links with Europe can be slotted in as a subsidiary issue - as indeed can political reform - rather than sticking out as headlines. The LibDems liberal agenda (votes at 16, decriminalising cannabis, civil liberties etc. slots in nicely as well). As a third (or worse) party they desperately need an overarching theme they can continue to bang away at, and one that isn't all about Europe.
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been driven back to a base of seats that are mostly overweight in the people who would be on the losing side of addressing intergenerational unfairness (because they are better off, rather than old, and won't like the party's former proposal for a Mansion Tax, etc,)
I can sum up all your problems in two words.
Layla Moran.
Happy/clappy prince(ss) of woke.
But the two constituencies who might think like that - conservative leaning pensioners and WWC men - aren't the ones the LibDems would be aiming at.
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).
Biden & Sanders & Trump are old. US politics has become a gerontocracy. It is not a fair comparison.
My point is Labour should re-set the debate on intergenerational fairness.
And a much more youthful leader will really help to do this -- a visible pictogram of what is happening.
When Labour did this re-setting before, and came back from opposition (Wilson, Blair), the leader was in his forties.
Young, politically speaking.
Sorry, SKS will not do.
I don’t think the age of the leader matters, so much as the dearth of older Labour politicians who might fit the bill.
Priorities A full range of NHS services delivered locally (including restoring a full A&E department including intensive and high dependency care, and consultant-led maternity services at Dewsbury and District Hospital.) More school places for children and restoration of parental choice over preferred schools. A "clean" Brexit. "A managed and controlled immigration system. A reduction in foreign aid. A crackdown on crime and anti-social behaviour. Police reform. More support for the armed forces, including veterans, and increased investment in defence. Against the proposed travellers’ site close to Junction 27 in Birstall.
Who can object to that? Proper local services, bollocks to foreigners and pikeys, crack down on crime (the Asians) and support our brave boys!
Or, if its not clear enough, they could copy the "Liberal candidates in Glasgow yesterday wearing yellow star of david badges and doing nazi salutes.
On topic I think its vindication for what @isam and I were pointing out months ago while people were talking about Starmer's supposed lead on leader ratings against Boris (on Net metrics) when the Gross metrics showed Boris was in the lead.
Yes but that is the problem with leader ratings. Depending from which direction you look at them, they forecast either a Labour win or a Tory one.
What might be interesting is an English regional breakdown. Boris stormed parts of the country but bombed elsewhere.
I think this is a generous position wrt to Starmer. If a manager can’t move his centre forward to the wing or vice versa without a player revolt, he’s done for. I actually see no reason at all now why Labour would not want a new leader in time for conference season.
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
On topic I think its vindication for what @isam and I were pointing out months ago while people were talking about Starmer's supposed lead on leader ratings against Boris (on Net metrics) when the Gross metrics showed Boris was in the lead.
Yes but that is the problem with leader ratings. Depending from which direction you look at them, they forecast either a Labour win or a Tory one.
What might be interesting is an English regional breakdown. Boris stormed parts of the country but bombed elsewhere.
Are there GE forecasts from the big modellers based on the results yet? Only seen one mentioned on here which was a bbc one that was much closer than I would have thought, couldnt find it on a quick look on their site though.
Social media played a big part in Boris's 2019 landslide general election win, and previously in his Brexit referendum victory. Have there been any reports from the field?
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
Ahem - a majority of 82, Ian. The 'clown' now has a majority of 82
But of course you're right that there shouldn't be an early election without it being absolutely necessary, as Theresa May proved. The summer of 2024 still looks most sensible to me.
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.
A great post. And very similar to what I would (and indeed did) advocate as the best approach for the LibDems, to try and recapture their campaigning edge, get a bit of attention, and try to rebuild what was, pre-tuition fees, a strong emerging power base among younger voters prior to 2010. For the LDs it offers the additional advantage that their desire for closer links with Europe can be slotted in as a subsidiary issue - as indeed can political reform - rather than sticking out as headlines. The LibDems liberal agenda (votes at 16, decriminalising cannabis, civil liberties etc. slots in nicely as well). As a third (or worse) party they desperately need an overarching theme they can continue to bang away at, and one that isn't all about Europe.
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been driven back to a base of seats that are mostly overweight in the people who would be on the losing side of addressing intergenerational unfairness (because they are better off, rather than old, and won't like the party's former proposal for a Mansion Tax, etc,)
I can sum up all your problems in two words.
Layla Moran.
Happy/clappy prince(ss) of woke.
But the two constituencies who might think like that - conservative leaning pensioners and WWC men - aren't the ones the LibDems would be aiming at.
Hmmn, Plenty of conservative pensioners in the shires, in the south east. And a fair few self made former WWC men and women too.
Look I think the Liberals will win a few more constituencies anyway. But a subtle change would bring plenty more.
As I say imagine they had fought harder for the Gladstone Hall in Liverpool. Are they ashamed of their greatest prime minister? the tories aren't ashamed of Thatcher or Churchill. Well not yet, anyway.
The liberals have played a massive part in the history of Great Britain, most of it good. If you listen to the modern party , it never happened.
Look how Johnson reaches into history to form his message, particularly Victorian England. Much of that was shaped by you, not him or his party. The tories were bit part players.
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
If the acknowledged leaders of Scotland keep telling people they're xenophobic, thieving, anti-democratic, lying racists who are treating Scots like dirt then only 46% will turn against you?
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
Ahem - a majority of 82, Ian. The 'clown' now has a majority of 82
But of course you're right that there shouldn't be an early election without it being absolutely necessary, as Theresa May proved. The summer of 2024 still looks most sensible to me.
Unless he can repeal the FTPA, it has to be May 2024. But if I'm honest, that seems the right time for it anyway.
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
Ahem - a majority of 82, Ian. The 'clown' now has a majority of 82
But of course you're right that there shouldn't be an early election without it being absolutely necessary, as Theresa May proved. The summer of 2024 still looks most sensible to me.
Give it a couple of months, Batley and Spen could make it 84
The worrying thing is that Starmer is looking at personalities, not policy.
Labour needs a leader that stands up to middle class metropolitans and tells them how it is. If they want power, they are going to have to make accommodations, or brexit is just the start.
Perhaps the Welsh spent a year moaning about Drakeford before they voted for him? We'll have to ask Big_G whether that's the sort of thing they get up to there
Being the subject of conversation is positive, even if it's grumpy - Trump's success for a long time was based on the news being about him, almost every day. Sure, usually negative, but it cast a shadow over everyone else. The pandemic has reinforced the opportunity for national leaders to be prominent in a not especially partisan way, and it then starts to feel irrelevant that Johnson's hair is messy or Drakeford looks ungainly.
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
It also completely blows to pieces the "not now" strategy to deflect a second indyref. I find it extremely unlikely that Boris will push the election option until at least 2023.
On topic I think its vindication for what @isam and I were pointing out months ago while people were talking about Starmer's supposed lead on leader ratings against Boris (on Net metrics) when the Gross metrics showed Boris was in the lead.
Beware the optical illusion of net ratings, they turn a blanket from wet to comfort
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.
A great post. And very similar to what I would (and indeed did) advocate as the best approach for the LibDems, to try and recapture their campaigning edge, get a bit of attention, and try to rebuild what was, pre-tuition fees, a strong emerging power base among younger voters prior to 2010. For the LDs it offers the additional advantage that their desire for closer links with Europe can be slotted in as a subsidiary issue - as indeed can political reform - rather than sticking out as headlines. The LibDems liberal agenda (votes at 16, decriminalising cannabis, civil liberties etc. slots in nicely as well). As a third (or worse) party they desperately need an overarching theme they can continue to bang away at, and one that isn't all about Europe.
The problem for the LibDems is that they have been driven back to a base of seats that are mostly overweight in the people who would be on the losing side of addressing intergenerational unfairness (because they are better off, rather than old, and won't like the party's former proposal for a Mansion Tax, etc,)
I can sum up all your problems in two words.
Layla Moran.
Happy/clappy prince(ss) of woke.
But the two constituencies who might think like that - conservative leaning pensioners and WWC men - aren't the ones the LibDems would be aiming at.
Hmmn, Plenty of conservative pensioners in the shires, in the south east. And a fair few self made former WWC men and women too.
Look I think the Liberals will win a few more constituencies anyway. But a subtle change would bring plenty more.
As I say imagine they had fought harder for the Gladstone Hall in Liverpool. Are they ashamed of their greatest prime minister? the tories aren't ashamed of Thatcher or Churchill. Well not yet, anyway.
The liberals have played a massive part in the history of Great Britain, most of it good. If you listen to the modern party , it never happened.
Look how Johnson reaches into history to form his message, particularly Victorian England. Much of that was shaped by you, not him or his party. The tories were bit part players.
I'm thinking you maybe are over-estimating my age? And influence.
I'm not convinced that extolling the virtues of the Victorian Era is the right tack for a 21st century liberal party!
On topic I think its vindication for what @isam and I were pointing out months ago while people were talking about Starmer's supposed lead on leader ratings against Boris (on Net metrics) when the Gross metrics showed Boris was in the lead.
Yes but that is the problem with leader ratings. Depending from which direction you look at them, they forecast either a Labour win or a Tory one.
What might be interesting is an English regional breakdown. Boris stormed parts of the country but bombed elsewhere.
Are there GE forecasts from the big modellers based on the results yet? Only seen one mentioned on here which was a bbc one that was much closer than I would have thought, couldnt find it on a quick look on their site though.
I'd expect these to emerge during the week. Keep an eye on twitter.
I know so many London metro types that are scattering around the country in this post covid world. Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Bath etc... one wonders by 2024 how this might affect the political map.
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
It also completely blows to pieces the "not now" strategy to deflect a second indyref. I find it extremely unlikely that Boris will push the election option until at least 2023.
Although your post makes me think that if a scenario electorally unfavourable to the SNP happened to come along, a snap election that inflicts an SNP reverse could put the referendum question to bed for long enough that the current bunch of Tories won't have to worry about it? Dont see that on the horizon, however.
The worrying thing is that Starmer is looking at personalities, not policy.
Labour needs a leader that stands up to middle class metropolitans and tells them how it is. If they want power, they are going to have to make accommodations, or brexit is just the start.
He should rewatch Blackadder and learn:
'We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.'
'Why is that?'
(Indicates Baldrick) 'Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.'
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.
Why ? Why is there a hatred of the Tories ?
I think a combination of being very anti-Brexit but also a lot of them feel like the Tory Party isn't really representing them anymore, I'd call them Cameronites around here.
It's the sort of place the Lib Dems could do a lot of damage in, if they weren't rubbish.
Many older conservative people also defer, not to Churchill or Cameron, but to our greatest ever peacetime prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
Everything Thatcher ever stood for has been completely junked.
Yes very good point, Thatcher is popular around these parts too. I say "these parts", what I mean is this is where I'm from, I don't live there now.
And to the shock of some of the "woke watchers", that's not a huge issue around here either. I think it's one of not liking Brexit and the move to the left, which many of this lot don't like at all.
I can't think this is a unique occurrence.
When these voters do not like the conservatives for some reason, they simply do not vote. The depth of the tory devastation of 1997 was partly because conservatives did not turn up.
In 18 months time we will have the spectacle of the tories desperately trying to tell bedrock voters why they should stay loyal even though they are getting hit for six on taxes, consumer prices are soaring and they STILL can't go to the Marbella Beach Club on holiday.
It will not be pleasant.
There have been definite seeds sown in the shires to indicate how the Tory Party might next lose a general. The trouble as with most things in politics, is the branding of the alternatives.
You’re not going to get the Uk Green Party, seen as a front for commies and plastic sandal wearers, winning Guildford. Nor Labour for that matter, as I struggle to believe an Even Newer Labour rebrand would work for ages if ever, given the Corbyn years.
And then there’s the Lib Dems. The classic NOTA vote. It’s plausible enough I suppose that they could win Guildford and take away the Tory majority but then what? Some stitched together rainbow coalition of nationalist parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, making the yellows demise permanent this time? And would such a coalition really really get a parliamentary majority to push through PR without a referendum?
Personally I still think there’s space for a newly branded party. One borne out of local activism, quietly proud of Britain while still being to the left of centre on welfare, the environment and social issues. The Lib Dems without the self flagellation on the EU and branding hang ups from the Coalition years I suppose. The trouble is that Johnson has also positioned his tanks on a lot of that turf too. ........
Johnson "has positioned his tanks...." No he has not. Johnson does not even have any tanks - just cardboard cut-outs. And he changes these these whenever he suddenly thinks he needs to. Nothing is permanent with him. We are constantly reminded by our PB Tory friends that the Conservatives will pose as anything you like, in order to win an election. They do not mean it - in fact they do not stand for anything , except enriching themseles and their cronies.
It is becoming apparent that any legal challenge will not come from HMG but from an anti indyref2 grouping within Scotland
Would love to see what grounds they have for a legal challenge in Scotland. Holyrood has the power to pass bills, the UK government has the power to challenge those bills in the Supreme Court or block them entirely.
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
On topic I think its vindication for what @isam and I were pointing out months ago while people were talking about Starmer's supposed lead on leader ratings against Boris (on Net metrics) when the Gross metrics showed Boris was in the lead.
Yes but that is the problem with leader ratings. Depending from which direction you look at them, they forecast either a Labour win or a Tory one.
What might be interesting is an English regional breakdown. Boris stormed parts of the country but bombed elsewhere.
Are there GE forecasts from the big modellers based on the results yet? Only seen one mentioned on here which was a bbc one that was much closer than I would have thought, couldnt find it on a quick look on their site though.
I'd expect these to emerge during the week. Keep an eye on twitter.
I know so many London metro types that are scattering around the country in this post covid world. Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Bath etc... one wonders by 2024 how this might affect the political map.
There's a lot of it going on; I'm an example myself (pre-covid), and the pandemic is certainly accelerating it, as I know from several anecdotes. In the old days it was mainly older conservative pensioners coming to the island, but many of the more recent incomers are late working age or early retired people with more metropolitan backgrounds and views. Maybe a small factor in the surprise Tory reverse here this week?
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.
Why ? Why is there a hatred of the Tories ?
I think a combination of being very anti-Brexit but also a lot of them feel like the Tory Party isn't really representing them anymore, I'd call them Cameronites around here.
It's the sort of place the Lib Dems could do a lot of damage in, if they weren't rubbish.
Many older conservative people also defer, not to Churchill or Cameron, but to our greatest ever peacetime prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
Everything Thatcher ever stood for has been completely junked.
Yes very good point, Thatcher is popular around these parts too. I say "these parts", what I mean is this is where I'm from, I don't live there now.
And to the shock of some of the "woke watchers", that's not a huge issue around here either. I think it's one of not liking Brexit and the move to the left, which many of this lot don't like at all.
I can't think this is a unique occurrence.
When these voters do not like the conservatives for some reason, they simply do not vote. The depth of the tory devastation of 1997 was partly because conservatives did not turn up.
In 18 months time we will have the spectacle of the tories desperately trying to tell bedrock voters why they should stay loyal even though they are getting hit for six on taxes, consumer prices are soaring and they STILL can't go to the Marbella Beach Club on holiday.
It will not be pleasant.
There have been definite seeds sown in the shires to indicate how the Tory Party might next lose a general. The trouble as with most things in politics, is the branding of the alternatives.
You’re not going to get the Uk Green Party, seen as a front for commies and plastic sandal wearers, winning Guildford. Nor Labour for that matter, as I struggle to believe an Even Newer Labour rebrand would work for ages if ever, given the Corbyn years.
And then there’s the Lib Dems. The classic NOTA vote. It’s plausible enough I suppose that they could win Guildford and take away the Tory majority but then what? Some stitched together rainbow coalition of nationalist parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, making the yellows demise permanent this time? And would such a coalition really really get a parliamentary majority to push through PR without a referendum?
Personally I still think there’s space for a newly branded party. One borne out of local activism, quietly proud of Britain while still being to the left of centre on welfare, the environment and social issues. The Lib Dems without the self flagellation on the EU and branding hang ups from the Coalition years I suppose. The trouble is that Johnson has also positioned his tanks on a lot of that turf too. ........
Johnson "has positioned his tanks...." No he has not. Johnson does not even have any tanks - just cardboard cut-outs. And he changes these these whenever he suddenly thinks he needs to. Nothing is permanent with him. We are constantly reminded by our PB Tory friends that the Conservatives will pose as anything you like, in order to win an election. They do not mean it - in fact they do not stand for anything , except enriching themseles and their cronies.
You are blind to the dire electoral prospects of the opposition parties if you cannot recognise Johnson’s skill in appearing as all things to all people, at least in England.
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
I have been away most of today but understand you won your election
Many congratulations and well deserved
I know we have our differences, mainly on Scotland, but if you are as diligent in dealing with your electorate as you are with your analysing of opinion polls, then they will be well served
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
It also completely blows to pieces the "not now" strategy to deflect a second indyref. I find it extremely unlikely that Boris will push the election option until at least 2023.
Although your post makes me think that if a scenario electorally unfavourable to the SNP happened to come along, a snap election that inflicts an SNP reverse could put the referendum question to bed for long enough that the current bunch of Tories won't have to worry about it? Dont see that on the horizon, however.
Possibly, but I don't see how that arises in the next year or any time soon.
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.
A very good analysis.
I am keeping a low profile as my anecdota re: Wales turned out to be wholly inaccurate, although I do still believe Labour's success was due to incumbency during a crisis narrative rather than Drakeford's status as a Rock God.
Until the Rayner sacking I was still on board with Starmer for the reason stated above (and his low profile didn't worry me, as Drakeford has proven one can be totally devoid of charisma and still win an election) but the demotion of Rayner and Nandy demonstrates he has zero political awareness.
If I was Johnson I would pencil in a July 2021 GE. A landslide, whilst riding high in the polls and before the post Covid crows come home to roost. According to the Guardian some Tory MPs are already exciteably talking about that prospect. Time for Boris to break out the hi-viz again?
He's got a majority of 80, got rid of most of his enemies, and has three years to run. People won't thank him for imposing an election on us during the tail end of the pandemic.
Ahem - a majority of 82, Ian. The 'clown' now has a majority of 82
But of course you're right that there shouldn't be an early election without it being absolutely necessary, as Theresa May proved. The summer of 2024 still looks most sensible to me.
Unless he can repeal the FTPA, it has to be May 2024. But if I'm honest, that seems the right time for it anyway.
2019 showed us the FTPA was no bar to an early election but in any case, repealing the FTPA was part of the Conservative's 2019 manifesto and the government has already put forward legislation to this end.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
The worrying thing is that Starmer is looking at personalities, not policy.
Labour needs a leader that stands up to middle class metropolitans and tells them how it is. If they want power, they are going to have to make accommodations, or brexit is just the start.
He should rewatch Blackadder and learn:
'We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.'
'Why is that?'
(Indicates Baldrick) 'Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.'
Giving vent to his frustration by lashing out at a woman suggests his apparent lack of personality is just a disguise for something much worse.
I know so many London metro types that are scattering around the country in this post covid world. Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Bath etc... one wonders by 2024 how this might affect the political map.
It is becoming apparent that any legal challenge will not come from HMG but from an anti indyref2 grouping within Scotland
Would love to see what grounds they have for a legal challenge in Scotland. Holyrood has the power to pass bills, the UK government has the power to challenge those bills in the Supreme Court or block them entirely.
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Even if a referendum was held by SC ruling or a failure to block it under s35 the referendum result would be ignored by the UK government and non binding and make no change to the Union's status.
Tories can follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain if necessary and ignore the result of a non UK government approved independence referendum, as Madrid ignored the result of the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017 and even ignore a declaration of UDI as Madrid ignored the Catalan UDI in 2017 (though Sturgeon has ruled out a UDI).
We do not need to go as far as the PP did and actually arrest Sturgeon and SNP leaders for sedition and force them to flee into exile but otherwise it is clear the SNP cannot do anything to change the status of the Union while the Tories remain in power at Westminster and the fact Unionists won most votes on the constituency vote in Scotland shows Scots have no desire for indyref2 now anyway
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.
Why ? Why is there a hatred of the Tories ?
I think a combination of being very anti-Brexit but also a lot of them feel like the Tory Party isn't really representing them anymore, I'd call them Cameronites around here.
It's the sort of place the Lib Dems could do a lot of damage in, if they weren't rubbish.
Many older conservative people also defer, not to Churchill or Cameron, but to our greatest ever peacetime prime minister Margaret Thatcher.
Everything Thatcher ever stood for has been completely junked.
Yes very good point, Thatcher is popular around these parts too. I say "these parts", what I mean is this is where I'm from, I don't live there now.
And to the shock of some of the "woke watchers", that's not a huge issue around here either. I think it's one of not liking Brexit and the move to the left, which many of this lot don't like at all.
I can't think this is a unique occurrence.
When these voters do not like the conservatives for some reason, they simply do not vote. The depth of the tory devastation of 1997 was partly because conservatives did not turn up.
In 18 months time we will have the spectacle of the tories desperately trying to tell bedrock voters why they should stay loyal even though they are getting hit for six on taxes, consumer prices are soaring and they STILL can't go to the Marbella Beach Club on holiday.
It will not be pleasant.
There have been definite seeds sown in the shires to indicate how the Tory Party might next lose a general. The trouble as with most things in politics, is the branding of the alternatives.
You’re not going to get the Uk Green Party, seen as a front for commies and plastic sandal wearers, winning Guildford. Nor Labour for that matter, as I struggle to believe an Even Newer Labour rebrand would work for ages if ever, given the Corbyn years.
And then there’s the Lib Dems. The classic NOTA vote. It’s plausible enough I suppose that they could win Guildford and take away the Tory majority but then what? Some stitched together rainbow coalition of nationalist parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, making the yellows demise permanent this time? And would such a coalition really really get a parliamentary majority to push through PR without a referendum?
Personally I still think there’s space for a newly branded party. One borne out of local activism, quietly proud of Britain while still being to the left of centre on welfare, the environment and social issues. The Lib Dems without the self flagellation on the EU and branding hang ups from the Coalition years I suppose. The trouble is that Johnson has also positioned his tanks on a lot of that turf too. ........
Johnson "has positioned his tanks...." No he has not. Johnson does not even have any tanks - just cardboard cut-outs. And he changes these these whenever he suddenly thinks he needs to. Nothing is permanent with him. We are constantly reminded by our PB Tory friends that the Conservatives will pose as anything you like, in order to win an election. They do not mean it - in fact they do not stand for anything , except enriching themseles and their cronies.
Very poor assessment. No wonder your party is back where it was in 2016/7.
I know so many London metro types that are scattering around the country in this post covid world. Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Bath etc... one wonders by 2024 how this might affect the political map.
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
I have been away most of today but understand you won your election
Many congratulations and well deserved
I know we have our differences, mainly on Scotland, but if you are as diligent in dealing with your electorate as you are with your analysing of opinion polls, then they will be well served
I think this is a generous position wrt to Starmer. If a manager can’t move his centre forward to the wing or vice versa without a player revolt, he’s done for. I actually see no reason at all now why Labour would not want a new leader in time for conference season.
Starmer's going to have a torrid time at the Labour conference. If he gets that far.
Momentum's website says this; "This year’s Labour Party conference will be defined by the conflict between the party establishment and the socialist majority amongst the membership. "
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
I have been away most of today but understand you won your election
Many congratulations and well deserved
I know we have our differences, mainly on Scotland, but if you are as diligent in dealing with your electorate as you are with your analysing of opinion polls, then they will be well served
All the best'
Hopefully he'll do even better, given that the opinion poll analysis generally comes up with the answer he first thought of! Residents expect more from their councillor than that....
The worrying thing is that Starmer is looking at personalities, not policy.
Labour needs a leader that stands up to middle class metropolitans and tells them how it is. If they want power, they are going to have to make accommodations, or brexit is just the start.
He should rewatch Blackadder and learn:
'We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.'
'Why is that?'
(Indicates Baldrick) 'Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.'
Giving vent to his frustration by lashing out at a woman suggests his apparent lack of personality is just a disguise for something much worse.
It is a serious point though. Labour are never going to beat Johnson on personality. He's Boris. The cheery, avuncular, amusing, rather eccentric love rat who puts on TV documentaries on weird subjects and makes a complete fool of himself on Have I Got News For You and Top Gear. OK, he's a phoney and it's all sham, but it's amazing sham. You can see why people lap it up, not least with his own guarded admissions of it ('I think you should allow for the possibility that under this carefully crafted exterior of a blithering idiot is, in fact, a blithering idiot.')
They need to beat him on policy. And there he's actually very weak. He's confused, incoherent, contradictory. Many of his policies are actually impossible (changes to the school year spring to mind, as does Boris Bridge to Northern Ireland). His government is accident prone and stuffed with time servers. He changes his mind as it suits his purpose (i.e. staying popular and therefore in power).
A forensic Opposition with a serious programme could challenge on this. Sure, maybe not enough to get back to a majority. But it is 51 years since a majority of more than 20 was overturned in a single election, and that was indeed the only time it had happened since 1906. A serious programme, with an understanding of how that could be used in coalition negotiations, could provide a pathway to power.
That's what Starmer could - should - have been doing. He's been incredibly unlucky with the pandemic. But if he wants to sort matters out, he needs solid policy and he needs it right now.
So far, the signs are discouraging. At the moment, Labour are losing out on charisma *and* policy.
I know so many London metro types that are scattering around the country in this post covid world. Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Bath etc... one wonders by 2024 how this might affect the political map.
But will they go native?
What does it do to the London vote?
It means that labour has to push through the new boundaries based on 2020 numbers or risk a post flight redrawing with resulting lower london seat numbers.
Good article, and I think a lot of the best bets come from recognising when the headline VI is just wrong. But we should briefly note the limitations of leader polling too: Check our Sarwar's numbers vs Douglas Ross' in Scotland but they didn't help Labour at all in the final results.
The problem with Sarwar's number was that they came from SNP voters and they liked Sturgeon more. Sarwar needed to be getting the positives from SCon voters to achieve the swing he needed.
He wasn't going to get them by attacking the SCons, was he?
It’s hard not to conclude that Boris now gets the narrative going in to the summer (with the end of Covid and the Queen’s Speech) and that the silly season will be Labour Civil war in advance of conference. A bit of work from the Tories on Batley and Spen, and the right candidate, and that conference will be awful for Starmer.
And here was me agreeing two days ago that Starmer’s “next PM” odds were bound to come in and were a good trading bet. I think I’ll write off that loss....
Re: Scotland I continue to believe that Sturgeon has the moral right to a second referendum. I do not understand other views as anything other than a dated sense of ownership/colonialism.
Good article, and I think a lot of the best bets come from recognising when the headline VI is just wrong. But we should briefly note the limitations of leader polling too: Check our Sarwar's numbers vs Douglas Ross' in Scotland but they didn't help Labour at all in the final results.
The problem with Sarwar's number was that they came from SNP voters and they liked Sturgeon more. Sarwar needed to be getting the positives from SCon voters to achieve the swing he needed.
He wasn't going to get them by attacking the SCons, was he?
Remember that agreeing with them was what did for his predecessors-but-n (can't be bothered to count on my fingers).
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
Post Cummings, however, it’s been clear that a team is starting to form around him that knows how to run things. I can imagine that sticking. It did in London,
I know so many London metro types that are scattering around the country in this post covid world. Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall, Bath etc... one wonders by 2024 how this might affect the political map.
But will they go native?
That's an interesting question, and in terms of analysis it would be difficult to separate from the effects of ageing, and changes in employment/retirement.
You do get a different perspective living away from the capital; the way its size and influence distorts things is much clearer, and it is easy to pick up on the general anti-London sentiment down here that I wasn't aware of when I lived back there. But I'd be surprised if people's underlying world views would shift much simply by moving home, although perhaps the priority they'd rank different issues and beliefs might adjust a little.
It is becoming apparent that any legal challenge will not come from HMG but from an anti indyref2 grouping within Scotland
Would love to see what grounds they have for a legal challenge in Scotland. Holyrood has the power to pass bills, the UK government has the power to challenge those bills in the Supreme Court or block them entirely.
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Even if a referendum was held by SC ruling or a failure to block it under s35 the referendum result would be ignored by the UK government and non binding and make no change to the Union's status.
Tories can follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain if necessary and ignore the result of a non UK government approved independence referendum, as Madrid ignored the result of the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017 and even ignore a declaration of UDI as Madrid ignored the Catalan UDI in 2017 (though Sturgeon has ruled out a UDI).
We do not need to go as far as the PP did and actually arrest Sturgeon and SNP leaders for sedition and force them to flee into exile but otherwise it is clear the SNP cannot do anything to change the status of the Union while the Tories remain in power at Westminster and the fact Unionists won most votes on the constituency vote in Scotland shows Scots have no desire for indyref2 now anyway
In which case the UK government would be ignoring a legal referendum.
Or, to out it another way, you're talking the usual shite
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
Post Cummings, however, it’s been clear that a team is starting to form around him that knows how to run things. I can imagine that sticking. It did in London,
True. Cummings was something of a deadweight.
And there are advantages to PMs who manage cabinets, rather than manage departments. Attlee, Blair and Macmillan were very good at the former, Eden, Brown and Heath tried to do the latter (although Thatcher was a dazzling exception).
The concern I have is that you still have a weak cabinet around him. Would Gavin Williamson still be in place if there were an alternative?
It is becoming apparent that any legal challenge will not come from HMG but from an anti indyref2 grouping within Scotland
Would love to see what grounds they have for a legal challenge in Scotland. Holyrood has the power to pass bills, the UK government has the power to challenge those bills in the Supreme Court or block them entirely.
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Even if a referendum was held by SC ruling or a failure to block it under s35 the referendum result would be ignored by the UK government and non binding and make no change to the Union's status.
Tories can follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain if necessary and ignore the result of a non UK government approved independence referendum, as Madrid ignored the result of the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017 and even ignore a declaration of UDI as Madrid ignored the Catalan UDI in 2017 (though Sturgeon has ruled out a UDI).
We do not need to go as far as the PP did and actually arrest Sturgeon and SNP leaders for sedition and force them to flee into exile but otherwise it is clear the SNP cannot do anything to change the status of the Union while the Tories remain in power at Westminster and the fact Unionists won most votes on the constituency vote in Scotland shows Scots have no desire for indyref2 now anyway
Will you leave the party if BJ and Co go for a 'perfectly winnable' indy ref II?
It is becoming apparent that any legal challenge will not come from HMG but from an anti indyref2 grouping within Scotland
Would love to see what grounds they have for a legal challenge in Scotland. Holyrood has the power to pass bills, the UK government has the power to challenge those bills in the Supreme Court or block them entirely.
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Even if a referendum was held by SC ruling or a failure to block it under s35 the referendum result would be ignored by the UK government and non binding and make no change to the Union's status.
Tories can follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain if necessary and ignore the result of a non UK government approved independence referendum, as Madrid ignored the result of the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017 and even ignore a declaration of UDI as Madrid ignored the Catalan UDI in 2017 (though Sturgeon has ruled out a UDI).
We do not need to go as far as the PP did and actually arrest Sturgeon and SNP leaders for sedition and force them to flee into exile but otherwise it is clear the SNP cannot do anything to change the status of the Union while the Tories remain in power at Westminster and the fact Unionists won most votes on the constituency vote in Scotland shows Scots have no desire for indyref2 now anyway
In which case the UK government would be ignoring a legal referendum.
Or, to out it another way, you're talking the usual shite
I often do not agree with @HYUFD but he is always polite on his arguments
One thing that should be considered going forward for all referendums given what happened in 2016 and 2014 with both sides "stretching truth" that would benefit the electorate immensely would be that as part of the referendum set up a completely non partisan fact checking panel should be set up to examine the claims from both sides. Maybe you would need to source from abroad and both sides would have to agree the panel members.
There were far too many claims made where the sides contradict each other on the "facts" and that the electorate would have a hard time untangling where the actual fact lay. Make it also a legal requirement for all election literature to have the web address of the official fact check site on it
It is becoming apparent that any legal challenge will not come from HMG but from an anti indyref2 grouping within Scotland
Would love to see what grounds they have for a legal challenge in Scotland. Holyrood has the power to pass bills, the UK government has the power to challenge those bills in the Supreme Court or block them entirely.
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Even if a referendum was held by SC ruling or a failure to block it under s35 the referendum result would be ignored by the UK government and non binding and make no change to the Union's status.
Tories can follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain if necessary and ignore the result of a non UK government approved independence referendum, as Madrid ignored the result of the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017 and even ignore a declaration of UDI as Madrid ignored the Catalan UDI in 2017 (though Sturgeon has ruled out a UDI).
We do not need to go as far as the PP did and actually arrest Sturgeon and SNP leaders for sedition and force them to flee into exile but otherwise it is clear the SNP cannot do anything to change the status of the Union while the Tories remain in power at Westminster and the fact Unionists won most votes on the constituency vote in Scotland shows Scots have no desire for indyref2 now anyway
In which case the UK government would be ignoring a legal referendum.
Or, to out it another way, you're talking the usual shite
I would point out that technically, any referendum is purely advisory so 'ignoring a legal referendum' wouldn't actually be wrong in law.
My more serious concern is that the SNP seem to be arrogating powers to themselves and to Holyrood as though Scotland were already an independent country, and nobody seems willing to point out to them that this is an abuse of power.
This is particularly pertinent given how corrupt the SNP have demonstrated themselves to be over the last few months.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
Post Cummings, however, it’s been clear that a team is starting to form around him that knows how to run things. I can imagine that sticking. It did in London,
True. Cummings was something of a deadweight.
And there are advantages to PMs who manage cabinets, rather than manage departments. Attlee, Blair and Macmillan were very good at the former, Eden, Brown and Heath tried to do the latter (although Thatcher was a dazzling exception).
The concern I have is that you still have a weak cabinet around him. Would Gavin Williamson still be in place if there were an alternative?
My only explanation for Williamson is that he has compromising photos of every other Tory MP, plus some key opposition members.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
Post Cummings, however, it’s been clear that a team is starting to form around him that knows how to run things. I can imagine that sticking. It did in London,
Has it? Lister's just gone, and he was known to be very competent. Stratton isn't going to be used at the heart of number ten comms and has been pushed out to deal with the environment conference. Carrie appears to have significant influence, but she's a mixed blessing. Harding is hopeless. The vaccine woman is arms length and employed for her particular expertise with that one job. The new guy inside number ten whose name escapes me is being criticised as out of his depth.
Recent reports from inside number ten still paint a picture of a chaotic atmosphere that ultimately traces back to the PM's procrastination, desperation to please everybody, and indecisiveness.
Are you sure it's not just the upside of getting a known disrupter (and his mates) outside the tent?
It is becoming apparent that any legal challenge will not come from HMG but from an anti indyref2 grouping within Scotland
Would love to see what grounds they have for a legal challenge in Scotland. Holyrood has the power to pass bills, the UK government has the power to challenge those bills in the Supreme Court or block them entirely.
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Even if a referendum was held by SC ruling or a failure to block it under s35 the referendum result would be ignored by the UK government and non binding and make no change to the Union's status.
Tories can follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain if necessary and ignore the result of a non UK government approved independence referendum, as Madrid ignored the result of the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017 and even ignore a declaration of UDI as Madrid ignored the Catalan UDI in 2017 (though Sturgeon has ruled out a UDI).
We do not need to go as far as the PP did and actually arrest Sturgeon and SNP leaders for sedition and force them to flee into exile but otherwise it is clear the SNP cannot do anything to change the status of the Union while the Tories remain in power at Westminster and the fact Unionists won most votes on the constituency vote in Scotland shows Scots have no desire for indyref2 now anyway
In which case the UK government would be ignoring a legal referendum.
Or, to out it another way, you're talking the usual shite
Without Westminster and UK government consent by definition any Scottish referendum would not be legally binding under our constitution where Westminster is Supreme across the UK
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
His Perfect Campaigner is made up of two Ps. His optimistic shambling Personality and his sharp Positioning "Get Brexit Done".
Pisspoor executive is Performance. He's been lucky so far. I can't see it lasting until 2024.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
I get a sense that what we’re seeing played out now from the UK govt is that battle between allowing one or not. Quite clear Gove was trying to straddle that line this morning.
The worrying thing is that Starmer is looking at personalities, not policy.
Labour needs a leader that stands up to middle class metropolitans and tells them how it is. If they want power, they are going to have to make accommodations, or brexit is just the start.
He should rewatch Blackadder and learn:
'We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.'
'Why is that?'
(Indicates Baldrick) 'Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.'
Giving vent to his frustration by lashing out at a woman suggests his apparent lack of personality is just a disguise for something much worse.
Absolutely.
I like Angela Rayner very much, she reminds me of one of my old girlfriends ...
Even if Angela had to be moved, why on Earth move her now when the party's nerves are frayed after a shitty set of results?
A good leader would calm the party, while admitting the results are disappointing. Rule One of Crisis Management is "Don't make the crisis worse".
Just after the election, all you need to say is "We are all disappointed. We will need to have a good look at why we have underperformed over the next few weeks".
You don't scapegoat someone.
It has made Starmer look vindictive & thin-skinned & lacking in confidence.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
I'd be surprised if NS serves out the term - I'm assuming Angus Robertson next, then Kate Forbes if they have any sense.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Presumably Salmond is about to come gunning for her too, especially where there’s any whiff of hesitation on independence.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
He runs a Practical executive.
He got Brexit done against the running of the 2017-19 Parliament. He got a trade deal done, making compromises were needed to keep trade flowing and leaving few people on his side upset. He got vaccines procured before any other major country on the planet.
He's got this done better than May or others. He didn't let such stuff as the Irish Sea stand in the way. That's Practical.
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 saNo,y that they wish Scotland would "fuck off".
I think. The platonic ideal of a Tory voter simultaneously wants scotland to fuck off and whilst also determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in.
I think that’s complete bollocks.
Is the far from Platonic ideal of a Tory voter wanting Scotland to fuck off and a Tory party determined that they won't let them go as that would be giving in less bollocksy?
Well that was my original point. Certainly the last point is true, not sure about the first. I don’t care whether Scotland stay or go, but I’m more than happy for them to vote on the issue as much as they like.
And ad HYUFD points out only 54% of Tory voters actually believe in the Union - very odd for something called "Conservative and Unionist Party". It's like only half of DUP voters want to be British as opposed to couldn't care, or wanting Irish reunification.
No, 54% of Tory voters want to keep Scotland in the UK, only 12% want it to leave.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
No, the 44% majority amongst Tory voters for Scotland to stay in the Union is clear.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
I have been away most of today but understand you won your election
Many congratulations and well deserved
I know we have our differences, mainly on Scotland, but if you are as diligent in dealing with your electorate as you are with your analysing of opinion polls, then they will be well served
All the best'
Hopefully he'll do even better, given that the opinion poll analysis generally comes up with the answer he first thought of! Residents expect more from their councillor than that....
Indeed, and I would like to repeat my congratulations on your own success and your story of your public service
I know we do not share the same political views, but I do admire those who give service to the community.
A friend of ours was one such person (and a lib dem) and we voted for her in every local council election
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
Post Cummings, however, it’s been clear that a team is starting to form around him that knows how to run things. I can imagine that sticking. It did in London,
Has it? Lister's just gone, and he was known to be very competent. Stratton isn't going to be used at the heart of number ten comms and has been pushed out to deal with the environment conference. Carrie appears to have significant influence, but she's a mixed blessing. Harding is hopeless. The vaccine woman is arms length and employed for her particular expertise with that one job. The new guy inside number ten whose name escapes me is being criticised as out of his depth.
Recent reports from inside number ten still paint a picture of a chaotic atmosphere that ultimately traces back to the PM's procrastination, desperation to please everybody, and indecisiveness.
Are you sure it's not just the upside of getting a known disrupter (and his mates) outside the tent?
Fair point. Time will tell, I suppose. I do think he’s stuffed if Gove ever leaves the tent.
Interestingly I see the current rumour is an Indy ref 2 in spring 2022.
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Another thought that occurs to me is that Sturgeon is close to the end of her career now. She's not a spent force, but she's weakened, and increasingly looks jaded and unreliable.
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Campbell?
Aileen Campbell.
One of the more interesting of your mid-level ministers, I would say.
EDit - I see your point. I didn't know she'd retired. That's a loss to you.
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail. Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel. So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I would still argue that the issue with Johnson are the fifth and sixth Ps:
He's a Perfect Campaigner; He's a Pisspoor executive.
And those two go together. One of the reasons that he's such a convincing brio-filled campaigner is that he makes promises with zero consideration of how he will fulfil them. Ignoring reality stops him doubting, so he sounds confident.
For a while, that's fine- people like can-do optimism, and that's fair enough. But eventually you have to deliver, or he becomes Little Boris Bullshit.
That would be fine, if he had a London-like team round him to do the delivery while he provides the noise. Unfortunately, 1: In the main, he doesn't, and 2: Not even a genius can deliver a square circle. Some of Boris's promises are just not deliverable.
We may be a long way off the end, no question. So enjoy the ride, because the end might well not be pretty.
Can someone check my maths? I show a majority for Yes in votes cast yesterday
Unionist parties got more votes combined on the constituency vote, Nationalist parties got more votes combined on the list vote but both Unionists and Nationalists got 49% average combining the 2.
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
Can someone please explain why Ben Houchen should not be the rightful King of the North, and not Andy Burnham?
Not only is he actually further north but his performance far outshines Burnham. He won 6pc more of the vote, and did it in a region which - unlike Greater Manchester - was not historically fertile ground. The fact it is now is in no small part to Houchen.
He also gets things done. Regardless of what you think of Freeports and nationalising the airports, he kickstarted a lot of the progress. Burnham just rode on the coat tails of what Manchester City Council had been doing for years before he came along.
Comments
I take your point but why would you not look at the broad picture of all the elections recorded yesterday. Even in the examples you quote not all of the losses were to Labour or the LDs.
Layla Moran.
Happy/clappy prince(ss) of woke.
You’re not going to get the Uk Green Party, seen as a front for commies and plastic sandal wearers, winning Guildford. Nor Labour for that matter, as I struggle to believe an Even Newer Labour rebrand would work for ages if ever, given the Corbyn years.
And then there’s the Lib Dems. The classic NOTA vote. It’s plausible enough I suppose that they could win Guildford and take away the Tory majority but then what? Some stitched together rainbow coalition of nationalist parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, making the yellows demise permanent this time? And would such a coalition really really get a parliamentary majority to push through PR without a referendum?
Personally I still think there’s space for a newly branded party. One borne out of local activism, quietly proud of Britain while still being to the left of centre on welfare, the environment and social issues. The Lib Dems without the self flagellation on the EU and branding hang ups from the Coalition years I suppose. The trouble is that Johnson has also positioned his tanks on a lot of that turf too.
What a puzzle this all is for the Oppo parties.
62% of Tory voters also back the UK government banning indyref2, only 32% of Tory voters thought it should be allowed even if the SNP had won a majority
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-04/scotland-future-of-the-union-tables-april-2021.pdf (p2)
Turned out to be quite the money spinner for Corbyn...
What a compete clusterfuck
FFS, Rayner is useless. Bye
Or, if its not clear enough, they could copy the "Liberal candidates in Glasgow yesterday wearing yellow star of david badges and doing nazi salutes.
What might be interesting is an English regional breakdown. Boris stormed parts of the country but bombed elsewhere.
But of course you're right that there shouldn't be an early election without it being absolutely necessary, as Theresa May proved. The summer of 2024 still looks most sensible to me.
Look I think the Liberals will win a few more constituencies anyway. But a subtle change would bring plenty more.
As I say imagine they had fought harder for the Gladstone Hall in Liverpool. Are they ashamed of their greatest prime minister? the tories aren't ashamed of Thatcher or Churchill. Well not yet, anyway.
The liberals have played a massive part in the history of Great Britain, most of it good. If you listen to the modern party , it never happened.
Look how Johnson reaches into history to form his message, particularly Victorian England. Much of that was shaped by you, not him or his party. The tories were bit part players.
However the most relevant finding is that 62% of Tory voters back banning indyref2, as if indyref2 is banned by the UK government Scottish Nationalists do not get the chance to push for independence anyway and the 2014 once in a generation referendum result stands
I agree, it's very revealing...
Labour needs a leader that stands up to middle class metropolitans and tells them how it is. If they want power, they are going to have to make accommodations, or brexit is just the start.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-optical-illusion-of-net-ratings.html
I'm not convinced that extolling the virtues of the Victorian Era is the right tack for a 21st century liberal party!
'We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.'
'Why is that?'
(Indicates Baldrick) 'Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.'
"It isn't legal under the Scotland Act" is not an argument. Schedule 5 states that constitutional matters are reserved for Westminster, but the process of enforcing that is via a finding in the Supreme Court or by a Section 35 order to block the bill gaining Royal Assent.
Westminster does not need to pass anything to accede to a new referendum, merely fail to block it under S35.
Personality (of leader)
Positioning
Policies
Performance
Johnson is currently leading on all four "P"s. I thought Starmer would lead on Performance (or Johnson fail) but the vaccination rollout has changed that.
For Labour, it is difficult to demonstrate Performance if you are not in power. You have to wait for the other side to fail.
Labour also has difficulty Positioning because it is such a mongrel.
So that leaves Personality and some distinctive Policies. Starmer can't deliver those. Rayner or Nandy could.
I did post this yesterday but it is worth repeating
'Good evening @HYUFD
I have been away most of today but understand you won your election
Many congratulations and well deserved
I know we have our differences, mainly on Scotland, but if you are as diligent in dealing with your electorate as you are with your analysing of opinion polls, then they will be well served
All the best'
He's a Perfect Campaigner;
He's a Pisspoor executive.
I again apologise to all Hampshire fans for saying that their batting strength made them favourites for the Championship...
Tories can follow the example of our conservative cousins the PP in Spain if necessary and ignore the result of a non UK government approved independence referendum, as Madrid ignored the result of the independence referendum the Catalan nationalist government held in 2017 and even ignore a declaration of UDI as Madrid ignored the Catalan UDI in 2017 (though Sturgeon has ruled out a UDI).
We do not need to go as far as the PP did and actually arrest Sturgeon and SNP leaders for sedition and force them to flee into exile but otherwise it is clear the SNP cannot do anything to change the status of the Union while the Tories remain in power at Westminster and the fact Unionists won most votes on the constituency vote in Scotland shows Scots have no desire for indyref2 now anyway
Momentum's website says this;
"This year’s Labour Party conference will be defined by the conflict between the party establishment and the socialist majority amongst the membership. "
They need to beat him on policy. And there he's actually very weak. He's confused, incoherent, contradictory. Many of his policies are actually impossible (changes to the school year spring to mind, as does Boris Bridge to Northern Ireland). His government is accident prone and stuffed with time servers. He changes his mind as it suits his purpose (i.e. staying popular and therefore in power).
A forensic Opposition with a serious programme could challenge on this. Sure, maybe not enough to get back to a majority. But it is 51 years since a majority of more than 20 was overturned in a single election, and that was indeed the only time it had happened since 1906. A serious programme, with an understanding of how that could be used in coalition negotiations, could provide a pathway to power.
That's what Starmer could - should - have been doing. He's been incredibly unlucky with the pandemic. But if he wants to sort matters out, he needs solid policy and he needs it right now.
So far, the signs are discouraging. At the moment, Labour are losing out on charisma *and* policy.
Which, bluntly, is quite extraodinary.
And here was me agreeing two days ago that Starmer’s “next PM” odds were bound to come in and were a good trading bet. I think I’ll write off that loss....
Re: Scotland I continue to believe that Sturgeon has the moral right to a second referendum. I do not understand other views as anything other than a dated sense of ownership/colonialism.
You do get a different perspective living away from the capital; the way its size and influence distorts things is much clearer, and it is easy to pick up on the general anti-London sentiment down here that I wasn't aware of when I lived back there. But I'd be surprised if people's underlying world views would shift much simply by moving home, although perhaps the priority they'd rank different issues and beliefs might adjust a little.
Or, to out it another way, you're talking the usual shite
And there are advantages to PMs who manage cabinets, rather than manage departments. Attlee, Blair and Macmillan were very good at the former, Eden, Brown and Heath tried to do the latter (although Thatcher was a dazzling exception).
The concern I have is that you still have a weak cabinet around him. Would Gavin Williamson still be in place if there were an alternative?
If I were the govt, I’d let it happen. Sturgeons answers on Marr today show why it is winnable..
Maybe you need to learn from him
There were far too many claims made where the sides contradict each other on the "facts" and that the electorate would have a hard time untangling where the actual fact lay. Make it also a legal requirement for all election literature to have the web address of the official fact check site on it
My more serious concern is that the SNP seem to be arrogating powers to themselves and to Holyrood as though Scotland were already an independent country, and nobody seems willing to point out to them that this is an abuse of power.
This is particularly pertinent given how corrupt the SNP have demonstrated themselves to be over the last few months.
However Opinium last week had only 28% of Scots wanting indyref2 within 2 years and only 14% in 2-5 years, almost all the SNP core vote anyway
https://news.sky.com/story/elections-2021-scottish-voters-less-enthusiastic-about-independence-referendum-in-next-5-years-sky-news-poll-12296485
But surely he’s off at the reshuffle?
Recent reports from inside number ten still paint a picture of a chaotic atmosphere that ultimately traces back to the PM's procrastination, desperation to please everybody, and indecisiveness.
Are you sure it's not just the upside of getting a known disrupter (and his mates) outside the tent?
If a referendum is held on her watch, Sindy is much less likely than if a younger, charismatic, untainted candidate - e.g. Forbes or Campbell (not Yusuf or Swinney, obviously) - comes in and takes on the leadership.
Pisspoor executive is Performance. He's been lucky so far. I can't see it lasting until 2024.
I like Angela Rayner very much, she reminds me of one of my old girlfriends ...
Even if Angela had to be moved, why on Earth move her now when the party's nerves are frayed after a shitty set of results?
A good leader would calm the party, while admitting the results are disappointing. Rule One of Crisis Management is "Don't make the crisis worse".
Just after the election, all you need to say is "We are all disappointed. We will need to have a good look at why we have underperformed over the next few weeks".
You don't scapegoat someone.
It has made Starmer look vindictive & thin-skinned & lacking in confidence.
He got Brexit done against the running of the 2017-19 Parliament.
He got a trade deal done, making compromises were needed to keep trade flowing and leaving few people on his side upset.
He got vaccines procured before any other major country on the planet.
He's got this done better than May or others. He didn't let such stuff as the Irish Sea stand in the way. That's Practical.
I know we do not share the same political views, but I do admire those who give service to the community.
A friend of ours was one such person (and a lib dem) and we voted for her in every local council election
One of the more interesting of your mid-level ministers, I would say.
EDit - I see your point. I didn't know she'd retired. That's a loss to you.
For a while, that's fine- people like can-do optimism, and that's fair enough. But eventually you have to deliver, or he becomes Little Boris Bullshit.
That would be fine, if he had a London-like team round him to do the delivery while he provides the noise. Unfortunately,
1: In the main, he doesn't, and
2: Not even a genius can deliver a square circle. Some of Boris's promises are just not deliverable.
We may be a long way off the end, no question. So enjoy the ride, because the end might well not be pretty.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1391310392824057857?s=20
YES:
SNP: 1,291,204 + 1,094,374 = 2,385,578
Green: 34,990 + 220,324 = 255,314
TOTAL YES: 2,640,892
NO:
Tories: 592,518 + 637,131 = 1,229,649
Labour: 584,392 + 488,819 = 1,073,211
LibDem: 187,746 + 137,152 = 324,898
TOTAL NO: 2,627,758
YES majority of 13,134
So once again, you are talking shite. You have endlessly posted that No parties outpolled Yes parties. This is simply and factually wrong. And you are STILL doing it!
Some democrat you are. "We've voted for this". "No you haven't" "Well we have, we've got a majority of 8", "no some of those MSPs don't count." "That's not how it works". "And anyway a majority of people voted for No parties". "No they didn't, here's the numbers". " Only constituency votes count". "That's not how it works". "If you look at the opinion polls you can see people don't support what you claim they voted for". "And the DID vote for it. On Thursday". "No they didn't".
You lost mate. So did I but I have the good grace to not dispute basics like maths.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/oct/29/pressandpublishing.conservativeparty
Not only is he actually further north but his performance far outshines Burnham. He won 6pc more of the vote, and did it in a region which - unlike Greater Manchester - was not historically fertile ground. The fact it is now is in no small part to Houchen.
He also gets things done. Regardless of what you think of Freeports and nationalising the airports, he kickstarted a lot of the progress. Burnham just rode on the coat tails of what Manchester City Council had been doing for years before he came along.
No contest really