Starmer’s challenge: LAB starts in an almost impossible position – politicalbetting.com

System

Starmer’s challenge: LAB starts in an almost impossible position – politicalbetting.com

Let us go back to the December 2019 general election which saw Corbyn’s Labour suffer its worst general election result since 1935. Their leader then was electoral poison and the Tories were able to use the threat of a Corbyn victory as a great turnout driver for CON supporters and a dampener on those thinking of tactically voting Labour. I am a Lib Dem voting in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country and it was not till late afternoon on polling day that I decided what to do.

Read the full story here

rottenborough

Here's hoping.

pigeon

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

Rob_downunder

Seats wise isn't Starmer roughly at the same starting point as Cameron was prior to the 2010 election?

Gallowgate

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

eek

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

+1 - Hartlepool showed that the 2019 result wasn't a true reflection of Labours actual position because Farage's party probably cost the Tories 15-20 additional seats...

Come the next election I suspect the Tories will lose 20-30 seats in total as they will pick up 10-15 that are a surprise..

Gallowgate

@RochdalePioneers a more Blairite Labour party may win back Hartlepool but it risks losing its current stronghold in the cities. That’s the problem. You could see Lab and Green both on 30% and losing currently safe Labour seats. It isn’t a risk free position.

NerysHughes

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Philip_Thompson

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

MikeSmithson

eek said:

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

+1 - Hartlepool showed that the 2019 result wasn't a true reflection of Labours actual position because Farage's party probably cost the Tories 15-20 additional seats...

Come the next election I suspect the Tories will lose 20-30 seats in total as they will pick up 10-15 that are a surprise..

I notice you don't mention Chesham & Amersham where the Tories got totally smashed and I got ridiculed here for forecasting an LD victory.

SouthamObserver

Gallowgate said:

@RochdalePioneers a more Blairite Labour party may win back Hartlepool but it risks losing its current stronghold in the cities. That’s the problem. You could see Lab and Green both on 30% and losing currently safe Labour seats. It isn’t a risk free position.

My guess is that Starmer would happily take a 10,000 majority in Holborn and St Pancras if it meant gaining a few seats elsewhere.

Philip_Thompson

MikeSmithson said:

eek said:

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

+1 - Hartlepool showed that the 2019 result wasn't a true reflection of Labours actual position because Farage's party probably cost the Tories 15-20 additional seats...

Come the next election I suspect the Tories will lose 20-30 seats in total as they will pick up 10-15 that are a surprise..

I notice you don't mention Chesham & Amersham where the Tories got totally smashed and I got ridiculed here for forecasting an LD victory.

Because governing party loses midterm by-election in protest vote isn't news.

Governing party wins by-election from opposition is.

Gallowgate

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about far left labour members, I’m talking about soft left Labour voters who are sympathetic.

SouthamObserver

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

It goes without saying, surely, that if the economy is performing reasonably well in 2023/24 the Tories will win comfortably again. However, if we are still at the stage where Johnson is once again "battling to save Christmas", there is a chance that they lose their overall majority.

Philip_Thompson

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

Gallowgate

SouthamObserver said:

Gallowgate said:

@RochdalePioneers a more Blairite Labour party may win back Hartlepool but it risks losing its current stronghold in the cities. That’s the problem. You could see Lab and Green both on 30% and losing currently safe Labour seats. It isn’t a risk free position.

My guess is that Starmer would happily take a 10,000 majority in Holborn and St Pancras if it meant gaining a few seats elsewhere.

And what if they lose Holborn and St Pancras but win Hartlepool?

Labour has a difficult balancing act between the desires of its metropolitan voter base and the desires of its former strongholds. Almost impossible to bridge.

SouthamObserver

Politics has not been "normal" in this country since 2016.

Jonathan

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

eek said:

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

+1 - Hartlepool showed that the 2019 result wasn't a true reflection of Labours actual position because Farage's party probably cost the Tories 15-20 additional seats...

Come the next election I suspect the Tories will lose 20-30 seats in total as they will pick up 10-15 that are a surprise..

I notice you don't mention Chesham & Amersham where the Tories got totally smashed and I got ridiculed here for forecasting an LD victory.

Because governing party loses midterm by-election in protest vote isn't news.

Governing party wins by-election from opposition is.

LD wins election is bigger news still

rottenborough

Lammy give a good interview on R4. Laying into Johnson's administration

Philip_Thompson

SouthamObserver said:

Politics has not been "normal" in this country since 2016.

Sure it has.

Continuity Remainers refusing to accept what people voted for in 2016 doesn't make politics not normal.

The party of the centre that offered what people voted for won a landslide majority. How is that not normal?

RochdalePioneers

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

How can I put this gently - if young people want to vote Green, they'll vote Green. If they want rid of the Tories, you need to get them to vote Labour. Demanding a £45 an hour minimum wage and punishment beating for people who support Israel by liking Bagels may be popular for nutters but people won't vote for it. And more people will be repelled by it.

Philip_Thompson

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

eek said:

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

+1 - Hartlepool showed that the 2019 result wasn't a true reflection of Labours actual position because Farage's party probably cost the Tories 15-20 additional seats...

Come the next election I suspect the Tories will lose 20-30 seats in total as they will pick up 10-15 that are a surprise..

I notice you don't mention Chesham & Amersham where the Tories got totally smashed and I got ridiculed here for forecasting an LD victory.

Because governing party loses midterm by-election in protest vote isn't news.

Governing party wins by-election from opposition is.

LD wins election is bigger news still

LD wins protest by election in mid terms is news? Why?

Its a 'dog bites man' story. Hartlepool is a 'man bites dog' story.

Gallowgate

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

I’m sorry but you’re out of touch with this. You’re considering this purely from a ‘red wall’ perspective. Kicking out what YOU class as the ‘hard left’ will be seen as an attack on core Labour values by many on the ‘soft left’, especially its younger metropolitan supporter base.

My point, which you’re gleefully missing to support your agenda, is that these voters have an easy and socially acceptable alternative - the greens. That is a danger to Labour.

You treat everything as black and white and this simply isn’t that.

MikeSmithson

Graduate voting intentions from latest
IpsosMORI political monitor
CON 30%
LAB 41%
LD 12%
GRN 6%

MarqueeMark

MikeSmithson said:

eek said:

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

+1 - Hartlepool showed that the 2019 result wasn't a true reflection of Labours actual position because Farage's party probably cost the Tories 15-20 additional seats...

Come the next election I suspect the Tories will lose 20-30 seats in total as they will pick up 10-15 that are a surprise..

I notice you don't mention Chesham & Amersham where the Tories got totally smashed and I got ridiculed here for forecasting an LD victory.

The Tories had already won Hartlepool. Voters could risk giving the Tories a kicking over HS2 - yet still seeing the party no worse off than after the 2019 GE. C&A was a free kick at Bishop Brennan's arse.

It tells us damn all about Nimby LibDem prospects at the General Election to come - which under Sir Ed Davey will mean they have even out-dulled Labour on the leadership front....

SouthamObserver

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Politics has not been "normal" in this country since 2016.

Sure it has.

Continuity Remainers refusing to accept what people voted for in 2016 doesn't make politics not normal.

The party of the centre that offered what people voted for won a landslide majority. How is that not normal?

OK!

rottenborough

MikeSmithson said:

Graduate voting intentions from latest
IpsosMORI political monitor
CON 30%
LAB 41%
LD 12%
GRN 6%

Conservatives don't think that their figure is low enough so they are determined to force it down by raising more from the student loan scheme.

Gallowgate

RochdalePioneers said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

How can I put this gently - if young people want to vote Green, they'll vote Green. If they want rid of the Tories, you need to get them to vote Labour. Demanding a £45 an hour minimum wage and punishment beating for people who support Israel by liking Bagels may be popular for nutters but people won't vote for it. And more people will be repelled by it.

The danger for Labour is enough people vote for it to scupper them under FPTP.

It’s just like the Tories had to absorb UKIP to win a decent majority.

Philip_Thompson

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

I’m sorry but you’re out of touch with this. You’re considering this purely from a ‘red wall’ perspective. Kicking out what YOU class as the ‘hard left’ will be seen as an attack on core Labour values by many on the ‘soft left’, especially its younger metropolitan supporter base.

My point, which you’re gleefully missing to support your agenda, is that these voters have an easy and socially acceptable alternative - the greens. That is a danger to Labour.

You treat everything as black and white and this simply isn’t that.

If they go to the alternative, they go to the alternative. But if they want to win an election, they won't.

The far left is a minority of about 20 MPs. The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs are not far left and they're not for a reason.

If "far left values" are "Labour values" then why are there so few far left MPs? Its because they're not, any more than far right values being Tory values - they're not, they're absolutely repellent.

SouthamObserver

Gallowgate said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gallowgate said:

@RochdalePioneers a more Blairite Labour party may win back Hartlepool but it risks losing its current stronghold in the cities. That’s the problem. You could see Lab and Green both on 30% and losing currently safe Labour seats. It isn’t a risk free position.

My guess is that Starmer would happily take a 10,000 majority in Holborn and St Pancras if it meant gaining a few seats elsewhere.

And what if they lose Holborn and St Pancras but win Hartlepool?

Labour has a difficult balancing act between the desires of its metropolitan voter base and the desires of its former strongholds. Almost impossible to bridge.

If Labour loses Holborn and St Pancras they will not win Hartlepool.

TheScreamingEagles

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

OldKingCole

Good morning everyone; a bit brighter here this, I'm glad to see. Although it's our last full day up the the NE and we start moving S tomorrow.

On topic, do Oppositions win elections, or do Governments lose them? Our current PM still seems to have a 'Good old Boris; what a card, eh" vote but from what I can see that's a line which is beginning the look tired, and if, as is being suggested even in the Tory press, Christmas is 'difficult', then the fans won't turn out to vote.
Of course, it be that that same press is going to say that Christmas has been 'saved'; if that matches experience, all well and good, but if it doesn't........

rottenborough

Lammy now having a go at BBC. Losing it a bit now. Getting well shirty.

SouthamObserver

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

The depends on how you define far-left and far-right.

This man is still a Tory MP, for example.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51406407

Philip_Thompson

Gallowgate said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

How can I put this gently - if young people want to vote Green, they'll vote Green. If they want rid of the Tories, you need to get them to vote Labour. Demanding a £45 an hour minimum wage and punishment beating for people who support Israel by liking Bagels may be popular for nutters but people won't vote for it. And more people will be repelled by it.

The danger for Labour is enough people vote for it to scupper them under FPTP.

It’s just like the Tories had to absorb UKIP to win a decent majority.

The Tories absorbed the UKIP vote once Brexit became a centrist position voted for by over half of the country, not an extremist position. There are still absolutely zero far right MPs in the Tories.

When was the last time Labour with a far left face to it won a majority under FPTP?

Gallowgate

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

I’m sorry but you’re out of touch with this. You’re considering this purely from a ‘red wall’ perspective. Kicking out what YOU class as the ‘hard left’ will be seen as an attack on core Labour values by many on the ‘soft left’, especially its younger metropolitan supporter base.

My point, which you’re gleefully missing to support your agenda, is that these voters have an easy and socially acceptable alternative - the greens. That is a danger to Labour.

You treat everything as black and white and this simply isn’t that.

If they go to the alternative, they go to the alternative. But if they want to win an election, they won't.

The far left is a minority of about 20 MPs. The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs are not far left and they're not for a reason.

If "far left values" are "Labour values" then why are there so few far left MPs? Its because they're not, any more than far right values being Tory values - they're not, they're absolutely repellent.

Again, you’re failing to see outside your box.

These voters clearly don’t care about winning an election - they just want to vote for a party that reflects their values. That is obvious.

The danger for those in Labour who do want to win an election is that there is enough voters who don’t care to make winning under FPTP almost impossible at present.

squareroot2

MikeSmithson said:

eek said:

pigeon said:

There's still (probably) a long time to the election. To turn OGH's arguments on their head, in a typical Parliamentary term - and especially with the myriad of serious problems the Government has had to contend with - the Opposition would be well ahead in the polls and not still behind; the numbers of Con seats available to the LDs that might reasonably be described as marginal are very low; and yes, the Tories still have six seats left to lose in Scotland, but that's just six nonetheless (and less than their nominal gains from boundary change elsewhere in the country.)

If we go into a vote in 2024 with near-full employment and wages having outstripped inflation for a couple of years - both of which are not unrealistic prospects for the medium term - then I think it's quite realistic to imagine the Government returning with an increased majority. Labour is weak, and there are still quite a lot of bricks left to knock over in the ruins of the Red Wall.

+1 - Hartlepool showed that the 2019 result wasn't a true reflection of Labours actual position because Farage's party probably cost the Tories 15-20 additional seats...

Come the next election I suspect the Tories will lose 20-30 seats in total as they will pick up 10-15 that are a surprise..

I notice you don't mention Chesham & Amersham where the Tories got totally smashed and I got ridiculed here for forecasting an LD victory.

Labour can't pay its bills, a terrible Conference, scum talk from the ghastly Rayner ghastly people in and outside the team, an uninspiring leader.... its all goo6ng so terribly well isnt it.....

Where are Labour going to get 48 wins from...

NerysHughes

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

Gallowgate

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

How can I put this gently - if young people want to vote Green, they'll vote Green. If they want rid of the Tories, you need to get them to vote Labour. Demanding a £45 an hour minimum wage and punishment beating for people who support Israel by liking Bagels may be popular for nutters but people won't vote for it. And more people will be repelled by it.

The danger for Labour is enough people vote for it to scupper them under FPTP.

It’s just like the Tories had to absorb UKIP to win a decent majority.

The Tories absorbed the UKIP vote once Brexit became a centrist position voted for by over half of the country, not an extremist position. There are still absolutely zero far right MPs in the Tories.

When was the last time Labour with a far left face to it won a majority under FPTP?

You’re arguing something completely different to me.

rottenborough

Philip Johnston in Telegraph, bemoaning the just in time economy and lack of planning includes the line:

"Our curse is that we also have just-in-time politicians"

Brilliant!

CarlottaVance

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Gallowgate

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

Nobody thinks Labour are doing well mate. This isn’t a grievance you need to sell.

NerysHughes

Mid Term Miliband

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/guardian-icm-poll-labour-lead-tories-miliband-cameron

CarlottaVance

On topic, I wonder which Labour SPAD thought having the ruins of Brighton's West Pier in the background was a good look for Starmer's Kuenssberg interview?

TheScreamingEagles

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

TheScreamingEagles

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

No.

But you've missed Mike's central point.

JosiasJessop

NerysHughes said:

Mid Term Miliband

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/guardian-icm-poll-labour-lead-tories-miliband-cameron

Looking back, I do think Ed Miliband and Labour got very complacent in that period. They had a view that they were right; that the Conservatives were wrong, and the public would see that.

Edit: as an aside, I heard on a podcast the other day that Ed Stone was in charge of NASA's Voyager program. A successful Ed Stone!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Stone

SouthamObserver

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

I’m sorry but you’re out of touch with this. You’re considering this purely from a ‘red wall’ perspective. Kicking out what YOU class as the ‘hard left’ will be seen as an attack on core Labour values by many on the ‘soft left’, especially its younger metropolitan supporter base.

My point, which you’re gleefully missing to support your agenda, is that these voters have an easy and socially acceptable alternative - the greens. That is a danger to Labour.

You treat everything as black and white and this simply isn’t that.

If they go to the alternative, they go to the alternative. But if they want to win an election, they won't.

The far left is a minority of about 20 MPs. The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs are not far left and they're not for a reason.

If "far left values" are "Labour values" then why are there so few far left MPs? Its because they're not, any more than far right values being Tory values - they're not, they're absolutely repellent.

Again, you’re failing to see outside your box.

These voters clearly don’t care about winning an election - they just want to vote for a party that reflects their values. That is obvious.

The danger for those in Labour who do want to win an election is that there is enough voters who don’t care to make winning under FPTP almost impossible at present.

That is a danger, but you'll find that such people generally live amongst each other in constituencies that have very large Labour majorities.

Stuartinromford

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

No.

But you've missed Mike's central point.

The questions about the current polls include what happens as the government turns the money taps off and starts hoovering cash out of our wallets instead.

Labour's current situation reminds me of the Malcom Tucker line about the Shawshank Redemption, only with more to wade through.

But will it end in a redemption?

NerysHughes

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

No.

But you've missed Mike's central point.

Its actually 1 poll lead in the last 170 polls, and only 1 poll lead since January. The central point of the header is that Labour will make big gains and the Tories could lose their majority. Mid Term leading in 168 out of the last 170 polls does not point to that at all.

Dura_Ace

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

The depends on how you define far-left and far-right.

This man is still a Tory MP, for example.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51406407

Also the fash curious Dehenna Davison.

CarlottaVance

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

The government or National Highways?

If it's a civil matter why would the government be involved?

What would you suggest the government do?

TheScreamingEagles

JosiasJessop said:

NerysHughes said:

Mid Term Miliband

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/guardian-icm-poll-labour-lead-tories-miliband-cameron

Looking back, I do think Ed Miliband and Labour got very complacent in that period. They had a view that they were right; that the Conservatives were wrong, and the public would see that.

Looking back at it the complacency started shortly after the 2010 election when Labour assumed most of the 2010 Lib Dem would shift to Labour because the yellow peril went into coalition with the blue meanies.

It explains why Labour spent more time and resources in trying to oust Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam than defend the 1,000 majority of Ed Balls in Morley & Outwood.

IshmaelZ

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Not really. It's what I'd do, let your first wave get injuncted and then send out a scond lot of clean skins not named in the injunction, and it's not easy to see a way round that.

IshmaelZ

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

I think they are playing a blinder, and that masks do not inhibit the spread of covid.

TheScreamingEagles

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

The government or National Highways?

If it's a civil matter why would the government be involved?

What would you suggest the government do?

Grant Shapps was taking all the credit for the injunction last week.

Invading a motorway is reckless & puts lives at risk. I asked National Highways to seek an injunction against M25 protestors which a judge granted last night. Effective later today, activists will face contempt of court with possible imprisonment if they flout.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1440587104069709838

Northern_Al

We in Labour are very grateful to those who are giving us such wise advice - kick out the far left. But how do we define the 'far left'? Should we kick out Andy McDonald, who resigned from the SC yesterday for advocating a higher minimum wage? Do we want a McCarthyite witch hunt, as advocated by many (non-Labour) people on here?

The Labour Party has always been a broad church. Many of the Corbyn 'entryists' have already left. The influence of those that remain is diminishing rapidly, as can be seen from the voting in this week's motions. Much better that people leave of their own accord rather than being kicked out. Starmer has control now.

Finally, for those who hark back to Blair, how many people did he kick out? Very few. He tolerated Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches because they weren't very influential. It's quite useful to have a contribution from socialists.

The rhetoric on here is more like the Mail than mature political debate. It's all "reds under the beds" stuff.

Foxy

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

A lot depends on what is meant by "hard left". It isn't a monolithic block, and while chucking out the "Smash the State" Tankies would improve things, Corbyn brought a new generation of the young in, often naive in their enthusiasms, but eager to change the world for the better. It is important not to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.

The strange Labour obsession with Palestine needs to go, as it is both a cauldron of anti-semitism and also irrelevant to the UK. It isn't an issue that we can usefully tackle, and past experience of Britain's influence in the region has been nearly always negative.

MikeSmithson

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

The government or National Highways?

If it's a civil matter why would the government be involved?

What would you suggest the government do?

Grant Shapps was taking all the credit for the injunction last week.

Invading a motorway is reckless & puts lives at risk. I asked National Highways to seek an injunction against M25 protestors which a judge granted last night. Effective later today, activists will face contempt of court with possible imprisonment if they flout.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1440587104069709838

But what it Michael Green doing?

geoffw

R4 this a.m. "Brexit paves the way for gene-edited crops"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58711230
The UK government is to relax the regulation of gene-edited crops to enable commercial growing in England. European Union regulations require that gene-edited crops are treated the same as genetically-modified crops.

These rules call for a number of field trials over a period of several years, as well as extensive food safety tests.
The final hurdle is for member states to vote to approve a new variety.
This approach is regarded by biotech companies as too onerous and expensive, so no genetically altered crops are developed in the European Union.

As this is in a devolved area of policy it will be interesting to see whether the devolved administrations will follow England. Or will they stick to EU rules because they were dragged out of the EU against their will?

Sandpit

Northern_Al said:

We in Labour are very grateful to those who are giving us such wise advice - kick out the far left. But how do we define the 'far left'? Should we kick out Andy McDonald, who resigned from the SC yesterday for advocating a higher minimum wage? Do we want a McCarthyite witch hunt, as advocated by many (non-Labour) people on here?

The Labour Party has always been a broad church. Many of the Corbyn 'entryists' have already left. The influence of those that remain is diminishing rapidly, as can be seen from the voting in this week's motions. Much better that people leave of their own accord rather than being kicked out. Starmer has control now.

Finally, for those who hark back to Blair, how many people did he kick out? Very few. He tolerated Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches because they weren't very influential. It's quite useful to have a contribution from socialists.

The rhetoric on here is more like the Mail than mature political debate. It's all "reds under the beds" stuff.

That depends whether or not Labour wish to present themselves to the electorate as a united party of government, or as a divided party still talking to themselves about things that don’t interest the wider public.

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Blame the lawyers.....

noneoftheabove

MikeSmithson said:

Graduate voting intentions from latest
IpsosMORI political monitor
CON 30%
LAB 41%
LD 12%
GRN 6%

Wonder what it would look like if Labour backed a halving of tuition fees, including retrospective debt, along with a 2% drop in income tax, paid for by merging NI into IT so the richest cohort also contribute their fair share.

Should bring quite a few switchers in, and they don't have many pensioner votes to lose (those that are still voting Labour might be quite sticky anyway).

Sandpit

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Not really. It's what I'd do, let your first wave get injuncted and then send out a scond lot of clean skins not named in the injunction, and it's not easy to see a way round that.

Highways England need to keep getting injunctions against everyone arrested, and hope they quickly run out of idiots who think blocking motorways is fun.

The Home Office needs to read the riot act to the police though, that’s where the critisism is going. Send a couple of Special Operations squad vans to scoop them up, don’t stand there offering them tea and sandwiches.

Dura_Ace

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

A lot depends on what is meant by "hard left". It isn't a monolithic block, and while chucking out the "Smash the State" Tankies would improve things,

Smash the State adherents are anarchists while Tankies are Stalinists in the tradition of the CPGB faction who stuck with the CPSU after the invasion of Hungary. They'd kill each other's kids given the chance.

I don't think the Labour party is the natural home for either. It's still a movement that it is utterly dedicated to the maintenance and protection of the capitalist state.

TheScreamingEagles

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

No.

But you've missed Mike's central point.

Its actually 1 poll lead in the last 170 polls, and only 1 poll lead since January. The central point of the header is that Labour will make big gains and the Tories could lose their majority. Mid Term leading in 168 out of the last 170 polls does not point to that at all.

The opening line to this piece is A LAB majority is almost totally out of the question, Mike's looking at the point where Conservative seat losses where a Conservative majority is unviable.

A few weeks ago I had lunch with the esteemed JohnO and we discussed this very same topic.

The planning changes (now dumped but the damage has been done) saw parts of the blue wall crumble in May could see Labour only make a net gains from the Conservatives of around 15 to ensure Starmer becomes PM as the Lib Dems and the SNP do the heavy lifting.

There are no other allies for the Conservatives in parliament left, the DUP/TUV/UUP won't back the Conservatives because of that border in the Irish Sea.

So unless you're predicting a Con-SNP coalition there's not much chance of the Conservatives continuing in power if they fall below 305 seats.

squareroot2

rottenborough said:

Lammy give a good interview on R4. Laying into Johnson's administration

LAMMY hahahahaha

IshmaelZ

Sandpit said:

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Not really. It's what I'd do, let your first wave get injuncted and then send out a scond lot of clean skins not named in the injunction, and it's not easy to see a way round that.

Highways England need to keep getting injunctions against everyone arrested, and hope they quickly run out of idiots who think blocking motorways is fun.

The Home Office needs to read the riot act to the police though, that’s where the critisism is going. Send a couple of Special Operations squad vans to scoop them up, don’t stand there offering them tea and sandwiches.

With all these bodycams and phone cameras and stuff, informal short sharp shock policing methods aren't as available as they used to be.

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Blame the lawyers.....

Personally I'd send in the army, unmothball the Challenger 2 tanks and see how the swampies like playing chicken with a tank.

Big_G_NorthWales

Good Morning

The ultimate put down

Gina Miller, businesswoman and anti-Brexit activists tweets

'Anyone seen Boris Johnson'

Rachel Johnson, Boris's sister replies

'It was our Mother's funeral yesterday, Gina'

IshmaelZ

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Blame the lawyers.....

Personally I'd send in the army, unmothball the Challenger 2 tanks and see how the swampies like playing chicken with a tank.

They might certainly regret the superglue.

noneoftheabove

Northern_Al said:

We in Labour are very grateful to those who are giving us such wise advice - kick out the far left. But how do we define the 'far left'? Should we kick out Andy McDonald, who resigned from the SC yesterday for advocating a higher minimum wage? Do we want a McCarthyite witch hunt, as advocated by many (non-Labour) people on here?

The Labour Party has always been a broad church. Many of the Corbyn 'entryists' have already left. The influence of those that remain is diminishing rapidly, as can be seen from the voting in this week's motions. Much better that people leave of their own accord rather than being kicked out. Starmer has control now.

Finally, for those who hark back to Blair, how many people did he kick out? Very few. He tolerated Corbyn, McDonnell and many others on the backbenches because they weren't very influential. It's quite useful to have a contribution from socialists.

The rhetoric on here is more like the Mail than mature political debate. It's all "reds under the beds" stuff.

Kicking out the far left is not necessary if they are neutered and powerless. And no, that isn't an invitation to return the debate to trans issues.

tlg86

Rob_downunder said:

Seats wise isn't Starmer roughly at the same starting point as Cameron was prior to the 2010 election?

Yes, but look at the difference in majorities of the first 50 seats...

Con second place 05 (rank, seat, margin):

1. CRAWLEY - 0.1 pp
2. SITTINGBOURNE & SHEPPEY - 0.2 pp
3. HARLOW - 0.2 pp
4. ROMSEY - 0.2 pp
5. BATTERSEA - 0.4 pp
6. WARWICK & LEAMINGTON - 0.5 pp
7. MEDWAY - 0.5 pp
8. SOLIHULL - 0.5 pp
9. WESTMORLAND & LONSDALE - 0.5 pp
10. GILLINGHAM - 0.6 pp
11. STROUD - 0.6 pp
12. SELBY - 0.9 pp
13. HOVE - 0.9 pp
14. TAUNTON - 1 pp
15. STOURBRIDGE - 1 pp
16. EASTLEIGH - 1.1 pp
17. HIGH PEAK - 1.5 pp
18. SOMERTON & FROME - 1.5 pp
19. DARTFORD - 1.5 pp
20. SOUTH THANET - 1.6 pp
21. FINCHLEY & GOLDERS GREEN - 1.7 pp
22. CHESTER, CITY OF - 2 pp
23. HEREFORD - 2.1 pp
24. CARSHALTON & WALLINGTON - 2.5 pp
25. CARDIFF NORTH - 2.5 pp
26. WIRRAL WEST - 2.7 pp
27. CALDER VALLEY - 2.9 pp
28. BURTON - 3 pp
29. PORTSMOUTH NORTH - 3 pp
30. COLNE VALLEY - 3.1 pp
31. SOUTH SWINDON - 3.1 pp
32. CORBY - 3.2 pp
33. PERTH & NORTH PERTHSHIRE - 3.3 pp
34. WANSDYKE - 3.6 pp
35. SOUTH DORSET - 3.7 pp
36. VALE OF GLAMORGAN - 3.8 pp
37. ANGUS - 4.2 pp
38. HARROW WEST - 4.2 pp
39. TORBAY - 4.3 pp
40. LOUGHBOROUGH - 4.3 pp
41. SOUTH RIBBLE - 4.6 pp
42. STAFFORD - 4.7 pp
43. BROXTOWE - 4.7 pp
44. HASTINGS & RYE - 4.7 pp
45. ENFIELD NORTH - 4.7 pp
46. NUNEATON - 5 pp
47. CARMARTHEN WEST & SOUTH PEMBROKESHIRE - 5 pp
48. BOLTON WEST - 5.1 pp
49. CHELTENHAM - 5.3 pp
50. PENDLE - 5.3 pp

And Lab second place 05 (rank, seat, margin):

1. BURY NORTH - 0.2 pp
2. KENSINGTON - 0.3 pp
3. BURY SOUTH - 0.8 pp
4. BOLTON NORTH EAST - 0.9 pp
5. HIGH PEAK - 1.1 pp
6. GEDLING - 1.4 pp
7. HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON - 1.4 pp
8. BLYTH VALLEY - 1.7 pp
9. STOKE-ON-TRENT CENTRAL - 2.1 pp
10. CHIPPING BARNET - 2.1 pp
11. DELYN - 2.3 pp
12. NORTH WEST DURHAM - 2.4 pp
13. CHINGFORD AND WOODFORD GREEN - 2.6 pp
14. KIRKCALDY AND COWDENBEATH - 2.6 pp
15. BRIDGEND - 2.7 pp
16. DEWSBURY - 2.8 pp
17. WARRINGTON SOUTH - 3.2 pp
18. CLWYD SOUTH - 3.4 pp
19. BURNLEY - 3.5 pp
20. BIRMINGHAM, NORTHFIELD - 3.8 pp
21. WOLVERHAMPTON SOUTH WEST - 4 pp
22. LEIGH - 4.2 pp
23. KEIGHLEY - 4.2 pp
24. WEST BROMWICH EAST - 4.4 pp
25. VALE OF CLWYD - 4.9 pp
26. YNYS MON - 5.4 pp
27. PETERBOROUGH - 5.4 pp
28. DERBY NORTH - 5.4 pp
29. STROUD - 5.8 pp
30. WREXHAM - 6.4 pp
31. ABERCONWY - 6.4 pp
32. PUDSEY - 6.5 pp
33. VALE OF GLAMORGAN - 6.5 pp
34. EAST LOTHIAN - 6.6 pp
35. LINCOLN - 6.9 pp
36. HYNDBURN - 7 pp
37. HASTINGS AND RYE - 7.4 pp
38. WAKEFIELD - 7.5 pp
39. GLASGOW NORTH EAST - 7.5 pp
40. DARLINGTON - 7.6 pp
41. WATFORD - 7.6 pp
42. HENDON - 7.7 pp
43. WYCOMBE - 7.7 pp
44. TRURO AND FALMOUTH - 7.7 pp
45. DON VALLEY - 8 pp
46. READING WEST - 8.2 pp
47. COLNE VALLEY - 8.4 pp
48. SOUTHPORT - 8.6 pp
49. REDCAR - 8.6 pp
50. SOUTHAMPTON, ITCHEN - 9.5 pp

The 50th seat for the Tories after 05 required a swing equal to that of the 26th seat for Labour after 2019. That's the problem.

Fishing

Predicting the outcome in 2024 using 2019 as a base is very likely to be misleading, for a number of reasons. In general terms, the previous election result has been uncorrelated to the next one. There is a big churn in the electorate in five years.

But this time it's likely to be particularly misleading, because:

- 2019 was in itself an unusual result in many ways, with seats in the north which had never elected a Conservative falling to Boris. I accept that this was part of a long term trend, but nobody knows if they will return to the Labour fold or not.
- the Brexit Party vote was there to be squeezed for the Conservatives
- the Boundary Commission reforms will mean that seats and seat totals will be different
- the country has been through perhaps the most traumatic event since WW2
- it has also left the EU, so the main issue in the 2019 campaign will have lost most of its salience.

The ONLY good predictor I've found for the next general election result is polling within 6 months of the election. Everything else - leaders' approval ratings, midterm polling, etc. - is like reading bird guts.

Also, I'm not sure the Conservatives are as unlikely to be part of a coalition as some on this site think. What politicians say before an election and what they say once coalition negotiations start are often very different. Coalition negotiations incentivise lying to the electorate, even more than the rest of representative democracy. They don't have to face the voters again for several years, and so they're often willing to abandon their promises in exchange for a few years of power. But who really knows?

kle4

Rob_downunder said:

Seats wise isn't Starmer roughly at the same starting point as Cameron was prior to the 2010 election?

Yes, though the Labour vote there had been decreasing for 2 elections. The Tory vote has gone up. I'd assume it will go down, perhaps by a fair bit, but if momentum is a thing Labour are starting from scratch again. For all they overplay it Corbynites are right 2017 shows theres hope, but its hard.

isam

The theory that Corbyn suppressed the Lib Dem vote doesn’t stand up to a fact check

It’s said that Corbyn was so electorally poisonous that people were scared of voting Lib Dem in case it let him in

But the Lib Dems got a better vote share in 2019 than they did in 2015 when EdM was Labour leader, and Labour got a better vote share as well. The difference was that the Tories ate up the UKIP vote, as Labour changed their 2017 stance and fought the election on a pledge to hold a second referendum.

Since Corbyn left as leader, Starmer’s Labour have stood in three English by Elections, and achieved their lowest vote share ever in all three constituencies. Why is that? Jezza’s gone

eek

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good Morning

The ultimate put down

Gina Miller, businesswoman and anti-Brexit activists tweets

'Anyone seen Boris Johnson'

Rachel Johnson, Boris's sister replies

'It was our Mother's funeral yesterday, Gina'

To which I have to ask the question, why did Boris appear on TV regarding fuel issues, surely that could have been delegated...

Dura_Ace

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Blame the lawyers.....

Personally I'd send in the army, unmothball the Challenger 2 tanks and see how the swampies like playing chicken with a tank.

The tories sold off the Ashchurch storage depot so all they are all stored in Monchengladbach now. It's going to take a minute to get them to the M25 for the purposes of suppressing protest as the tories also sublet most of the Heavy Equipment Transporters to the US Army in Europe.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic.

Lord Finkelstein.

The best Starmer can hope for is a coalition

Labour’s leader should start preparing his party and the country for the deals and compromises he will need to govern

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-best-starmer-can-hope-for-is-a-coalition-b586ttdkk

DavidL

The big problem that Labour have is that is this government is governing from the centre and has no embarrassment at all about pinching policies from the centre left. They can scream Tory cuts all they want but they will get very little traction against a government that seems committed to massive increases in public spending and is willing to increase taxes to pay for them. They are left arguing that they would tax even more and spend even more and I think that they will find that a losing argument.

It is similar to what the Tories faced against Blair. His public sector reforms, his determination to accept the Thatcher settlement on trade union reform and his focus on ensuring that those paying the tax did ok even if it meant that those in need were neglected somewhat left the Tories nowhere to go but the outer reaches of rantdom where voters were hard to find.

A politician who is willing to govern from the centre and is willing to offend some of their natural supporters to broaden the tent is formidable under FPTP. SKS in fairness recognises the problem and is trying to present himself in a similar way but moving the incumbent in that situation is very hard, pretty much impossible unless the wheels come off in a spectacular way (eg 2008, Black Wednesday etc).

TheScreamingEagles

Dura_Ace said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Blame the lawyers.....

Personally I'd send in the army, unmothball the Challenger 2 tanks and see how the swampies like playing chicken with a tank.

The tories sold off the Ashchurch storage depot so all they are all stored in Monchengladbach now. It's going to take a minute to get them to the M25 for the purposes of suppressing protest as the tories also sublet most of the Heavy Equipment Transporters to the US Army in Europe.

Ok, where are the MLRS vehicles located?

logical_song

Off Topic.
Those who are concerned about the variability of renewable energy supply and not convinced by batteries might find this interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVjYofLYc4
'New energy storage tech breathing life and jobs back into disused coal power plants'

CarlottaVance

The "future of aviation".....in a 36 year old aircraft:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/winners-of-3-million-zero-emission-flight-aviation-competition-announced

It's a Dornier Aurigny sold them earlier this year....

ping

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

The government or National Highways?

If it's a civil matter why would the government be involved?

What would you suggest the government do?

Grant Shapps was taking all the credit for the injunction last week.

Invading a motorway is reckless & puts lives at risk. I asked National Highways to seek an injunction against M25 protestors which a judge granted last night. Effective later today, activists will face contempt of court with possible imprisonment if they flout.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1440587104069709838

But what it Michael Green doing?

Lol

I’d almost forgotten about that!

What an idiot.

boulay

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

The government or National Highways?

If it's a civil matter why would the government be involved?

What would you suggest the government do?

Grant Shapps was taking all the credit for the injunction last week.

Invading a motorway is reckless & puts lives at risk. I asked National Highways to seek an injunction against M25 protestors which a judge granted last night. Effective later today, activists will face contempt of court with possible imprisonment if they flout.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1440587104069709838

But what it Michael Green doing?

It’s not easy being Green……

CarlottaVance

interesting observation:

Just heard someone say “Labour is a socialist party founded on socialist principles.” (@BBCr4today)

No, it explicitly was not. Hence the name that was chosen: Labour.

(Ironically it was Tony Blair who first introduced the word 'socialist’ into Labour's constitution).

https://twitter.com/colinrtalbot/status/1443103998853189635?s=20

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

Politics has not been "normal" in this country since 2016.

Do you think the election of the SNP was "normal" in 2011, leading to the independence referendum? The surge of UKIP in 2012-2013? Or the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2015?

A lot of the old party alliance and 'rules' started breaking down around the time of the credit crunch, and in its aftermath.

It's a bit lazy to date everything to 2016.

Sandpit

CarlottaVance said:

The "future of aviation".....in a 36 year old aircraft:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/winners-of-3-million-zero-emission-flight-aviation-competition-announced

It's a Dornier Aurigny sold them earlier this year....

15 projects given a total of £700,000. Can’t see that going too far, when trying to do anything involving aeroplanes.

another_richard

BoJo’s party is going to struggle to hold onto the the six seats it has in Scotland

Is there any evidence to back up that statement ?

Three of them look pretty safe and its also possible that there is a swing to the Conservatives in Scotland.

Dura_Ace

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dura_Ace said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lock 'em up:

Environmental campaign group Insulate Britain has defied an injunction to block M25 for the seventh time

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1443113458489253892?s=20

Sadly this government is truly incompetent.

None of the 52 activists who blockaded the M25 this week were covered by the government’s injunction aimed at stopping protests.

The activists from Insulate Britain were arrested for obstructing the highway and released with no conditions, because it is a summary offence that can result only in a fine.

Although National Highways obtained a High Court injunction to try to stop blockades, sources said that none of the most recent protesters were named in it. They could not therefore face the more serious sanctions involved in an injunction breach even if they returned for future protests on the same road.

After protesters caused chaos with consecutive protests on the M25 and then the port of Dover, the government said the injunction was a deterrent, because breaching it could result in a prison sentence. It has been taken out against named activists on named roads. However, sources have said that its implications are being easily avoided by Insulate Britain, which simply deploys protesters who are not named.

Police have not changed their tactics because the court injunction is a civil matter and needs to be pursued by National Highways. Any action is likely to take another fortnight. National Highways would not say how many protesters were named in its injunction.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/insulate-britain-m25-protesters-not-covered-crackdown-g7mx6hl3b

Blame the lawyers.....

Personally I'd send in the army, unmothball the Challenger 2 tanks and see how the swampies like playing chicken with a tank.

The tories sold off the Ashchurch storage depot so all they are all stored in Monchengladbach now. It's going to take a minute to get them to the M25 for the purposes of suppressing protest as the tories also sublet most of the Heavy Equipment Transporters to the US Army in Europe.

Ok, where are the MLRS vehicles located?

Gutersloh.

isam

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

Politics has not been "normal" in this country since 2016.

Do you think the election of the SNP was "normal" in 2011, leading to the independence referendum? The surge of UKIP in 2012-2013? Or the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2015?

A lot of the old party alliance and 'rules' started breaking down around the time of the credit crunch, and in its aftermath.

It's a bit lazy to date everything to 2016.

The General Election of 2010 had the least normal outcome I can remember - a lot of people had just got used to getting their own way until 2016 and the shock of defeat, and that other people whose lives they hadn’t considered voted against their status quo, is still reverberating

tlg86

By the way, yesterday's weekly death stats publication...

https://tinyurl.com/ydhrmd3v

Week 37:

Five-year average (2015-2019): 9,306
COVID deaths: 851
Non-COVID deaths: 10,158

Even without the COVID deaths - some will be with rather than from COVID - the non-COVID deaths were 852 above the five-year average. The sequence for non-COVID deaths v five-year average for the last 11 weeks is:

09-Jul-21: 386
16-Jul-21: 229
23-Jul-21: 324
30-Jul-21: 679
06-Aug-21: 624
13-Aug-21: 699
20-Aug-21: 358
27-Aug-21: 443
03-Sep-21*: -103
10-Sep-21*: 996
17-Sep-21: 852

* affected by the bank holiday

No one in the media is talking about this, but it's an interesting story. I reckon we are catching up from the deaths avoided last winter. Quite what this means in terms of pressure on the NHS, I don't know. After all, old people dying is less of a problem than them being ill, but perhaps the two are correlated.

Fishing

another_richard said:

BoJo’s party is going to struggle to hold onto the the six seats it has in Scotland

Is there any evidence to back up that statement ?

Three of them look pretty safe and its also possible that there is a swing to the Conservatives in Scotland.

Even if they lose most of them it's basically noise compared to the huge number of English suburban and small-town marginals.

Philip_Thompson

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

Fpt

This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.

Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.

I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.

Why do you think that Labour need the exteme minority of the far left?

Why do you think that the Tories don't need the extreme minority of the far right?

Kicking out the extremists, in British politics, is proven to work. No extremist party in my lifetime has ever won in the UK. The centre moves, but the far right and far left are always outsiders.

I don’t think you’re reading my posts properly. I’m not talking about the far left.

Yes, but everybody else is!

Kicking out the far left is what is being spoken about. The far left should be expelled from the Labour Party every bit as ruthlessly as the far right are expelled from the Tories.

There are zero far right MPs in the Tories. The centre right and medium right voters stick with the Tories though and centrist voters join with them too. Even some centre left join them.

For Labour to win they don't need the far left. They need medium and centre left and centrists.

The depends on how you define far-left and far-right.

This man is still a Tory MP, for example.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51406407

He shared a platform with elected politicians from other parties, for which he apologised and to my knowledge hasn't done it again. If he does, I'd be happy to see him expelled.

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

By the way, yesterday's weekly death stats publication...

https://tinyurl.com/ydhrmd3v

Week 37:

Five-year average (2015-2019): 9,306
COVID deaths: 851
Non-COVID deaths: 10,158

Even without the COVID deaths - some will be with rather than from COVID - the non-COVID deaths were 852 above the five-year average. The sequence for non-COVID deaths v five-year average for the last 11 weeks is:

09-Jul-21: 386
16-Jul-21: 229
23-Jul-21: 324
30-Jul-21: 679
06-Aug-21: 624
13-Aug-21: 699
20-Aug-21: 358
27-Aug-21: 443
03-Sep-21*: -103
10-Sep-21*: 996
17-Sep-21: 852

* affected by the bank holiday

No one in the media is talking about this, but it's an interesting story. I reckon we are catching up from the deaths avoided last winter. Quite what this means in terms of pressure on the NHS, I don't know. After all, old people dying is less of a problem than them being ill, but perhaps the two are correlated.

Interesting that deaths in general are running above average, even without the direct pandemic effect.

What are we seeing then, indirect effects of healthcare systems being overloaded, treatable conditions being missed during the pandemic, more accidents as everyone gets back to work and on the roads?

DavidL

Yet another front that Labour is now facing is the threat to their dominance amongst ethnic minorities. This government is by far the most racially diverse we have ever had and it is not even close. The modern Conservative party has excellent role models for many ethnic minorities and has shown that there is no glass ceiling for them either.

There are some interesting numbers in this site re the number of seats held by the respective parties and the percentage of the population that is non white: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ge2019-how-did-demographics-affect-the-result/
Other than 1 extreme outlier the Tories have traditionally done very badly in such seats. If that starts to change Labour are in deep trouble. And I think it will, especially with those of an Indian background. If Rishi replaces Boris those risks will be all the greater.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

NerysHughes said:

Mid Term Miliband

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/11/guardian-icm-poll-labour-lead-tories-miliband-cameron

Looking back, I do think Ed Miliband and Labour got very complacent in that period. They had a view that they were right; that the Conservatives were wrong, and the public would see that.

Looking back at it the complacency started shortly after the 2010 election when Labour assumed most of the 2010 Lib Dem would shift to Labour because the yellow peril went into coalition with the blue meanies.

It explains why Labour spent more time and resources in trying to oust Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam than defend the 1,000 majority of Ed Balls in Morley & Outwood.

They're always more interested in rooting out traitors on their "own" side.

tlg86

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

By the way, yesterday's weekly death stats publication...

https://tinyurl.com/ydhrmd3v

Week 37:

Five-year average (2015-2019): 9,306
COVID deaths: 851
Non-COVID deaths: 10,158

Even without the COVID deaths - some will be with rather than from COVID - the non-COVID deaths were 852 above the five-year average. The sequence for non-COVID deaths v five-year average for the last 11 weeks is:

09-Jul-21: 386
16-Jul-21: 229
23-Jul-21: 324
30-Jul-21: 679
06-Aug-21: 624
13-Aug-21: 699
20-Aug-21: 358
27-Aug-21: 443
03-Sep-21*: -103
10-Sep-21*: 996
17-Sep-21: 852

* affected by the bank holiday

No one in the media is talking about this, but it's an interesting story. I reckon we are catching up from the deaths avoided last winter. Quite what this means in terms of pressure on the NHS, I don't know. After all, old people dying is less of a problem than them being ill, but perhaps the two are correlated.

Interesting that deaths in general are running above average, even without the direct pandemic effect.

What are we seeing then, indirect effects of healthcare systems being overloaded, treatable conditions being missed during the pandemic, more accidents as everyone gets back to work and on the roads?

Low hanging fruit that avoided the reaper last winter due to lockdown...

Week: difference of non-COVID deaths to five-year average

2: -3,025
3: -2,962
4: -2,745
5: -2,334
6: -2,262
7: -1,897
8: -1,848
9: -1,696
10: -2,012
11: -1,857
12: -1,247
13: -2,329
14: -1,586

TheScreamingEagles

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Starmer remains politically clueless and is incredibly dull. There is also a tendency on this site to base future GE results on current midterm polling. Ed Milliband's Labour led in many polls mid term, some very comfortably. Those polls did not give him an election win. Keir Starmer's Labour have been ahead in 1 poll this year. It hardly gives much encouragement of electoral gains.

Why do you post stuff that is demonstrably untrue?

Labour have led in more than one poll this year.

Ok 1 poll lead in the last 50, do you think they are doing well then?

No.

But you've missed Mike's central point.

The questions about the current polls include what happens as the government turns the money taps off and starts hoovering cash out of our wallets instead.

Labour's current situation reminds me of the Malcom Tucker line about the Shawshank Redemption, only with more to wade through.

But will it end in a redemption?

That is the great unknown.

The one thing that I wouldn't rule out is the collapse of the NHS in a post Covid-19 world.

If that happens on the Conservative watch then that might be another level of shit for us to all wade through.

MikeSmithson

On Scotland the September Opinium Scottish poll had SNP up 6% and the Tories down 4%. That's a 5% CON to SNP swing.

Philip_Thompson

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

The "future of aviation".....in a 36 year old aircraft:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/winners-of-3-million-zero-emission-flight-aviation-competition-announced

It's a Dornier Aurigny sold them earlier this year....

15 projects given a total of £700,000. Can’t see that going too far, when trying to do anything involving aeroplanes.

It needs something like the X Prize. A $10mn prize for a jumbo jet design that is purely electric.

Or just have the market keep doing what its doing as I suspect people are working on it for commercial reasons anyway.