politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Len McCluskey thinks LAB could be in government after GE2020 –
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Len McCluskey thinks LAB could be in government after GE2020 – a pipe dream or a possibility?
Len McCluskey is right. Labour could be back in government as a result of the 2020 General Election. I agree with the Unite leader that while there’s little chance of Labour winning the election there’s a decent chance that the Tories will lose it. McCluskey is rather more emphatic than me: “ I don’t think the Tories will win the next election. They might be the largest party but I don’t think they will be able to form a government,” he told the Observer What he foresees is a minority government supported by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP.
Comments
-
In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?0
-
Second. Like Labour will be very lucky to be.0
-
I loved this bit of Don's piece:
And like Len McCluskey I suspect the Theresa May’s is much more fragile than it looks. I aired my hostility to her policies in my last post here.
Clearly if Don is hostile to her policies, she has no hope.0 -
The pundits went from 'the Tories are finished!' before the election to 'Labour can never win again!' after the election. It was very amusing.Ishmael_Z said:In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?
0 -
Exactly. The expectation during the campaign was that Kinnock would just make it. I remember canvassing in London the last few days, then spending most of the day talking to people at a polling station in Waltham Forest. It didn't feel to me like the Tory government was finally being thrown out of office in an enthusiastic tidal wave of support for Labour, and so it proved.Ishmael_Z said:In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?
We already know enough to take anything purporting to be objective analysis about Labour from Mr Brind with a lakeload of salt.
And the problem is not only that there is no apparent Mr Schultz, but that there are a few big strategic issues any new leader will have to resolve; just not being Corbyn won't be enough.0 -
Don,
Your party's brand is Ratnered. It's not just Corbyn.0 -
The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD0
-
After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.
Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?0 -
Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from LabourHYUFD said:The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD
0 -
I'd completely agree. There are several thing that could happen for Labour to 'win' in 2020 - because it certainly looks like that is when the next general election will be.
1. Dump Corbyn. Yes, he's proved difficult to shift but perhaps he sees sense and leaves, or perhaps he just falls under a bus and the hard left fail to win. A centre left leader (Who? Ed Miliband, Dan Jarvis?) could easily hold on to all seats where they are deemed to notionally hold in 2020 and perhaps even make a few gains. I also don't subscribe to the view it's too late to change leader now. I think the latest is probably September 2019 when it really does become too late, but until then it is possible.
2. Balls-up Brexit (TM someone else on this board) which tarnishes May and the Conservative party and leads to them losing seats to the Lib Dems.
3. Events dear boy, events. Three years is a long time. Who knows what will really happen between now and then.
Absent (3), I think for Labour to be in government in 2020 you need both (1) AND (2) to happen but it's certainly not implausible to see Labour managing to form a government in 2020.
Though I will stress that ISN'T a Corbyn led Labour.0 -
Which, playing devil's advocate for the article, does at least prove that most pundits are incapable of foreseeing anything other than the consensus expectation at the time and the immediately foreseeable.Richard_Nabavi said:
The pundits went from 'the Tories are finished!' before the election to 'Labour can never win again!' after the election. It was very amusing.Ishmael_Z said:In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?
I don't recall any articles in early 1992 predicting the imminence of the largest ever vote for the Conservatives, nor any that summer predicting that the next election would bring about Labour's largest ever landslide! Those would have been worth reading.0 -
Pipe dream for him, nightmare for the rest of us...0
-
Trying to be positive about Don's piece it is undoubtedly the case that this government has a very small majority and it really would not take much for that to disappear. It might not even take a swing in the vote of any substance, simply a reduction in the remarkable efficiency of vote that the Tories achieved in 2015.
But the starting point for those observations is that Labour starts where it finished in 2015, that is at 31% of the vote. That looks a long way off. It also fails to recognise the significance of the 4m who voted UKIP the last time. However that splits it is unlikely to damage the Tories and seems likely to move their share into the low 40s. So far the Lib Dems are going nowhere in the national polling (unlike in bye elections) which make any assumptions about them recovering a significant number of seats highly speculative. And the Tories are very likely to increase their number of seats in Scotland. And there is the boundary changes which are thought to be favourable. I could go on but this is a long enough list. Getting back to the heady days of 2015 vis a vis the Tories is a very big ask for Labour. An almost impossible one in fact.
Corbyn as leader is really just the icing on the cake.0 -
Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?0 -
As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 CopelandsTheScreamingEagles said:
Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from LabourHYUFD said:The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD
0 -
Many in this country want a continental level of public services. But....and this is a killer but....we repeatedly refuse to accept the higher level of taxes to pay for it. So we borrowed. And pretended that was sustainable. But, since the financial crisis, running huge deficits is no longer a credible policy.ThreeQuidder said:After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.
Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?
Labour's huge, massive, humungous monster of a problem is that we all know they don't give a shit about financial reposnsibility. The answer to absolutely every single question is more spending, more state. They promise the moon on a stick and anybody who doesn't buy their bullshit is 'nasty'. But in a world where it is a statement of the bleeding obvious that we can't just borrow forever they are forced into not promising to bankrupt us if they want to get votes. Either they have to pare back the spendy promises or they have to promise to tax us more.
The Tories, for good or bad, are being clear they will spend less and we're headed back towards balanced books.
WTF are Labour promising?
0 -
All things are possible - though it looks very unlikely at the moment it could be easy for a Tory government 10 years into power to unravel swiftly in the right circumstances, and Corbyn has been so bad if he is replaced there could be a surge, not in membership, but in active support, from those desperate not to miss the chance of a relevant opposition again, though obviously Len would see replacement as not needed.0
-
The only way I can see Don's scenario happening is if Brexit turns out to be an absolute disaster, May falls, a dud of a Tory leader takes over, whom then fall into disarray, the economy tanks, Labour ditches Corbyn, replaces him with someone sensible (like Balls) who elbow aside the far-Left and Momentum, manages to make himself look like the safe pair of hands, with a strong appeal in English marginals, calling for national unity.
The Tories could then lose c.20 seats to the Lib Dems, c.50 to Labour, and a rainbow coalition might take over as a Government of national emergency, governing very much in a centrist manner.
What are the chances of that? <5%?0 -
Lakes tend to be pretty much salt-free.IanB2 said:
Exactly. The expectation during the campaign was that Kinnock would just make it. I remember canvassing in London the last few days, then spending most of the day talking to people at a polling station in Waltham Forest. It didn't feel to me like the Tory government was finally being thrown out of office in an enthusiastic tidal wave of support for Labour, and so it proved.Ishmael_Z said:In what possible sense did John Major look impregnable in 1992?
We already know enough to take anything purporting to be objective analysis about Labour from Mr Brind with a lakeload of salt.
And the problem is not only that there is no apparent Mr Schultz, but that there are a few big strategic issues any new leader will have to resolve; just not being Corbyn won't be enough.0 -
The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.SeanT said:English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.
That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.0 -
Not on present pollingkle4 said:
The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.SeanT said:English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.
That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.0 -
It's only three years to the next GE. I think voters will give May the benefit of the doubt until the Brexit deal is sorted. And then there's the matter of managing the transition period, likely to be 3 years.kle4 said:All things are possible - though it looks very unlikely at the moment it could be easy for a Tory government 10 years into power to unravel swiftly in the right circumstances, and Corbyn has been so bad if he is replaced there could be a surge, not in membership, but in active support, from those desperate not to miss the chance of a relevant opposition again, though obviously Len would see replacement as not needed.
That gives Labour 14 months when they might (just might) get a hearing: from March 2019 to May 2020.
What can they do in 14 months? And how can they make themselves relevant to managing the transition period, as well as closing the remainder of the deficit?
I'd say their next real shot is GE2025 when Brexit is fully done, new trade deals are in place, the deficit should be plugged, and people are maybe looking for a change after 15 years.0 -
Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments. Likewise they are seen as stronger on defence even though they've slashed defence spending as much as anyone. Meanwhile, Labour can do all manner of things regarding the NHS, but people trust they care more about it and will do a better job regardless of whatever happens.Patrick said:
Many in this country want a continental level of public services. But....and this is a killer but....we repeatedly refuse to accept the higher level of taxes to pay for it. So we borrowed. And pretended that was sustainable. But, since the financial crisis, running huge deficits is no longer a credible policy.ThreeQuidder said:After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.
Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?
Labour's huge, massive, humungous monster of a problem is that we all know they don't give a shit about financial reposnsibility. The answer to absolutely every single question is more spending, more state. They promise the moon on a stick and anybody who doesn't buy their bullshit is 'nasty'. But in a world where it is a statement of the bleeding obvious that we can't just borrow forever they are forced into not promising to bankrupt us if they want to get votes. Either they have to pare back the spendy promises or they have to promise to tax us more.
The Tories, for good or bad, are being clear they will spend less and we're headed back towards balanced books.
WTF are Labour promising?0 -
If Corbyn was replaced by an electable leader and the country has to face real Brexit facts, things could look very different very quickly.DavidL said:Trying to be positive about Don's piece it is undoubtedly the case that this government has a very small majority and it really would not take much for that to disappear. It might not even take a swing in the vote of any substance, simply a reduction in the remarkable efficiency of vote that the Tories achieved in 2015.
But the starting point for those observations is that Labour starts where it finished in 2015, that is at 31% of the vote. That looks a long way off. It also fails to recognise the significance of the 4m who voted UKIP the last time. However that splits it is unlikely to damage the Tories and seems likely to move their share into the low 40s. So far the Lib Dems are going nowhere in the national polling (unlike in bye elections) which make any assumptions about them recovering a significant number of seats highly speculative. And the Tories are very likely to increase their number of seats in Scotland. And there is the boundary changes which are thought to be favourable. I could go on but this is a long enough list. Getting back to the heady days of 2015 vis a vis the Tories is a very big ask for Labour. An almost impossible one in fact.
Corbyn as leader is really just the icing on the cake.
By the way, is it a foregone conclusion that the 2020 election would be on the new boundaries or could that slip or be dependent on a vote?0 -
On a platform of taking the UK back into the single market at least a slim chance but that is more likely in 2025 in my viewCasino_Royale said:The only way I can see Don's scenario happening is if Brexit turns out to be an absolute disaster, May falls, a dud of a Tory leader takes over, whom then fall into disarray, the economy tanks, Labour ditches Corbyn, replaces him with someone sensible (like Balls) who elbow aside the far-Left and Momentum, manages to make himself look like the safe pair of hands, with a strong appeal in English marginals, calling for national unity.
The Tories could then lose c.20 seats to the Lib Dems, c.50 to Labour, and a rainbow coalition might take over as a Government of national emergency, governing very much in a centrist manner.
What are the chances of that? <5%?</p>0 -
Labour's main Scottish problem is itself !kle4 said:
The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.SeanT said:English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.
That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.0 -
If present polling could predict the future there would be no point to this site. It's not a very useful observation.HYUFD said:
Not on present pollingkle4 said:
The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.SeanT said:English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.
That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.0 -
So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.HYUFD said:
As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 CopelandsTheScreamingEagles said:
Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from LabourHYUFD said:The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD
0 -
I did say 'may'.HYUFD said:
Not on present pollingkle4 said:
The Scotland problem may be 'solved' rather dramatically by 2020, though at present sometime shortly after then looks more likely.SeanT said:English voters will never elect a Labour Coalition government which depends on SNP support.
That's all there is to it. Until and unless Labour solves its Scottish problem, and/or the Lib Dems take dozens of seats off the Tories, even a Coalition of the Left is very difficult to achieve - and a Labour majority is virtually impossible.0 -
My main reason for being so confident on ongoing Labour electoral failure is this: they (still) show absolutely no signs whatsoever of being ready to compromise with the electorate.SeanT said:
Schulz came back from Brussels - which raises a slightly interesting question. Given that every Labour Brit in the EU is about to be redundant, do they not have any MEPs or functionaries over there with leader-like talents?ThreeQuidder said:After 1992 Labour had not a Schultz but a Blair.
Who do Labour have who can command that kind of support?
Until they move on from their GE2010 defeat - and their current thinking is receding, not progressing - then they will not win again.0 -
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk0
-
As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Brind, was rumours of what that polling containedTheScreamingEagles said:
So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.HYUFD said:
As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 CopelandsTheScreamingEagles said:
Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from LabourHYUFD said:The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD
0 -
Until Scotland departs?TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
You said CTF poll specifically.HYUFD said:
As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Bronx, was rumours of what that polling containedTheScreamingEagles said:
So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.HYUFD said:
As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 CopelandsTheScreamingEagles said:
Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from LabourHYUFD said:The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD
0 -
I don't think that will happen before the next GE though!calum said:
Until Scotland departs?TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
I heard the same thing in 2014/15.calum said:
Until Scotland departs?TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
Rumours of it, it has not released any figures including about Tory LD marginalsTheScreamingEagles said:
You said CTF poll specifically.HYUFD said:
As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Bronx, was rumours of what that polling containedTheScreamingEagles said:
So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.HYUFD said:
As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 CopelandsTheScreamingEagles said:
Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from LabourHYUFD said:The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD
0 -
Inconceivable.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
In mathematical theory maybe, not in political reality.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
A minority government of SNP-LD-Labour would be ridiculously unstable where Labour were 100 seats shy of a majority and the Tories would outvote them in all EVEL divisions.
It would be a recipe for chaos.0 -
Your bet(s) have been placed.Tissue_Price said:40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk
Total Stake: £1.00 Pot. Win: £41.00
TICK BOOM
I'll let it run..0 -
Would the SNP really work with Labour? My bet is they'd either make such unreasonable demands that Labour wouldn't work with them, or find some tenuous reason to reject a coalition/C&S agreement. Keeping their Westminster outsider status is key to their brand, and we've seen in Scotland that they don't actually like governing if they can help it, as it makes it so much easier to blame England/Tories/Westminster for everything.0
-
I think it'd be a confidence arrangement with the Tories, the main price being the softest of soft Brexits if that was the maths.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
Lab-SNP-Uncle Tom Cobbly isn't really that stable a government.0 -
I mean't after 2020 but before 2020 - so would break the rainbow !RobD said:
I don't think that will happen before the next GE though!calum said:
Until Scotland departs?TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
I was allowed 20pPulpstar said:
Your bet(s) have been placed.Tissue_Price said:40/1 Melenchon to win the first round @ Betfair Sportsbook. You could arb it with the 23.0 to lay @ Betfair Exchange. #headdesk
Total Stake: £1.00 Pot. Win: £41.00
TICK BOOM
I'll let it run..
0 -
If voters in Tory-Lib Dem marginal think for one moment that voting Lib Dem might put Jezza into Number 10, they'll vote Tory.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
Is this not a putative 2020 arrangement we're discussing? We'll already be 1 year into either an agreed independence or a not-agreed one by then.Pulpstar said:
I think it'd be a confidence arrangement with the Tories, the main price being the softest of soft Brexits if that was the maths.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
Lab-SNP-Uncle Tom Cobbly isn't really that stable a government.
0 -
Say in 2019 we leave the EU on WTO terms which leads to a proper economic slump, Lab, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and SDLP all say we'll form an alliance to retake us back into the single market/The EU, it might work.Pulpstar said:
I think it'd be a confidence arrangement with the Tories, the main price being the softest of soft Brexits if that was the maths.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
Lab-SNP-Uncle Tom Cobbly isn't really that stable a government.
The deficit was the glue that helped form and keep the Con/LD coalition together, a Brexit disaster could do the same for the Rainbow Alliance.0 -
That's a very narrow timeframe...calum said:
I mean't after 2020 but before 2020 - so would break the rainbow !RobD said:
I don't think that will happen before the next GE though!calum said:
Until Scotland departs?TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
0 -
Good god you have a good memory! That was almost a generation agoTheScreamingEagles said:
I heard the same thing in 2014/15.calum said:
Until Scotland departs?TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
0 -
Yes I think that's absolutely the case. In the times of greatest certainty, can occur those events which no one foresaw.TheValiant said:I'd completely agree. There are several thing that could happen for Labour to 'win' in 2020 - because it certainly looks like that is when the next general election will be.
1. Dump Corbyn. Yes, he's proved difficult to shift but perhaps he sees sense and leaves, or perhaps he just falls under a bus and the hard left fail to win. A centre left leader (Who? Ed Miliband, Dan Jarvis?) could easily hold on to all seats where they are deemed to notionally hold in 2020 and perhaps even make a few gains. I also don't subscribe to the view it's too late to change leader now. I think the latest is probably September 2019 when it really does become too late, but until then it is possible.
2. Balls-up Brexit (TM someone else on this board) which tarnishes May and the Conservative party and leads to them losing seats to the Lib Dems.
3. Events dear boy, events. Three years is a long time. Who knows what will really happen between now and then.
Absent (3), I think for Labour to be in government in 2020 you need both (1) AND (2) to happen but it's certainly not implausible to see Labour managing to form a government in 2020.
Though I will stress that ISN'T a Corbyn led Labour.
And once it has happened (Jezza deposed, someone vaguely half-sane installed) the dynamics of 2020 change so dramatically that it really would be all to play for. Even the LDs get booted back into play a la 2010.0 -
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
The Lib Dems may well sweep those seats, but not until the nation overall is ready for a Labour Government IMHO. Or, perhaps more accurately, Labour overall is ready for a national Government.HYUFD said:
As Copeland proved the Tories are making gains from Labour at the moment and no Crosby figures have been released about either Tory LD or Tory Labour marginals all that was being commented on, including presumably by Brind, was rumours of what that polling containedTheScreamingEagles said:
So you were talking bollards in your original post. Glad we cleared that up.HYUFD said:
As far as I can see CTF have released no figures either way, all that is being said is rumour but as almost every poll has Labour down and the LDs up and there are more Labour seats than former LD ones the Tories would still make net gains, for every Richmond Park there are at least 2 CopelandsTheScreamingEagles said:
Link to the CTF poll showing the Tories winning even more seats from LabourHYUFD said:The Textor poll had the Tories winning even more seats from Labour and the CDU are now back in front of the SPD
In the meantime, the Lib Dems will continue to do well at the local level and in parliamentary by-elections in areas of strength, but in GEs they won't be allowed to do anything that threatens putting an irresponsible Labour PM in charge.0 -
The SNP could - as for Labour not so sure:Essexit said:Would the SNP really work with Labour? My bet is they'd either make such unreasonable demands that Labour wouldn't work with them, or find some tenuous reason to reject a coalition/C&S agreement. Keeping their Westminster outsider status is key to their brand, and we've seen in Scotland that they don't actually like governing if they can help it, as it makes it so much easier to blame England/Tories/Westminster for everything.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/labour-should-stop-indulging-its-scottish-party-and-broker-progressive0 -
Would be interesting to place the average voter on this chart of nationalist/internationalist left/right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/nationalist-todays-politicians-public-thinks/0 -
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
The argument seems to be English voters didn't believe Labour would not do a deal with the SNP, so they might as well just do it. But it still seems based on the hugely partisan assumption that anyone not willing to deal with the Tories is good stuff, and any price is worth paying to unify the anti-Tory elements.calum said:
The SNP could - as for Labour not so sure:Essexit said:Would the SNP really work with Labour? My bet is they'd either make such unreasonable demands that Labour wouldn't work with them, or find some tenuous reason to reject a coalition/C&S agreement. Keeping their Westminster outsider status is key to their brand, and we've seen in Scotland that they don't actually like governing if they can help it, as it makes it so much easier to blame England/Tories/Westminster for everything.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/04/labour-should-stop-indulging-its-scottish-party-and-broker-progressive
I understand the appeal of such a deal if one just writes off any prospect of SLAB recovery, which frankly doesn't seen crazy in the current environment, but effectively abandoning the idea of winning there again seems an odd reaction, even if fruitless resistance is, well, fruitless.
There is no hard or fast rule on what must be presented to the country in a referendum. Politically calculating would be how I would describe that action. If they had it in their manifesto that they'd only do a deal if the country switched to PR, would that be despicable for example?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure thabe more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
0 -
JCWNBPM
The End.0 -
Utter fantasy. If any thing is shifting its an acceleration of Labours decline. Labours polling average has been falling by around 1% every 2 Months for nearly a year now. That rate of decline could increase after Mays results are digested.0
-
Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.kle4 said:Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....
0 -
On boundary changes, what I found amusing was most of the comments in my area, and there were not many, fell into two categories.
The first was those calling it gerrymandering to ensure a 1 party state and/or complaining we need voting reform (including one who said they lived in a safe tory seat and the only way to change that was to make it PR, even though the Tory got over 50% of the vote), and the second was people complaining about the names of the seats. Not very many complaining about the actual boundaries themselves, though I'm sure some areas are more controversial.0 -
Labour did a poor job of communicating the intended message (or what I presume the intended message was), that the cuts were the wrong kind of cuts, somehow, presumably an issue of Tory competence. As it was they were seemingly angry the Tories had cut too far and fast, and angry they had not cut far or fast enough.Richard_Nabavi said:
Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.kle4 said:Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....
0 -
Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.
Audi SQ7
Content Or Not Content ?
0 -
Of course the Tories don't give a crap about the deficit either anymore, as a priority, so we're reaching a sort of middle ground.kle4 said:
Labour did a poor job of communicating the intended message (or what I presume the intended message was), that the cuts were the wrong kind of cuts, somehow, presumably an issue of Tory competence. As it was they were seemingly angry the Tories had cut too far and fast, and angry they had not cut far or fast enough.Richard_Nabavi said:
Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.kle4 said:Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....
0 -
Veldhiv & Vichy dominating French twitter today btw.0
-
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
There was a referendum on AV. As any number of people pointed out at the time AV is not a proportional system.RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
If French twitter resembles British twitter, I'd read about as much into that as I would into the Milifandom that hit twitter in the last general election.Pulpstar said:Veldhiv & Vichy dominating French twitter today btw.
0 -
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
As it happened the actual pace of the cuts, hammered out berween the Tories and LibDems, ended up pretty close to what Labour, rather than the Tories, had proposed prior to the 2010 election. Despite all of Balls's gurning and weird hand gestures whenever the Chancellor spoke in the House, it was effectively his own spending policy that was being implemented 2010-15.kle4 said:
Labour did a poor job of communicating the intended message (or what I presume the intended message was), that the cuts were the wrong kind of cuts, somehow, presumably an issue of Tory competence. As it was they were seemingly angry the Tories had cut too far and fast, and angry they had not cut far or fast enough.Richard_Nabavi said:
Given that Labour and the BBC spent the entire period of Cameron's premiership screaming that the cuts were too far, too fast and imposed by nasty Tories for purely ideological reasons, it's hardly surprising that voters reckon that, if the deficit didn't fall fast enough, the answer can't be Labour.kle4 said:Is it me, or do parties seem to get away with doing things (or not doing things) in government on the basis of what they profess and what people expect, that their opponents would not, again based off what people expect. So the Tories promised to balance the books by 2015, then 2017, then 2018, then 2020, and now date TBC, but people broadly believe they are going to try to do it, even though they have (rightly or otherwise) prioritised other things over meeting those manifesto committments....
0 -
People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?IanB2 said:
People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
Agreed, it's the sort of thing that ought to go to the country. And I say that as someone who'd vote for almost any change away from FPTP, barring a Party List system.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
On topic, after an initial sugar rush of excitement, Martin Schulz seems to be dropping back against Angela Merkel. It will take more than a change of leader to change the game.
What Labour currently need is a Keith Joseph / Peter Mandelson figure who's prepared to do the hard thinking required to disrupt the current consensus.0 -
Are there new German polls that aren't on the wikipedia list? He is only down a touch (edit: if that) on there, so wouldn't rule him out that quickly!AlastairMeeks said:On topic, after an initial sugar rush of excitement, Martin Schulz seems to be dropping back against Angela Merkel. It will take more than a change of leader to change the game.
What Labour currently need is a Keith Joseph / Peter Mandelson figure who's prepared to do the hard thinking required to disrupt the current consensus.0 -
Once we have PR there will be no needRobD said:
Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?IanB2 said:
People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
0 -
Sure thingIanB2 said:
Once we have PR there will be no needRobD said:
Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?IanB2 said:
People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
0 -
Established a precedent how? There's no law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.
There are many things that would be good ideas or good practice, but I think would be unfair to label as despicable if they were not followed, when they are not obliged to be done in that way. MPs resigning when changing party is another example - I think it's good and fair that they go for a by-election, but it is not required.
0 -
Gorsuch sworn in, might see the immigration case heading up to SCOTUS now - I'm genuinely not sure which way a ruling would go.0
-
Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.kle4 said:
Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.
Edit: Calling it despicable was just a bit of tongue in cheek from this FPTP junkie!0 -
Unfortunately it rather needs more than a tinkering in several areas.RobD said:
Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?IanB2 said:
People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
Unfortunately in several areas it may be it needs rather more than a tinkering.RobD said:
Agreed. Perhaps we can go ten years or so without tinkering endlessly with the constitution?IanB2 said:
People have had quite enough of referendums. On that there does at least appear to be consensus.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.0 -
Not really. We had them before. Then we didn't have them. The age was 18, then in Scotland 16.RobD said:
Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.kle4 said:
Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe, but that’s about it. Would the Nats go into coalition either? And anyway, could there be enough common interest between the SNP (and PC) and Labour, or indeed, would the price demanded be more than Labour would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.
Edit: Calling it despicable was just a bit of tongue in cheek from this FPTP junkie!
Politics is the art of what politicians can get away with. Precedent is (almost) irrelevant, except as a debating point.0 -
You could argue that they were different (devolution vs. independence), but fair enough. I still think it would be extremely difficult for Westminster to say that there must be a minimum turnout requirement, for example.IanB2 said:
Not really. We had them before. Then we didn't have them. The age was 18, then in Scotland 16.
Politics is the art of what politicians can get away with. Precedent is (almost) irrelevant, except as a debating point.0 -
That's true, unfortunately, though I think it would be easier to make the argument re changing the voting system generally. It could be Labour and LDs for instance both support it, in which case if they together form a majority in the house by the logic of those who oppose PR they have the right to implement that change even if together they have less than 50% of the vote. Sure, they might take some stick for that, but not so much it would ut them off necessarily.RobD said:
Not a legal precedent, but a political one. For example, it'd be very hard to argue for changes in the franchise or adding turnout requirements for any future indy ref.kle4 said:
Established a precedent how? There's now law that such a change must be in a referendum, and parliaments do not bind their successors.RobD said:
Referendum about changing the voting system. I think it establishes the precedent that any change needs to be confirmed via a referendum.OldKingCole said:
What referendum about PR was that?RobD said:
And given they were defeated in the referendum last time, no doubt they'd push it through without one. Despicable (my totally unbiased opinion).IanB2 said:
The only way it would work is if the new government immediately put through a change to PR for Westminster and then agreed to go to the country again after say the first two years. Having been bitten once there is no way the LibDems would go into coalition again for any lesser prize.OldKingCole said:
I’m not sure that the LD’s will go into a Coalition with anyone any time soon. Confidence and supply maybe would pay.Tissue_Price said:
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.TheScreamingEagles said:
Labour need not make a single gain at the next election to form the next government.Casino_Royale said:Labour would need to make about 50 gains from the Tories (in England and Wales) to be in with a shout of forming a government with the SNP in GE2020.
To do it outright, they'd need close on one hundred. After the boundary changes, it'll be an even bigger number.
Where are these going to come from?
30 Lib Dem gains from the Blues makes a Rainbow Alliance government viable.
It may be that it is a good idea, and that it would and should be criticised if done otherwise, but particularly if it was a commitment of one party, as a red line in a negotiation, and the senior partner knowing that decided it was a price worth paying to get their commitments through, well that seems like standard political horse trading.
0 -
Regarding a betting strategy for the next GE, I will wait until the outcome of the parliamentary vote on the boundary review in 2018, and until the shape of the Brexit deal becomes clear in late 2018 and early 2019, before fully committing myself. The former matters for the maths, the latter for the political reaction.
If Corbyn is still there at T-12 months to GE2020 I'll take that as a sign Labour have run out of time to claw back their position too, even if they do chuck him in the final months.
However, I expect Tories most seats to be a steal and might start backing that even earlier.0 -
When is len due to win reelection anyway?0
-
19th April, according to this - http://www.unitetheunion.org/growing-our-union/about-us/structure/2017-general-secretary-election/kle4 said:When is len due to win reelection anyway?
Edit: results on the 28th0 -
Surely some mistake?
'Poll: Nicola Sturgeon enjoys ‘highest approval in Scotland’
The First Minister is the only domestic politician with a positive approval rating in Scotland, according to a new poll. The Scottish sample of 906 found that 53% of respondents viewed Nicola Sturgeon’s performance above the rating of 50 out of 100, giving the SNP leader an +11% net approval rating.'
The PB Ruthy fan club writ large.
'The poll by Tory peer Lord Ashcroft found 54% of respondents north of the border placed Ruth Davidson below 50 out of 100, with 58% having a similar view of Theresa May’s performance.
...But respondents UK-wide took a more favourable view of Davidson’s performance, with a mean score of 38.1. The First Minister scored 32.4.'
http://tinyurl.com/lzs4rlo
0 -
On topic, I do think the old phrase "Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them" is either routinely misinterpreted or plain wrong.
Whilst an election like 2001 was probably unwinnable even if Hague had been much more effective than he was, simply because there was a huge mountain to climb and the economy looked pretty strong at the time, most elections aren't like that.
Looking back at past Government re-elections, we were in recession in 1992, the Conservative Party was divided, John Major untested. Could Labour have won were it not for concerns over Neil Kinnock's ability? Of course. Would 2005 have been different had the Tories not chosen IDS over Clarke (who was opposed to the Iraq invasion remember) in 2001? Very possibly. Likewise, in 2015, any other Miliband would quite possibly have done the business for Labour.
Certainly, how well the Government does in office is not directly in the Opposition's control (although they may be able to inflict defeats, or help create an atmosphere of crisis). If Britain is booming in 2020 and we have a Brexit deal beyond our wildest dreams then no Labour leader has a chance.
But if, as is quite likely, the economy is sluggish, austerity is continuing to bite (particularly on the NHS), and the Brexit deal is poor or non-existent, then all the conditions will be there for a Labour win... but under Corbyn, it won't happen. They say "if you want to win the lottery, first buy a ticket". Corbyn simply isn't a ticket.0 -
Well I have come late to the party.
As I read it, Don expects to achieve Government by having an electable leader.
Trouble is : the members who vote for the leader want a left wing leader who is politically pure.
So is Don proposing to change the memberships' opinions? Or hope they all leave?
And I will remind Don that McCluskey is the man who supported : Brown. Miliband and .. Corbyn.. McCluskey is NOT the solution: he is part of the problem. Anyone he supports is useless. Politically that is.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
