politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls aren’t moving but Labour shouldn’t be too concerned

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?

Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.

So what you're saying is that there are naturally more Tory than Labour voters but Labour can win if they lull Tories into wasting their votes?

Or that there is a chunk of naturally liberal voters that the system forces into backing the Tories when the prospect of majority Labour power is particularly frightening.

I think that’s right.

On topic, Keir Starmer has zero charisma but so did Clement Attlee.

I can see all sorts of reasons why Labour might win in 2024.

Alistair said:

I see Fearless Truth Teller Alistair Haimes has blocked me for pointing out he was using lagged Swedish data to pretend there was a rapid fall in deaths. All it took was posting todays graph after he had posted yesterdays and pointing out 4 days had had their numbers revised up completely eliminating the fall.

Absolutely shameless wanker.

Poor show

IanB2 said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?

Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.

Or the SNP don’t clean up in Scotland

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Anecdata

Lockdown seems to be breaking down this weekend. Three unsolicited visitors today, just popping round. There is a little VE BBQ down the road. Son has been invited to go round to someone’s house. 🤷‍♂️

Told you. Well, not you. But everyone.

This Government followed public opinion into the lockdown (late) and will follow it out of it as well (late).

I will be doing my own act of rebellion against it tomorrow. It’s horseshit.

What will happen is the rozzers will make headline news in overreacting to very minor infractions this weekend that are on the way out in 60 hours anyway, and the press furore from that will embarrass the Government into action.

Still 20,000 new infections a day...I can give a BBQ a miss given that.

I await the outcry when we have to lock down again in 6 weeks, because it is out of control again.

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.

Now repeat the same stat for their opposite numbers.

Gaining votes isn't impressive if for every vote you win you drive two more for your opponents.

Strikes me as more impressive to get people to actually vote for you than to be inoffensive enough to split your opponents votes in a way that suits the current electoral system. Maybe Corbyn believed in his politics more than he craved power, I think that’s quite admirable.

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

May also got more votes in 2017 than any Tory leader since 1992 (until Boris), all that happened was the UKIP and LD votes were squeezed equally by the main parties

Its amazing that the "most hated" "least popular" "worst ever" Labour leader managed to trick nearly 13m voters into voting for him in 2017 though. Highest Labour vote in this Millennium.

Alistair said:

I see Fearless Truth Teller Alistair Haimes has blocked me for pointing out he was using lagged Swedish data to pretend there was a rapid fall in deaths. All it took was posting todays graph after he had posted yesterdays and pointing out 4 days had had their numbers revised up completely eliminating the fall.

Meanwhile, Sweden continues to move up the deaths/capita chart. Overtook the Dutch today, now in 6th place and chasing down France.

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

May also got more votes in 2017 than any Tory leader since 1992 (until Boris), all that happened was the UKIP and LD votes were squeezed equally by the main parties

Its amazing that the "most hated" "least popular" "worst ever" Labour leader managed to trick nearly 13m voters into voting for him in 2017 though. Highest Labour vote in this Millennium.

Like many others I voted Labour despite him.

NHS England 7 day trend

Andrew said:

Alistair said:

I see Fearless Truth Teller Alistair Haimes has blocked me for pointing out he was using lagged Swedish data to pretend there was a rapid fall in deaths. All it took was posting todays graph after he had posted yesterdays and pointing out 4 days had had their numbers revised up completely eliminating the fall.

Meanwhile, Sweden continues to move up the deaths/capita chart. Overtook the Dutch today, now in 6th place and chasing down France.

44% of Stockholm covid deaths in care homes

“ Antal avlidna

Totalt 1 660 personer med bekräftad covid-19 har hittills avlidit. Det innebär att 56 ytterligare personer har rapporterats avlidna.

Av 1 660 personer som har avlidit i Region Stockholm av covid-19 så är det 727 personer som är provtagna på ett SÄBO.”

https://www.sll.se/verksamhet/halsa-och-vard/nyheter-halsa-och-vard/2020/05/8-maj-lagesrapport-om-arbetet-med-det-nya-coronaviruset/

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.

Now repeat the same stat for their opposite numbers.

Gaining votes isn't impressive if for every vote you win you drive two more for your opponents.

Strikes me as more impressive to get people to actually vote for you than to be inoffensive enough to split your opponents votes in a way that suits the current electoral system. Maybe Corbyn believed in his politics more than he craved power, I think that’s quite admirable.

I don't at all.

He believed in his politics so strongly the nation gave the Tories an 80 seat majority. How's that furthering his politics?

Being inoffensive can be a strength not a weakness.

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

May also got more votes in 2017 than any Tory leader since 1992 (until Boris), all that happened was the UKIP and LD votes were squeezed equally by the main parties

Its amazing that the "most hated" "least popular" "worst ever" Labour leader managed to trick nearly 13m voters into voting for him in 2017 though. Highest Labour vote in this Millennium.

Also lowest number of Labour seats since 1935 in 2019 and still fewer seats than Blair ever got or Kinnock got in 1992 in 2017

tyson said:

DavidL said:

What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

Comrade...you obviously hold yourself in high esteem if you think a QC of the year and Head of the CPS is mildly competent....and he got there from nowhere....you obviously have superhuman powers of intellect to judge so harshly...

I am not judging him as a lawyer but as a politician where so far, other than the obvious steps in relation to anti-Semitism, he has done very little to make a mark. His performance at PMQs this week was pretty typical. It was a reasonably competent piece of cross examination, not flashy but competent. As a political event I think it achieved next to nothing.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.

Now repeat the same stat for their opposite numbers.

Gaining votes isn't impressive if for every vote you win you drive two more for your opponents.

Strikes me as more impressive to get people to actually vote for you than to be inoffensive enough to split your opponents votes in a way that suits the current electoral system. Maybe Corbyn believed in his politics more than he craved power, I think that’s quite admirable.

I don't at all.

He believed in his politics so strongly the nation gave the Tories an 80 seat majority. How's that furthering his politics?

Being inoffensive can be a strength not a weakness.

Yes, I said it “strikes ME as more impressive”, not that you had to agree. I’d rather keep my philosophy and lose than play the game and maybe win, maybe lose, so I guess I’m more inclined to think well of others who do so.

Our voting system doesn’t suit conviction politicians, but I’d rather they all were and see where we end up than everyone gaming the system to get power

Of course, there’s an obvious Corbyn parallel.

In 2010 he got the highest ever vote for his party.

In 2015 it didn’t work quite as well.

But at least Clegg got his party into government.

Going backwards in opposition to a minority government run by first Theresa May and then by a man accused of breaking the constitution is quite a feat.

isam said:

IanB2 said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?

Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.

Or the SNP don’t clean up in Scotland

Or you could say that to win an election in a democracy you need to build a coalition.

In some countries, that it is a literal coalition of parties.

Most often, in the UK, it is a coalition within a party. Neither Labour or Conservatives (or Liberal Democrats!) can win on their core vote. So they need to reach out to floating voters.

Blair was successful in this, by constructing a coalition of "Social Democrats".

Corbyn wanted a party of true believers. All others not welcome.

BannedinnParis said:

"But, 2017" will be a wonderful epitaph.

Especially when Corbynism's greatest victory produced a higher Tory seat total and a bigger Tory-Labour gap than New Labour's worst defeat...

Mr. Borough, I have some sympathy with that view, although an earlier lockdown may also have been shorter.

In unrelated news, I had a ramble about Oblivion (Elder Scrolls IV):
https://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2020/05/oblivion-reminiscing.html

Casino_Royale said:

Black_Rook said:

Jonathan said:

Anecdata

Lockdown seems to be breaking down this weekend. Three unsolicited visitors today, just popping round. There is a little VE BBQ down the road. Son has been invited to go round to someone’s house. 🤷‍♂️

Concurs with my observation of apparently much increased road traffic today. I imagine that rather a lot of visits to family and friends will be taking place over the BH weekend.

The Government has no-one to blame but itself.

It’s been heavily trailing all sorts of loosening in the papers over the last few days (those articles saying that unlimited socially-distanced outdoor activity, picnics and sunbathing, and permitted mixing with only one other chosen household from Downing Street “sources” weren’t just conjured up out of thin air) but it wasn’t sure how popular it was due to far too literal reading of headline polling numbers and then chickened out at the 11th hour due to ‘care homes’, which is a disaster of its own making.

They should have made the announcement yesterday at 8pm after their review. Instead, they’ve decided to do it late on Sunday night and only give the benefits to the oldies.

It’s really pissed people off. Many were really looking forward to this weekend, and are happy to continue to act responsibly but want the Government to be reasonable.

The Government haven’t been reasonable (instead trying to tell people to “keep going” in adds yesterday) and so people have had enough and are now taking matters into their own hands.

That is not a good look, what has he given the oldies , nobody has a real clue as yet. What has England come to with its obsessive hatred of anybody over 60, what kind of arseholes have been raised down there.

Jonathan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jonathan said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

How many seats did he win in 2019?

DYOR

Do you think Labour will ever top 12,868,460 votes under SKS?

No idea. It’s certainly possible. Depends if the left stop sulking.

Your against the left sulking now good.

The author of this thread has been sulker in Chief for 4 years at least in and out of Labour more often than Mia Farrow.

I predicted earlier that we will get more votes and seats than 2019 but probably only a similar number of seats to 2017 and probably less votes

It will be fantastic if we do better.

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

Present for @bigjohnowls
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/876894066478329857

bigjohnowls said:

Jonathan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Jonathan said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

How many seats did he win in 2019?

DYOR

Do you think Labour will ever top 12,868,460 votes under SKS?

No idea. It’s certainly possible. Depends if the left stop sulking.

Your against the left sulking now good.

The author of this thread has been sulker in Chief for 4 years at least in and out of Labour more often than Mia Farrow.

I predicted earlier that we will get more votes and seats than 2019 but probably only a similar number of seats to 2017 and probably less votes

It will be fantastic if we do better.

The seats won in 2017 were meh. Still a loooooong way from a majority. The less said about the 2019 debacle the better.

Starmer has an almost impossible job.

Casino_Royale said:

The Government has no-one to blame but itself.

It’s been heavily trailing all sorts of loosening in the papers over the last few days (those articles saying that unlimited socially-distanced outdoor activity, picnics and sunbathing, and permitted mixing with only one other chosen household from Downing Street “sources” weren’t just conjured up out of thin air) but it wasn’t sure how popular it was due to far too literal reading of headline polling numbers and then chickened out at the 11th hour due to ‘care homes’, which is a disaster of its own making.

They should have made the announcement yesterday at 8pm after their review. Instead, they’ve decided to do it late on Sunday night and only give the benefits to the oldies.

It’s really pissed people off. Many were really looking forward to this weekend, and are happy to continue to act responsibly but want the Government to be reasonable.

The Government haven’t been reasonable (instead trying to tell people to “keep going” in adds yesterday) and so people have had enough and are now taking matters into their own hands.

The problem is Johnson is terrified of being unpopular (he's not used to it) and is therefore incapable of saying what he thinks people don't want to hear.

On Wednesday he tried to placate both the pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown groups and ended up annoying them both. Sunak's flip-flopping on the furlough money also suggests division and drift in the Cabinet. There's obviously a faction who thinks this has gone on long enough and the economic damage unsupportable.

This chimes with US stock market sentiment (the DJIA goes on rising and NASDAQ is positive for the year) which thinks the re-opening in several states will lead to a surge in economic activity such that in a few months the US economy will be humming along, Trump will get re-elected and all this will seem a bad dream.

Perhaps but indications are after an early surge activity remains slack - people are scared still and the US case numbers don't inspire confidence. We'll see.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1258750892448387074

I suppose no PPE at all is an improvement on stuff covered in Trumpence slavers.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

How many years did Blair serve as PM?
How many years did JICIPM serve as PM?

Ah, but JICIPM won the argument even if he lost an eighth of Labour’s seats

Jonathan said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

May also got more votes in 2017 than any Tory leader since 1992 (until Boris), all that happened was the UKIP and LD votes were squeezed equally by the main parties

Its amazing that the "most hated" "least popular" "worst ever" Labour leader managed to trick nearly 13m voters into voting for him in 2017 though. Highest Labour vote in this Millennium.

Like many others I voted Labour despite him.

.. or to stop the Tories getting a large majority and pursuing a hard Brexit.

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

IanB2 said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?

Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.

Or the SNP don’t clean up in Scotland

Or you could say that to win an election in a democracy you need to build a coalition.

In some countries, that it is a literal coalition of parties.

Most often, in the UK, it is a coalition within a party. Neither Labour or Conservatives (or Liberal Democrats!) can win on their core vote. So they need to reach out to floating voters.

Blair was successful in this, by constructing a coalition of "Social Democrats".

Corbyn wanted a party of true believers. All others not welcome.

Yeah and his supporters online denouncing their own voters as Red Tories and telling them to go. So they did.

You can see that with intolerant people in other parties too. Wanting those who aren't true blue hardcore conservative to vote for other parties. That is a recipe for losing.

Slightly off topic, for which I apologise this story seems to be receiving less attention than it might: the German Constitutional court ruled that bond buying by ECB was ultra vires and that the Bundesbank should withdraw from it in 3 months if no new justification is given: https://www.politico.eu/article/german-court-lays-down-eu-law/

The CJE has replied stating, "oh no you don't" : https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/top-eu-court-says-it-alone-decides-if-eu-bodies-are-breaking-blocs-rules/ar-BB13MJYU?ocid=spartanntp
But who does the German government listen to?

What this jurisdictional spat shows is how difficult any form of QE is going to be for the ECB. And the consequences of that for the EZ economy are going to be severe.

kinabalu said:

I'm on Primrose Hill. It's rocking, unfortunately.

Same people will be blaming the government when death rate spikes in a month....

Mr. L, that was mentioned here the other day but it's not been the hot topic elsewhere, so far as I know.

We'll see what happens.

Mr. Andrew, unsure of Mexican demographics beyond Mexico City being an absolutely enormous urban centre which must make things pretty difficult to arrest once things have gotten going.

HYUFD said:

Churchill's victory speech now playing on BBC1

Didn't realise he was standing in the 2010 GE!

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.

Now repeat the same stat for their opposite numbers.

Gaining votes isn't impressive if for every vote you win you drive two more for your opponents.

Strikes me as more impressive to get people to actually vote for you than to be inoffensive enough to split your opponents votes in a way that suits the current electoral system. Maybe Corbyn believed in his politics more than he craved power, I think that’s quite admirable.

I don't at all.

He believed in his politics so strongly the nation gave the Tories an 80 seat majority. How's that furthering his politics?

Being inoffensive can be a strength not a weakness.

Yes, I said it “strikes ME as more impressive”, not that you had to agree. I’d rather keep my philosophy and lose than play the game and maybe win, maybe lose, so I guess I’m more inclined to think well of others who do so.

Our voting system doesn’t suit conviction politicians, but I’d rather they all were and see where we end up than everyone gaming the system to get power

That's the difference. Conviction politicians in general scare me. I'd rather people are free to run their own lives according to their own convictions than have politicians who have firm convictions dictate to them how to live their life according to whichever politicians in charge today.

Gaming the system means reaching a compromise with the nation the nation is happiest with.

I think you are just twisting things to make your preference seem more valid than mine to be honest. We can disagree without needing to do that.

I'm not twisting things I respect your PoV I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.

Lots of people refer to conviction politicians like it's a good thing and I understand why. But few concepts are scarier for me than the idea of a government of conviction politicians. It's the same reason I despise organised religions. Convictions are not a good thing once you start to use your convictions to tell others how to live.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Facebook and Google have said they will let employees continue working from home for the rest of the year.

My own business hasn't gone that far but according to my husband (we work for the same company, me in a lab but him in an office role) WFH is to continue wherever possible for the time being.

There are also noises about a phased return to work for some production staff in elements of the company that have been temporarily inactive, due to their customers all being car manufacturers. He reckons that the Government has already been in contact with our high command about what Johnson plans to announce on Sunday, to enable the company to start to plan accordingly.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.

Now repeat the same stat for their opposite numbers.

Gaining votes isn't impressive if for every vote you win you drive two more for your opponents.

Strikes me as more impressive to get people to actually vote for you than to be inoffensive enough to split your opponents votes in a way that suits the current electoral system. Maybe Corbyn believed in his politics more than he craved power, I think that’s quite admirable.

I don't at all.

He believed in his politics so strongly the nation gave the Tories an 80 seat majority. How's that furthering his politics?

Being inoffensive can be a strength not a weakness.

Yes, I said it “strikes ME as more impressive”, not that you had to agree. I’d rather keep my philosophy and lose than play the game and maybe win, maybe lose, so I guess I’m more inclined to think well of others who do so.

Our voting system doesn’t suit conviction politicians, but I’d rather they all were and see where we end up than everyone gaming the system to get power

That's the difference. Conviction politicians in general scare me. I'd rather people are free to run their own lives according to their own convictions than have politicians who have firm convictions dictate to them how to live their life according to whichever politicians in charge today.

Gaming the system means reaching a compromise with the nation the nation is happiest with.

I think you are just twisting things to make your preference seem more valid than mine to be honest. We can disagree without needing to do that.

I'm not twisting things I respect your PoV I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.

Lots of people refer to conviction politicians like it's a good thing and I understand why. But few concepts are scarier for me than the idea of a government of conviction politicians. It's the same reason I despise organised religions. Convictions are not a good thing once you start to use your convictions to tell others how to live.

Ok well at least you respect my PoV. Fair does.

I reckon cross party coalitions are actually better than internal party coalitions, as the fighting is more accepted rather than seen as a fracture, but we are where we are

kinabalu said:

I'm on Primrose Hill. It's rocking, unfortunately.

Are people keeping 2 metres apart from each other?

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

I know it's a long way out but I make Labour favourites for the next election. Reason - the tough choice the Tories will face on tax. Big spending cuts are out so tax is going up - a lot - once the economy is off its knees. If they do this in steeply progressive fashion hitting the affluent - by which I mean not just the rich but the many millions who are merely comfortable - they lose their traditional base. And if they don't, they lose their new base, the RedWallers.

Taxes are not going up, Boris and Sunak will borrow rather than put up tax

Taxes should go up - or at least be drawn from a wider tax base

I'm sure that they will - and this time the main targets will be whatever is left of the middle class (i.e. those of us who won't be ruined by the forthcoming era of mass unemployment.) Assuming that I still have a job when this is all over (not guaranteed but it's about the only thing about which I feel cautiously optimistic at the moment) then I expect to be squeezed quite hard by HMRC.

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

BluestBlue said:

BannedinnParis said:

"But, 2017" will be a wonderful epitaph.

Especially when Corbynism's greatest victory produced a higher Tory seat total and a bigger Tory-Labour gap than New Labour's worst defeat...

4.6m more votes and more seats than 2010 though

Big John, why are you still fighting yesterday's battles? If you want to see the back of Johnson in 2024 Starmer is the only game in town.

The thread is about can Labour succeed going forward.

It wont succeed if people like Joff, Rochdale who didnt even vote Labour 5 months ago werent even in the party 5 months ago cant stop banging on about how everything is Corbyns fault and how great SKS is.

The Lab decline started way before SKS became leader and New Labour, Old Labour, or Corbyn Labour have not succeeded in turning it around.

The thread is about will SKS succeed my first post in the thread and at least 3 others have contained my prediction on that.

Isam has given the best analysis in several posts of Labs problems IMO

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

IanB2 said:

isam said:

DavidL said:

What Starmer offers is a slightly boring, mildly competent, reasonably intelligent alternative. That gives the people a choice that was frankly not there in the Corbyn years and those that supported that regime should really reflect deeply about it no matter how distasteful they find the Tory alternative.

This government faces very difficult choices, very difficult trade offs and will inevitably be vulnerable to the benefits of hindsight on top of the usual patina of incompetence. At the moment the majority seem to recognise this and give them the benefit of the doubt. It may not always be like that and now that there is an alternative that could have very negative consequences.

I also think that one of the possible side effects of this wretched virus is a stronger sense of community, of all being in it together and the unacceptability of life and death itself being determined by inequality, poor housing and health inequality. After WW2, which we remember today, the country went left in response to such communitarian sentiments. It could happen again. Boris at least is alert to the danger and the zeitgeist. Whether enough of his party is likewise remains to be seen.

Corbyn’s Labour’s vote number was incredible. Why do people assume someone else would have done, or could do, better?

Because Labour’s dirty secret is that they can only win (under our warped electoral system) when they are sufficiently inoffensive to allow many Tories to feel safe enough to vote Liberal.

Or the SNP don’t clean up in Scotland

Or you could say that to win an election in a democracy you need to build a coalition.

In some countries, that it is a literal coalition of parties.

Most often, in the UK, it is a coalition within a party. Neither Labour or Conservatives (or Liberal Democrats!) can win on their core vote. So they need to reach out to floating voters.

Blair was successful in this, by constructing a coalition of "Social Democrats".

Corbyn wanted a party of true believers. All others not welcome.

Yeah and his supporters online denouncing their own voters as Red Tories and telling them to go. So they did.

You can see that with intolerant people in other parties too. Wanting those who aren't true blue hardcore conservative to vote for other parties. That is a recipe for losing.

But look how Starmer fans treat Corbynites - much the same way as the reverse. The blind faith that their slither of centrism is the virtuous path leads to constant denouncements of everyone else.

+1

DavidL said:

Slightly off topic, for which I apologise this story seems to be receiving less attention than it might: the German Constitutional court ruled that bond buying by ECB was ultra vires and that the Bundesbank should withdraw from it in 3 months if no new justification is given: https://www.politico.eu/article/german-court-lays-down-eu-law/

The CJE has replied stating, "oh no you don't" : https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/top-eu-court-says-it-alone-decides-if-eu-bodies-are-breaking-blocs-rules/ar-BB13MJYU?ocid=spartanntp
But who does the German government listen to?

What this jurisdictional spat shows is how difficult any form of QE is going to be for the ECB. And the consequences of that for the EZ economy are going to be severe.

Reading the latest on how the Eurozone plans to finance the economic devastation after corona, Its not clear to me whether Germany is finally agreeing to some measure of common financing or not.

Andy_JS said:

kinabalu said:

I'm on Primrose Hill. It's rocking, unfortunately.

Are people keeping 2 metres apart from each other?

In Primrose Hill, I would haver thought that was a prerequisite///

Anybody got the tape measure out to check they were sufficiently socially distanced?

https://twitter.com/wabbey/status/1258780535310213121?s=19

I don't think Labour position is that bad. Anyone who wants to make predictions whilst we have two existential crises - Brexit and Covid 19 - going on is a bit mad.

The support for the government is shallow. Given the complexity of Brexit and Scotland, piecing together a majority will no doubt be a difficult challenge though. Starmer seems off to a good start. Written an inoffensive article in the Telegraph for VE Day.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Wow. Of course one can proffer theories till the cows come home but this - this cold hard stat right here - is what it is. A cold hard stat. Most Labour votes this century - and easily - came under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. I will sign off exactly as I started. Wow.

Now repeat the same stat for their opposite numbers.

Gaining votes isn't impressive if for every vote you win you drive two more for your opponents.

Strikes me as more impressive to get people to actually vote for you than to be inoffensive enough to split your opponents votes in a way that suits the current electoral system. Maybe Corbyn believed in his politics more than he craved power, I think that’s quite admirable.

I don't at all.

He believed in his politics so strongly the nation gave the Tories an 80 seat majority. How's that furthering his politics?

Being inoffensive can be a strength not a weakness.

Quite. Having no principles or political beliefs is one thing, having principles and beliefs so rigid and unbending that you are unable to achieve anything, is quite another. Corbyn wasn't even as unbending as leader as presented, he was not quite the same man he was at the end as he was at the start, but ultimately as a leader he has to be judged on results, not on his personal politics (for better and ill) and even his greatest event was a loss. That he is reduced to desperately claiming to have inspired or driven opponents to actions is a sign of that failure - those with success don't need to claim that as the best they can hope for as a win. Though I can see how it might wrankle his devotees if Starmer, more blandly and perhaps largely as a result of changing circumstance, eclipsed him.

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

Yes. He got loads of votes and the very thought that he might become PM motivated an even more gigantic number of people to come out and keep him away from power.

bigjohnowls said:

Jonathan said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

Back on Topic

Labour votes at all GE's this Millennium

2001 Blair 10,724,952

2005 Blair 9,552,436

2010 Brown 8,609,526

2015 EICIPM 9,436,273

2017 Jezza 12,868,460

2019 Jezza 10,269,051

Ranking in terms of total votes Jezza 1st and 3rd "most unpopular leader of all time"

Blair "the great vote winner" 2nd and 4th

EICIPM 5th

Gordy 6th

Anyone fancy SKS chances of getting to 12,868,460

Note you conveniently missed out Blair's 13.5 million votes in 1997.

Kinnock also got 11.5 million votes in 1992 as did Callaghan in 1979 ie more than Corbyn got in 2019

Joff thinks Corbyn is the least successful leader in Lab ever.

Do the 2017 numbers support that view?

How many seats did he win in 2019?

DYOR

Do you think Labour will ever top 12,868,460 votes under SKS?

He doesn't need to. In previous elections people looked at the Labour leader and thought I don't like him/he's not in my team but he is reasonable enough and won't endanger the country so they stayed at home.

With Corbyn they thought dear god we can't let him become PM.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

tlg86 said:

An excellent thread Joff. My advice to the Labour leadership would be to have a think about how they’ll react to the really big decisions. So far they’ve been in the comfortable position to criticise the execution of policy. More tests and PPE - who would support more of that?

But at some point the government will face some stark choices. For example, would Labour support a bailout of one or more banks? When tax rises are announced, Labour will inevitably want to criticise them, but how would they pay for this? The public may be more supportive of tax rises than Labour expects.

Starmer will push for wealth taxes and a return to the 50% top rate of income tax, the Tories will not raise tax on the rich

The Tories have spent the last decade putting taxes up on the rich where appropriate. You are an embarrassment for the party, a far left stereotype of a heartless Tory bastard.

Uh no they have not.

Osborne cut the 50% top rate of income tax back to 45% and Osborne also cut inheritance tax for wealthy couples and their children.

He imposed a non dom levy, that was it

Cutting the top rate increased the percentage of income tax paid by the wealthiest.

He also imposed the envelope tax.

bigjohnowls said:

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

BluestBlue said:

BannedinnParis said:

"But, 2017" will be a wonderful epitaph.

Especially when Corbynism's greatest victory produced a higher Tory seat total and a bigger Tory-Labour gap than New Labour's worst defeat...

4.6m more votes and more seats than 2010 though

Big John, why are you still fighting yesterday's battles? If you want to see the back of Johnson in 2024 Starmer is the only game in town

The thread is about can Labour succeed going forward.

It wont succeed if people like Joff, Rochdale who didnt even vote Labour 5 months ago werent even in the party 5 months ago cant stop banging on about how everything is Corbyns fault and how great SKS is.

The Lab decline started way before SKS became leader and New Labour, Old Labour, or Corbyn Labour have not succeeded in turning it around.

The thread is about will SKS succeed my first post in the thread and at least 3 others have contained my prediction on that.

Isam has given the best analysis in several posts of Labs
problems IMO

I don’t think Starmer is great. I just think he’s a lot better than what came before. He wasn’t my first choice for leader, he’s to the left of me economically, while he is not exactly inspirational. However, he is on top of his brief, he is clearly not a threat to national security and he has assembled a front bench team that makes the most of what the PLP has to offer - no more Burgon or Gardiner humiliating the party on national TV. I see all those as positives. I get that you don’t and I get that you believe Jeremy Cirbyn was harshly treated. Frankly, I think that he got what his 40 years of backing anti-Semites and anti-western causes was always going to get - the complete disdain of most voters. As for 2017, I see that as an election in which Labour benefited hugely from a disastrous May campaign, but which we still lost because Corbyn drove so many to the Tories!

NickPalmer said:

Malmesbury said:

Or you could say that to win an election in a democracy you need to build a coalition.

In some countries, that it is a literal coalition of parties.

Most often, in the UK, it is a coalition within a party. Neither Labour or Conservatives (or Liberal Democrats!) can win on their core vote. So they need to reach out to floating voters.

Blair was successful in this, by constructing a coalition of "Social Democrats".

Corbyn wanted a party of true believers. All others not welcome.

As isam says, he's a principled politician who didn't see gaining power as the first priority. One can argue, as many here have done, that gaining power is always the first priority as you can't do anything without it. But it's not the only possible view.

It's a range not a binary choice, pretending you have to be one or the other is in fact one of the major problems with our politics. You don't have to be a win at all costs political snake, bur nor do you need to prioritise purist activism over gaining power either.

It reminds me, once more, given the 2010 talk of the leader's debates then. I thought Brown had done fine in one of them, but because he was not as slick as the others his designated spinner that night went on about how it was about substance not style, presenting a false choice that you could not have both, and in the process making Brown look so much worse than he actually was. The presenting of false dichotomys happens all the time in political discourse, I'm not immune to the temptation myself, but it is usually a good sign that what is being sais is bullshit.

Just a general point, since 2008, the UK has had 4 general elections, 3 referenda, 3 sets of european elections, and increasingly high profile local elections every year.

This has been accompanied with ever pervasive social media and a distinct coarsening in tone of the campaigns.

One thing has remained near constant - the 'left' argument has lost. It might have won seemingly vital wins at points in between the elections. It might have near complete air superiority on Twitter but, when things mattered, well, the results are below:

2009 - 3rd place in the Euros, UKIP 1st
2010 - lost power
2011 - AV rejected
2014 - 2nd place in the Euros, UKIP 1st
2014 - scottish independence rejected
2015 - actually went backwards (!)
2016 - Brexit
2017 - did not win majority
2019 - 3rd place (again) in the Euros, UKIP Brexit Part 1st
2019 - hammered

As far as I have seen, there has been no self reflection on the argument, the tactics, any of it. The message of Starmer's election was "we need unity, we all get behind the new new thing and ONE MORE HEAVE".

What's really telling is that the tactics, such as they are, have not yet changed this spring. Set to transmit, TRY HARDER, chase those ambulances.