Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
Labour not winning the popular vote in England in 20 years, such as popular vote matters, is one of those things that seems both surprising and not surprising at the same time, given how results have gone. What happened?
Tony Blair retired.
The Tories actually won the popular vote in England even in 2005 under Howard, though Blair's Labour still won a majority of English seats.
You have to go back to 2001 when Blair won his landslide over Hague to find the last time Labour won both the popular vote in England and a majority of English seats
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Dont underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
A healthy society requires a competitive democracy where everyone knows they have a fair chance to win. Perpetual Tory Government risks becoming stale, complacent, arrogant, and self-interested, failing to respond to the needs of all parts of our society with the necessary reforms,
Replace “Tory” with SNP and see Scotland.....the worrying thing there is the complacency, arrogance and self interest also appears to be infecting the Civil Service, Crown Office and Quangocracy.
Good thread - we have several Labour posters who illustrate the problem - one recently voters were not worthy of voting Labour...
Or replace ‘Tory’ with ‘Labour’ and see Wales.
Or of course, keep ‘Tory’ and see Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1972.
Craig’s UUP was deeply unpleasant. But not Tory.
So he didn’t serve as a Tory junior minister from 1918-21?
I think Social Democracy and for that matter one nation conservatism is struggling.
Voters are fed up with their lot in life as Capitalism eats itself with the greadies getting fatter at the expense of those at the bottom starving, literally.
Will this lead to Socialism? No, that chance was lost, narrowly, in 2017, much more likely to be an extreme right wing regime IMO
At the moment voters are actually shifting to social democracy on economics but the populist right on social policy.
So it is liberalism and libertarianism struggling, hence the dire current ratings for the LDs and ReformUK making little headway on an anti lockdown ticket, while Boris' One Nation Tories plus Brexit and Starmer's Social Democratic Labour Party combined win comfortably over 80% of the vote now
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Part of the issue is the structural leverage that the (now) public sector unions have over Labour (which was originally their parliamentary wing). It’s fine and natural that the unions support a party of the left but it is unhealthy that they can directly influence.* The problem is that they - naturally - influence the party’s agenda in their own interests
That set Labour up very well when there was a mass industrialised working class that largely voted for them. As we move away from class based voted, I suspect that the LibDems (or SDP) would be a better vehicle for the leftish vote. If they can get their act together.
* I am not pretending there isn’t a problem with Tory sources of finance, but it isn’t institutionalised as it is with Labour.
On topic, interesting header, and I respect Casino's effort to be objective. In the opposite way, I hope the Republicans sort themselves out as permanent Democrat rule probably wouldn't be healthy.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Is it Labour that needs Scotland though? In 2017 Theresa May was saved by Ruth Davidson's ScotCon revival.
Even in 2017 the Tories won a majority in England but not in Scotland nor Wales
But without the Scots Tory seats May would, at best, only been able to form a minority Government. In fact, wouldn't Corbyn have been in a better position?
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Anyway, thank you all for your kind words. It's good to get an interesting debate going.
I have to go now as my toddler is giving me grief for not giving her enough attention, and doesn't appreciate me being on my phone.
Will try and drop in later!
Great piece CR, thank you.
I am baffled that eg Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper aren't on the front bench.
If Labour lose again, they'll have almost no institutional memory of Govt. Which would be another hurdle to get over...
In 2010 only two Cabinet ministers - Hague and Clarke - had been in cabinet before.
In 1997 the only member of the Cabinet who had even been a junior minister under Callaghan was Margaret Beckett.
In 1964 the sole person with Cabinet experience was Wilson himself.
So it’s not that unusual and generally we’ve got over it.
Yes, I think people have a tendency to over estimate the importance of ministerial experience. You can never really tell who might make a good minister based on intelligence or political skill, and inevitably there will be periods where one side has been out of office long enough that they have little experience, especially when past leaders are likely to be punished more now.
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
The LDs are now the posh people's party, they are the only party which has the highest percentage of its voters made up both of graduates and high earners now.
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Is it Labour that needs Scotland though? In 2017 Theresa May was saved by Ruth Davidson's ScotCon revival.
Even in 2017 the Tories won a majority in England but not in Scotland nor Wales
But without the Scots Tory seats May would, at best, only been able to form a minority Government. In fact, wouldn't Corbyn have been in a better position?
2017 was exceptional, and the Conservatives got very lucky with the maths and the balance of forces. The likelihood of a future Tory administration being rescued by a chance combination of a Scottish resurgence and Northern Irish Unionism would appear low. Certainly, looking forward to 2024, the likelihood is that they won't need the help, and that it won't be there even if they do.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Is it Labour that needs Scotland though? In 2017 Theresa May was saved by Ruth Davidson's ScotCon revival.
Even in 2017 the Tories won a majority in England but not in Scotland nor Wales
But without the Scots Tory seats May would, at best, only been able to form a minority Government. In fact, wouldn't Corbyn have been in a better position?
Excluding Scotland in 2017 May would have had an overall majority, the fact SCons went from a tiny minority in 2015 to less of a minority in 2017 does not change the fact they were still a minority unlike in England
"Labour has not comfortably won 40%+ of the vote since 1970"
When they also lost.
Very good assessment. However, I would throw something else into the mix. Labour continually tries to implement a broken business model. It invariably tries to pump up a public sector to levels that the private sector cannot afford. It loads up taxes and borrowing that the private sector suffers to pay. The result? Invariably, every Labour Govt. leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited.
And post-Covid, that private sector will have been suffering the loss of businesses and the furloughing of workers that the public sector has sailed through. Worse, sailed through demanding pay rises, which Labour have said they will accede to. Not to diminsh the huge effort put in to fighting Covid, but structurally, it's the private sector that bears the scars of Covid. And will continue to do so, as it again has to bear the taxation and borrowing associated with propping up the economy. Those who would implement Corbynism jump about saying "Look! We can find the money when we have to!" - blithely ignoring the once-in-a-century nature of the reason and its immense burden that will have to be lifted.
We have also been fortunate to share a global problem with the outcome of low and reducing interest rates. The UK going on a spending binge in isolation would leave the rest of the world looking on askance - and demanding unusually higher interests from us. Just in case.
Labour won big in 1997 because a) Blair who b) didn't scare the innately small-C conservative British electorate. People believed him when he said he would follow big-C Conservative spending. As a result, he had the "scars on his back" from the public sector. If Labour wants power, Starmer will need to play that card again.
And endure to the howls from his own side.
Part of the issue is the structural leverage that the (now) public sector unions have over Labour (which was originally their parliamentary wing). It’s fine and natural that the unions support a party of the left but it is unhealthy that they can directly influence.* The problem is that they - naturally - influence the party’s agenda in their own interests
That set Labour up very well when there was a mass industrialised working class that largely voted for them. As we move away from class based voted, I suspect that the LibDems (or SDP) would be a better vehicle for the leftish vote. If they can get their act together.
* I am not pretending there isn’t a problem with Tory sources of finance, but it isn’t institutionalised as it is with Labour.
Oh it is. Simple solution, publicly funded and capped campaigns (OK, we have no money in the pot to do that) so let's just stick to the very low cap funding argument.
Robert Jenrick's scandalous favour to Desmond, in return for (granted, a comedic) 10 grand, confirms this.
On topic, interesting header, and I respect Casino's effort to be objective. In the opposite way, I hope the Republicans sort themselves out as permanent Democrat rule probably wouldn't be healthy.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
Generally the Tories always win over 60s, 1997 being the only recent exception and Labour always win under 30s, 1983 being the only recent exception, it is 30 to 60 year olds who decide elections, particularly 40 to 55 year olds. How they go in future years is I agree open to question
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
As a (hopefully thoughtful) Corbynist I'm not really bothered by some flag-waving but the question is what it's trying to imply. There's a risk that it's seen as pure tokenism, which would just irritate everyone including the most fervent patriots. If it symbolises "I'll put Britain first and not spend much time worrying about Palestine", I can live with that and can see it will speak to people who Corbyn put off. If it symbolised "I'm going to adopt the Daily Mail agenda". then of course the left would be alienated, but I don't think it goes that far.
From personal contact and phone canvassing, my impression is that most people in and outside the party are still quite willing to give Starmer a fair wind. There isn't a serious left-wing challenge brewing.
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
The LDs are now the posh people's party, they are the only party which has the highest percentage of its voters made up both of graduates and high earners now.
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
That's a fair point. Their six remaining relatively comfortable seats are all Southern English posho Remainia. The five marginals are Tim Farron and the Scottish ones. The Scottish seats are the product of 'anyone but the SNP' Unionist voting; Westmorland & Lonsdale probably converts back into a Tory safe seat as soon as Farron steps down, as per North Norfolk after Norman Lamb retired.
An fine thread header for a Sunday morning. All I would add is look at what is happening all over Europe. Where are the SDP in Germany. Other than Hollande recent socialist candidates for President have performed pretty hopelessly in France. The Democrats have done better in the US but that may just be because the Republicans have .... well.
I remember one US commentator saying after Trump won that what the left needed to consider was that although Republicans were a minority they had more in common with each other than the coalition amassed against them (leaving aside the peculiarities of the electoral college).
I paused to read the entire thread before commenting to see what people were saying. I found it fairly predictable with rehashes of old arguments about why things were or weren't true and the picking up of certain issues like cost of housing etc.
My take is that labour have no answer to the 21st century. Having said that I don't think the tories, snp, lib dems etc have either.
The problems facing the country if you are outside the 10% these days are largely ones of
Globalisation - By which I mean that a lot of manufacturing inevitably ends up drifting to those countries with the lowest cost of labour in industries that require manual labour. This is good for those countries and a levelling up of the world in some respects and from a global perspective a good thing. From a personal...my job just got offshored to a factory in china. Not so much. I don't see any of our parties having any ideas on how to fix that.
Automation - Factories that don't move off shore tend to need fewer and fewer workers. Yes I know what some will kick in "Other jobs will come to replace them...industrial revolution blah blah". I however do not think that is necessarily a given. First automation replaced muscle power, so people moved to jobs requiring human pattern matching abilities and human interaction.
Now automation is slowly eroding those jobs too eating its way up the food chain. Translation is an example, yes currently its not good enough where translation is key but think of all the times google translate is good enough and is used then remember machine learning is taking that use and using it to train and make it better. So take muscle power jobs out, human pattern matching and human interaction out. That leaves human creativity as the only thing we have over ai. How many jobs really can we create that use only human creativity?
Companies - These have become bigger and bigger and their power to easily move around the world and rebase themselves makes them ever more unaccountable to individual governments. In addition they become ever more able to influence legislation in their favour almost to the point now certainly in the states that in some sectors companies more or less write the legislation and pass it to their pet politicians...cf ajit pai as an example
Do any of our parties have any answers to these. Most of the things we hear of as problems such as zero hour contracts, lack of pay rises etc are actually symptoms of these things.
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
The LDs are now the posh people's party, they are the only party which has the highest percentage of its voters made up both of graduates and high earners now.
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
That's a fair point. Their six remaining relatively comfortable seats are all Southern English posho Remainia. The five marginals are Tim Farron and the Scottish ones. The Scottish seats are the product of 'anyone but the SNP' Unionist voting; Westmorland & Lonsdale probably converts back into a Tory safe seat as soon as Farron steps down, as per North Norfolk after Norman Lamb retired.
Farron is one of very few MPs with a genuine personal vote.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Don't underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
The great unknown is how much the typical English voter really cares about the end of the Union. IIRC polling evidence suggests that they don't want it to happen, but whether in the event that it does they howl at the sitting Government, or just shrug their shoulders and say 'if they want to go then let them,' is highly debatable. We won't know the answer unless or until it happens.
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
The LDs are now the posh people's party, they are the only party which has the highest percentage of its voters made up both of graduates and high earners now.
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
That's a fair point. Their six remaining relatively comfortable seats are all Southern English posho Remainia. The five marginals are Tim Farron and the Scottish ones. The Scottish seats are the product of 'anyone but the SNP' Unionist voting; Westmorland & Lonsdale probably converts back into a Tory safe seat as soon as Farron steps down, as per North Norfolk after Norman Lamb retired.
The Northern Isles were Liberal long before the SNP became a threat - a strong traditional LD area because of the Liberal/crofter alliance of the late C19 (as was much of the Highlands and Islands).
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
I cannot see why some of them get so worked up and twisted in knots about such things. It's really not very complicated as far as I can see it - the party wants to make people remember, subtly or otherwise, that they are not opposed to people who are demonstrably proud of the country or unconcerned with philosophising about its problems.
They don't need to go overboard, and it doesn't stop them from such philosophising if it wants. Quite the reverse - they'll be able to do it more if people don't think it is from a vindictive position.
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Don't underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
The great unknown is how much the typical English voter really cares about the end of the Union. IIRC polling evidence suggests that they don't want it to happen, but whether in the event that it does they howl at the sitting Government, or just shrug their shoulders and say 'if they want to go then let them,' is highly debatable. We won't know the answer unless or until it happens.
Part of the issue has to be the Tory propaganda of Scottish financial dependence on handouts/posters of Mr Salmond stealing from the taxpayer's pocket/Mr Miliband/SKS etc in the FM's pocket/handbag (not that Ms Sturgeon is noted for carrying one a la Mrs T). There's something of a conflict there with retaining the Scottish Tory vote.
On topic, interesting header, and I respect Casino's effort to be objective. In the opposite way, I hope the Republicans sort themselves out as permanent Democrat rule probably wouldn't be healthy.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
Voters do not move to the right as they get older. The zeitgeist moves to the left. What were the issues of the 60s and 70s? Equal pay for women? Done. Anti-racism? Done. Legal abortions, gay rights, an end to capital punishment? Done.
If voters really do move to the right, why are they not campaigning for women to be paid less for equal work? They might seem more small-c conservative in the sense they do not want any more radical change, but that is not quite the same thing.
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
The LDs are now the posh people's party, they are the only party which has the highest percentage of its voters made up both of graduates and high earners now.
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
That's a fair point. Their six remaining relatively comfortable seats are all Southern English posho Remainia. The five marginals are Tim Farron and the Scottish ones. The Scottish seats are the product of 'anyone but the SNP' Unionist voting; Westmorland & Lonsdale probably converts back into a Tory safe seat as soon as Farron steps down, as per North Norfolk after Norman Lamb retired.
The Northern Isles were Liberal long before the SNP became a threat - a strong traditional LD area because of the Liberal/crofter alliance of the late C19 (as was much of the Highlands and Islands).
That's also fair. Looking at the record they've been various flavours of liberal since Queen Victoria came to the throne, save for a Tory hiccup from 1935-50. All the same, apart from being an undersized oddity, it's a straight LD/SNP fight. Conservatives a very distant third last time.
On topic, interesting header, and I respect Casino's effort to be objective. In the opposite way, I hope the Republicans sort themselves out as permanent Democrat rule probably wouldn't be healthy.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
Voters do not move to the right as they get older. The zeitgeist moves to the left. What were the issues of the 60s and 70s? Equal pay for women? Done. Anti-racism? Done. Legal abortions, gay rights, an end to capital punishment? Done.
If voters really do move to the right, why are they not campaigning for women to be paid less for equal work? They might seem more small-c conservative in the sense they do not want any more radical change, but that is not quite the same thing.
It's one reason the fears, particularly of right wing parties, of wanting to take things back 40 years, 60 years, or 100 years or whatever, generally come across as hyperbolic. They might want to do some things which are awful and perhaps from some nostalgic feeling, but it's pretty rare that parties really want to turn back the clock in significant ways.
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
The LDs are now the posh people's party, they are the only party which has the highest percentage of its voters made up both of graduates and high earners now.
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
That's a fair point. Their six remaining relatively comfortable seats are all Southern English posho Remainia. The five marginals are Tim Farron and the Scottish ones. The Scottish seats are the product of 'anyone but the SNP' Unionist voting; Westmorland & Lonsdale probably converts back into a Tory safe seat as soon as Farron steps down, as per North Norfolk after Norman Lamb retired.
Farron is one of very few MPs with a genuine personal vote.
However. Farron's seat is one heavily likely to be butchered by the boundary review. Cumbria can't keep 6 seats under the criteria. It can't have 5 either. It is in the NW region so will have to be combined with part of N Lancs, as it is the only Cumbrian seat to border another NW constituency. So it looks like it will be cut in two. Under those circumstances he's probably toast.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Don't underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
The great unknown is how much the typical English voter really cares about the end of the Union. IIRC polling evidence suggests that they don't want it to happen, but whether in the event that it does they howl at the sitting Government, or just shrug their shoulders and say 'if they want to go then let them,' is highly debatable. We won't know the answer unless or until it happens.
If Scotland left the Union, voters would swing behind the Tories to ensure no concessions to the SNP whatsoever in Scexit talks. English nationalism would be rampant if the United Kingdom came to an end.
Much as the EU came together after the shock of Brexit to ensure no concessions to the UK and a hard headed approach to Brexit talks.
Labour needs Scotland to win again, without the support of Scottish MPs it is hard to see a non Blairite Labour Party ever winning a sustainable overall majority again, indeed in the last 70 years Labour has only won a majority in England in 1966, other than when led by Blair.
Remarkably consistent spread for the LDs. For some reason I am not surprised early 30s is their most profitablee demographic. People who grew up disliking the government in power (which by the time they were old enough, was Labour), but not fans of recent developments like the younger groups.
They do have a sticky core vote. It's not big enough to get them very far, but it exists.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
The LDs are now the posh people's party, they are the only party which has the highest percentage of its voters made up both of graduates and high earners now.
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
Yes they lost the student/ youth vote - and there is no sign they’ll ever get it back.
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The reason he does need the flags, is because Corbyn was so set against them. He needs to prove to the wider electorate that the party has changed.
Thatcher didn't need flags behind her, because everyone was well aware of her loyalties already.
Great piece, but it's about how oppositions can win and oppositions don't win; governments lose. Corbyn would have won in 1997. Starmer will win if Johnson's government implodes into Majorite sleaze, which looks a bit less likely than it did. Otherwise he won't.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
True, but you should start with the SOA 1967. So 47 years.
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The problem is that most of middle England doesn't believe that he or Labour loves the country. I don't think having 24 flags behind him on every video is the answer either though. Starmer needs to speak from the heart about why he loves this country and show some exceptionalism. There are things the UK does better than other countries, saying so might piss off the likes of Kinabalu but it gets Starmer in the room for tens of millions of voters who are suspicious of Labour and Starmer.
The consensus view, on patriotism or love of one's country, is not to the advantage of Starmer. I think the next battle is going to be over the Rhodes statue at Oxford and we know that the government will come out in favour of keeping it and celebrating our history, it's the majority view in the nation. Labour will equivocate, try not to get involved, some lefty MPs will call for Rhodes to fall, Starmer will reluctantly disagree and people will see it as hollow and it will please no one.
Labour needs to decide whether it believes British history is worth celebrating or something that they should be embarrassed by. The public believes Labour is in the latter group and I think Starmer is too, but recognises that this is not the majority view which is why he so awkward when it comes these kinds of arguments. It's why he made that stupid kneeling gesture despite being or of the few people in the country who can actually make a difference and doesn't need to rely on gestures.
Wholeheartedly agree with @Casino_Royale on the main idea. Labour should be 10 points up on the government, Starmer has failed to convince the British people that he loves this country sufficiently to be PM and that shows.
We have got plenty of Labour patriots on PB such as @SouthamObserver and Starmer could stand to take a lesson from them on how to tackle this issue.
A good header from @Casino_Royale and this here is not a riposte to it but my take on the central point - how the rise of identity in politics has played well for the Cons and badly for Labour.
Most of England is white and live in the sticks. These people, be they aristos, middle class or working class, wanted Brexit. Not by a small majority and in lukewarm fashion but overwhelmingly and – because it was about identity not economics - with a passion. They are Leavers. This is their identity now and it’s a strong one. It is also, since they are the biggest part of us, our political identity. England is Leave Nation. So is the UK, because England dominates that. So therein lies the harsh truth for Labour - Leave is our dominant political identity and the Cons own Leave. It follows that barring an economic catastrophe on the Cons watch – which is possible - winning the next election is a toughie for Labour. My sense is their chances will be improved if the Con leader at the time is not brand “Boris” Johnson but unfortunately I think it will be.
So how best to go about it? The main thing I’d say is that although the Corbyn years ended in a drubbing at GE19, it would be a mistake to react to this by returning to the timid centrism of the previous era. I have always voted Labour – and in blood – but I was not enthused to join the party until 2017 and the reason I did so is because I saw that at long last they had cast off the fear of the Dacres and the Murdochs of this world and were up for changing the country in favour of ordinary working people. Bad leader, flawed policies, but the spirit was there. It must be retained. Not just as a ‘feel good’ option – although it does feel good – but as the most viable route to power.
You won’t win Leave Nation be trying to be more Leavey than this “Boris Brexit” manifestation of the Cons. You have to pitch something big and bold and different. It must be unashamedly from the left and with policies that are contemporary and practical. It needs to appeal to Labour’s metropolitan “new base” plus enough of the “old base” to get over the line. The latter is the challenge, since it will entail convincing them to vote for their economic self-interest rather than as Leavers. But it can be done. The world is changing fast.
On topic, interesting header, and I respect Casino's effort to be objective. In the opposite way, I hope the Republicans sort themselves out as permanent Democrat rule probably wouldn't be healthy.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
Voters do not move to the right as they get older. The zeitgeist moves to the left. What were the issues of the 60s and 70s? Equal pay for women? Done. Anti-racism? Done. Legal abortions, gay rights, an end to capital punishment? Done.
If voters really do move to the right, why are they not campaigning for women to be paid less for equal work? They might seem more small-c conservative in the sense they do not want any more radical change, but that is not quite the same thing.
You make a good point, but about social policy. Although you could make the perhaps trite point that liberal and conservative can only be judged against the mores of the era to begin with.
On economic matters the tendency to be radical when young and conservative when old has been observed through history.
Great piece, but it's about how oppositions can win and oppositions don't win; governments lose. Corbyn would have won in 1997. Starmer will win if Johnson's government implodes into Majorite sleaze, which looks a bit less likely than it did. Otherwise he won't.
Or. If the various factions in the huge Tory Party coalition which believe in diametrically opposed things, break into open warfare. Particularly over the economic wreckage. Which is also a possibility not to be entirely discounted.
Populations everywhere are urbanizing, and old people die a lot. Some of them will become more conservative as they get older, but not all of them, especially as house buying is less accessible to younger people. Con has gone very hard on the themes of the declining demographics in a way that will be hard to reverse.
Parties can always reorient themselves so this of course doesn't mean that Con are doomed to long-term irrelevance, but the same fact means that Lab will ultimately find a winning coalition. I'm not sure whether they've got one now or not, and I don't have a strong opinion about where they should get it from, but I don't see a *structural* reason for the UK (or whatever is left of it) to be a long-term one-party state.
Mainly simply a reflection of the fact the average age more people own a property than not is now 39, so Labour will continue to receive a majority of votes of renters under 40 but as long as most people over 40 own a property they have to reassure those voters as Blair did their assets are secure
The serious question from this startling age chart is this: If you are serious about power do you want to be the party that people turn towards as they grow more experienced about life or the party they turn away from when they grow more experienced about life. The figures for 70+ are amazing, given how many of them vote and how many have working class roots and had solid Labour voting parents.
It really feels like the western world is losing its collective mind
There's a rather nutty novel by Terry Goodkind (which really ramps up the usual fantasy novel subtext that democracy is not great), where a race of people who had taken over another place and very much elevated the primitve local people, felt so guilty about their dominance that they deliberately taught the primitives to hate them and that they were a cruelly oppressed people, with the inevitable result that eventually everyone believed that, tables were turned, and the local people instituted a soceity of oppression against those who helped them, whilst constantly nursing grievances over the (false) history of how they had been treated. I feel like there are people in American who believe that is what is happening when some more out there academics push some ideas. But it is pretty fringe stuff.
Not sure many but someone like Bernie would have been able to pull off that look though in fairness.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Don't underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
The great unknown is how much the typical English voter really cares about the end of the Union. IIRC polling evidence suggests that they don't want it to happen, but whether in the event that it does they howl at the sitting Government, or just shrug their shoulders and say 'if they want to go then let them,' is highly debatable. We won't know the answer unless or until it happens.
Part of the issue has to be the Tory propaganda of Scottish financial dependence on handouts/posters of Mr Salmond stealing from the taxpayer's pocket/Mr Miliband/SKS etc in the FM's pocket/handbag (not that Ms Sturgeon is noted for carrying one a la Mrs T). There's something of a conflict there with retaining the Scottish Tory vote.
I think that's inevitable. Place yourself in the position of a Conservative strategist: do you use Scotland as a stick with which to beat Keir Starmer, or do you shut up in the vague, remote hope that you might be able to win back one or two of the seven Scottish seats you lost last time around?
There's precisely no hope of a major Conservative revival in Scotland, absent which rolling the dice on achieving one would be foolish.
Populations everywhere are urbanizing, and old people die a lot. Some of them will become more conservative as they get older, but not all of them, especially as house buying is less accessible to younger people. Con has gone very hard on the themes of the declining demographics in a way that will be hard to reverse.
Parties can always reorient themselves so this of course doesn't mean that Con are doomed to long-term irrelevance, but the same fact means that Lab will ultimately find a winning coalition. I'm not sure whether they've got one now or not, and I don't have a strong opinion about where they should get it from, but I don't see a *structural* reason for the UK (or whatever is left of it) to be a long-term one-party state.
Mainly simply a reflection of the fact the average age more people own a property than not is now 39, so Labour will continue to receive a majority of votes of renters under 40 but as long as most people over 40 own a property they have to reassure those voters as Blair did their assets are secure
The serious question from this startling age chart is this: If you are serious about power do you want to be the party that people turn towards as they grow more experienced about life or the party they turn away from when they grow more experienced about life. The figures for 70+ are amazing, given how many of them vote and how many have working class roots and had solid Labour voting parents.
It is. But, by contrast do you want to be the Party relying on this automatically continuing? As has been pointed out the over 65's voted Labour in 1997. The under 30's Tory in 1983.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Indeed so. The idea of not supporting gay marriage is probably anathema to vast swathes of politicians, yet many of those same politicians were around and even in power and probably either opposed it once or never cared to do anything about it for most of their careers.
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
Early summer 2019, I walked from Hartlepool to Newcastle and it's a fine stretch of coastline. Had a delightful pint by Hartlepool's old harbour in the shadow of HMS Trincomalee.
The coast from North from Sunderland harbour past Whitburn, before one got to South Shields, is a very good place to walk. Or was around 1960.
I spent one of the nights in Sunderland and thought it was a great little city. Beachside restaurants, friendly locals, good river/harbour for walks.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Absolutely. The arguments about absolute rights (gay marriage, cannabis legalisation) generally happen quickly, but the arguments about conflicts of rights (abortion, transgender) are much longer discussions.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Dont underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
I think people will be pragmatic. Politically, who do the English rail against if the Scots want to leave the Union? Is there a constituency that thinks "We should have given them more to keep us together"? If so, it is probably more than matched by a "bugger off then" constituency. Mostly, it will just be a degree of semi-detached curiousity as to how they get on. And a little mourning for the loss of one of the world's great flags.
Although, just to piss off the Scots, I predict we well keep the Union flag exactly as it is. As a beacon to Scottish Rejoiners...
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
True, but you should start with the SOA 1967. So 47 years.
We all know of secessionist movements across the world like Scotland and Catalonia who want independence from one country.
But apart from Northern Ireland, are there any examples of one part of a country wanting to leave one country and join another?
Yes, Flanders wants to join the Netherlands.
Cheers.
I believe that there is significant support in Moldova to join Romania, and of course the desire of Greek Cypriots for union with Greece was a large part of the trouble there.
The postponement of last year's elections hasn't helped, as it meant Starmer missed a chance to show what his party could achieve without Corbyn at the top
I feel like that was to his advantage, actually. The Tories were still coming off a Post-GE high and covered with something of a 'rally round the flag' effect, they may well have done pretty well for a government 11 years into power.
In fact, if you go down the list of potential next Labour leaders amongst the current parliamentary Labour party, their theoretical ability to win a general election is almost precisely inversely proportional to the likelihood of them being nominated by the membership of the party to try and do so.
Maybe, though Starmer won them over. Not that he is a raging centrist or right winger, but the members were persuaded by him.
But critics believe the documents should be resisted because they could lead to discrimination against people who have not had a vaccine.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
That is of course true unless you haven't been offered one yet or are allergic or something like that.
You'd only introduce them from June when we expect everyone to have been offered it and have had both doses.
The allergic reaction is specific to the Pfizer lipid layer, it's not something that is present in the AZ vaccine so those people who can't get the Pfizer one are currently rescheduled for an AZ vaccine.
Pfizer, Moderna and AZ are all running safety trials for under 18s as well and hopefully we'll get the results for these soon.
Ultimately we're in a pandemic and everyone has a responsibility to everyone else. There needs to be a huge element of societal pressure to get take up of vaccines as close to 100% as possible. Vaccine passports, travel restrictions and private businesses being able to exclude the non-vaccinated is part of this equation.
On topic, interesting header, and I respect Casino's effort to be objective. In the opposite way, I hope the Republicans sort themselves out as permanent Democrat rule probably wouldn't be healthy.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
Voters do not move to the right as they get older. The zeitgeist moves to the left. What were the issues of the 60s and 70s? Equal pay for women? Done. Anti-racism? Done. Legal abortions, gay rights, an end to capital punishment? Done.
If voters really do move to the right, why are they not campaigning for women to be paid less for equal work? They might seem more small-c conservative in the sense they do not want any more radical change, but that is not quite the same thing.
It's one reason the fears, particularly of right wing parties, of wanting to take things back 40 years, 60 years, or 100 years or whatever, generally come across as hyperbolic. They might want to do some things which are awful and perhaps from some nostalgic feeling, but it's pretty rare that parties really want to turn back the clock in significant ways.
It's also why the notion that today's young voters might cleave to the left as they age because of identity issues is overdone. I'd argue that the swing rightwards with age is grounded not in a desire to turn the clock backwards (the rhetoric about Leaver oldies wanting to return to the 1950s and go all dewy-eyed over the Empire was always wildly overdone,) but in a declining interest in radicalism, risk aversion, and - most critically - the desire to protect assets. The generational gap in politics has been made somewhat more extreme by Brexit, and may narrow again if increasing numbers of voters progress through middle age without the opportunity to buy a home, but the likelihood that we'll eventually end up with a leftist majority amongst the oldies, given long enough, does seem rather remote.
But critics believe the documents should be resisted because they could lead to discrimination against people who have not had a vaccine.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
That is of course true unless you haven't been offered one yet or are allergic or something like that.
If you're genuinely medically unable to have the vaccine then a provision can and should be made for that. It's going to be a very small number of people. And I'm in the final group to be done with no particular professional, demographic or health reason to bump me up - it's not a bother to me, the country is going as fast as it can on the program and by the time a proper vaccine passport system can be introduced likely everyone will have been offered the jab anyway. This barely registers as a concern.
The Scottish Government paid thousands of pounds to a team of top lawyers to try to block MSPs probing Alex Salmond’s botched sexual harassment case from hearing key evidence. The Sunday Mail has obtained documents showing a firm – hired using public cash – demanded investigating committee members give written guarantees they wouldn’t ask a senior official crucial questions. No-go areas related to meetings held between the First Minister and Salmond at her home in 2018.....
When MSPs refused to sign up to RGM Solicitors’ demands, the witness – a senior official – failed to give evidence at all.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Dont underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
I think people will be pragmatic. Politically, who do the English rail against if the Scots want to leave the Union? Is there a constituency that thinks "We should have given them more to keep us together"? If so, it is probably more than matched by a "bugger off then" constituency. Mostly, it will just be a degree of semi-detached curiousity as to how they get on. And a little mourning for the loss of one of the world's great flags.
Although, just to piss off the Scots, I predict we well keep the Union flag exactly as it is. As a beacon to Scottish Rejoiners...
I have to concur with you that, even from the Conservative PoV, it isn't healthy for the country not to have a credible Opposition.
The past 12 months have changed Labour from being outright mendacious under Corbyn and McDonnell, to just being rather irrelevant under Starmer and whateverhernameis.
Labour need to put something onto that blank sheet of paper and look like they actually like and care for the country they want to rule.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Dont underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
I think people will be pragmatic. Politically, who do the English rail against if the Scots want to leave the Union? Is there a constituency that thinks "We should have given them more to keep us together"? If so, it is probably more than matched by a "bugger off then" constituency. Mostly, it will just be a degree of semi-detached curiousity as to how they get on. And a little mourning for the loss of one of the world's great flags.
Although, just to piss off the Scots, I predict we well keep the Union flag exactly as it is. As a beacon to Scottish Rejoiners...
I really don’t think they’d be bothered.
Many won't, but those that are, and it won't be an insiginificant number, will be very bothered. Certainly in the short term a bitter 'well, bugger off then' reaction will probably predominate, but there will be those looking for who to blame politically on this side.
Keep the flag though. Looks awful without that blue.
The post is not entirely accurate. Labour has been a minority administration in Wales since the last Assembly elections. Kirsty Williams - a LD - serves as Education Minister!
Not unless they sort themselves out in Scotland, and make it quite clear to a UK audience that they will never do a deal in Parliament with the SNP.
You think that Labour's problem's in England are to do with English voters worrying about some non specific deal with the SNP in an indistinct future? Polling is at best mixed on this and I'd suggest Labour should do some more assiduous burrowing for England's g spot and be as vague on Scotland as they're able (which SKS was doing until he thought Union flags was a great wheeze, or some marketing company convinced him that was the case).
I assume your Labour sorting themselves out in Scotland doesn't include winning 'their' voters back and a UK majority winning chunk of seats? That would be naively optimistic in the extreme.
Whatever the Guardian thought at the time, this was the single most effective piece of party political literature since "Labour Isn't Working" (with a nod to Labour's Tax Bombshell too). The idea of a Labour leader utterly beholden on the economy to the SNP was toxic. I suggest that message retains its relevence in England (and Wales) going into the next election. If only because nobody puts Boris in that top pocket.
What's your conclusive evidence that the poster was effective in winning votes apart from you recalling a stirring in your loins 6 years ago?
Several thousand Torbay doorsteps. It was raised without prompting, numerous times.
There's no data more convincing than on the doorstep anecdata.
It's better than your constant smug assertions...
Fair enough, PB definitely hasn't had enough of your Torbay canvassing yarns, the sine qua non of hard psephological info.
You were the ones saying, er what is the basis for your assertion that the SNP is toxic in England?
I appreciate that reality-based politics may be an unknown for you.
The term i used was 'conclusive evidence'. I know we live in debased times, but hearsay from an anonymous rando on the internet doesn't usually count as such.
I could get a million folk to sign a petition saying Miliband in the SNP pocket changed their vote and you'd still say it was a million anonymous randos.
Point is, you have got nothing to back up your assertions that folk weren't swayed. I, on the other hand, reported back here in 2015 on the impact it was having on ENGLISH doorsteps - something you self-evidently know fuck-all about. So on this issue, just STFU. You are out of your depth, little man.
Lol, the calm, reasoned debating style to which I’ve become accustomed.
Quiet English nationalism is turning up the volume and it will mostly be bellowing STFU and buy English sparkling wine.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
As a (hopefully thoughtful) Corbynist I'm not really bothered by some flag-waving but the question is what it's trying to imply. There's a risk that it's seen as pure tokenism, which would just irritate everyone including the most fervent patriots. If it symbolises "I'll put Britain first and not spend much time worrying about Palestine", I can live with that and can see it will speak to people who Corbyn put off. If it symbolised "I'm going to adopt the Daily Mail agenda". then of course the left would be alienated, but I don't think it goes that far.
From personal contact and phone canvassing, my impression is that most people in and outside the party are still quite willing to give Starmer a fair wind. There isn't a serious left-wing challenge brewing.
What about the Palestinian flag? I suppose the flag symbolises feeling for something - be it Britain or Palestine - and it might seem absurd for a British politician to need to show it. But that's where the left is now. Corbyn's non-reaction to the Salisbury chemical weapons poisoning was unforgivabe and indicative to me.
It really feels like the western world is losing its collective mind
Yes, it’s continually quoting some obscure, fringe contribution on the internet as if it represents mainstream thought.
The problem with the internet: one person you've never heard of says something objectively bonkers - and yet it travels the world with the equal force of someone who knows their shit. And then gets picked up by folks with the critical faculties of a nematode.
The internet has been seriously liberating for the fucking stupid. Sadly.
The post is not entirely accurate. Labour has been a minority administration in Wales since the last Assembly elections. Kirsty Williams - a LD - serves as Education Minister!
I'm amazed it took this long for someone to point that out.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Dont underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
I think people will be pragmatic. Politically, who do the English rail against if the Scots want to leave the Union? Is there a constituency that thinks "We should have given them more to keep us together"? If so, it is probably more than matched by a "bugger off then" constituency. Mostly, it will just be a degree of semi-detached curiousity as to how they get on. And a little mourning for the loss of one of the world's great flags.
Although, just to piss off the Scots, I predict we well keep the Union flag exactly as it is. As a beacon to Scottish Rejoiners...
I really don’t think they’d be bothered.
Many won't, but those that are, and it won't be an insiginificant number, will be very bothered. Certainly in the short term a bitter 'well, bugger off then' reaction will probably predominate, but there will be those looking for who to blame politically on this side.
Keep the flag though. Looks awful without that blue.
My bet would be that those clamouring for a new union flag would be English rather than Scottish.
On topic: Labour is heavily dependent both on Boris Johnson's ability to hold the line against Scottish independence, and on an economic calamity unfolding in the aftermath of the Plague, to have much of a chance next time around.
This has been discussed before, but it's worth repeating: the Conservative majority in 2019 was 80 (or 84, accounting for SF and the Speaker.) If Scotland falls off, the equivalent figures become 127 and 131. Under that scenario, the Conservatives would need to lose everything down to and including Filton & Bradley Stoke (available to Labour on a 5.25% swing) to lose their majority; Labour would need to capture every one of its targets up to and including Bolton West (requiring a 9% swing) for an overall majority of one; and that's before taking into account any additional strengthening of the notional Tory position that might occur through boundary changes.
We are back to the Ed Miliband in 2015 situation. Labour needs Scotland and it needs the SNP, but the closer it gets to power, the more images of Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket will resonate in England. Labour is in all kinds of trouble.
Dont underestimate the political fallout if the UK falls apart on the Tories' watch
I think people will be pragmatic. Politically, who do the English rail against if the Scots want to leave the Union? Is there a constituency that thinks "We should have given them more to keep us together"? If so, it is probably more than matched by a "bugger off then" constituency. Mostly, it will just be a degree of semi-detached curiousity as to how they get on. And a little mourning for the loss of one of the world's great flags.
Although, just to piss off the Scots, I predict we well keep the Union flag exactly as it is. As a beacon to Scottish Rejoiners...
I really don’t think they’d be bothered.
Many won't, but those that are, and it won't be an insiginificant number, will be very bothered. Certainly in the short term a bitter 'well, bugger off then' reaction will probably predominate, but there will be those looking for who to blame politically on this side.
Keep the flag though. Looks awful without that blue.
My bet would be that those clamouring for a new union flag would be English rather than Scottish.
The postponement of last year's elections hasn't helped, as it meant Starmer missed a chance to show what his party could achieve without Corbyn at the top
I feel like that was to his advantage, actually. The Tories were still coming off a Post-GE high and covered with something of a 'rally round the flag' effect, they may well have done pretty well for a government 11 years into power.
In fact, if you go down the list of potential next Labour leaders amongst the current parliamentary Labour party, their theoretical ability to win a general election is almost precisely inversely proportional to the likelihood of them being nominated by the membership of the party to try and do so.
Maybe, though Starmer won them over. Not that he is a raging centrist or right winger, but the members were persuaded by him.
Hasn't the membership changed anyway. Reports of the Cult leaving in disgust. Bastani being one the other day, presumably to the Greens as he is an admitted green voter in the past.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Indeed so. The idea of not supporting gay marriage is probably anathema to vast swathes of politicians, yet many of those same politicians were around and even in power and probably either opposed it once or never cared to do anything about it for most of their careers.
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
One of the issues for modern policies is that of the major economic and social questions fought over the past 30-40 years, the social issues have been largely won by the left, and the economic issues by the right. Both sides are still trying to understand what there is to battle over.
Today’s biting cold east wind has seen off the folks who this time yesterday were sunning themselves on the beach and a couple even swimming in the sea.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Indeed so. The idea of not supporting gay marriage is probably anathema to vast swathes of politicians, yet many of those same politicians were around and even in power and probably either opposed it once or never cared to do anything about it for most of their careers.
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
One of the issues for modern policies is that of the major economic and social questions fought over the past 30-40 years, the social issues have been largely won by the left, and the economic issues by the right. Both sides are still trying to understand what there is to battle over.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
Indeed so. The idea of not supporting gay marriage is probably anathema to vast swathes of politicians, yet many of those same politicians were around and even in power and probably either opposed it once or never cared to do anything about it for most of their careers.
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
One of the issues for modern policies is that of the major economic and social questions fought over the past 30-40 years, the social issues have been largely won by the left, and the economic issues by the right. Both sides are still trying to understand what there is to battle over.
Agreed. Most people agree on what a decent society looks like. The question is how to pay for it. The worry is that the numbers won't add up unless pension ages get pushed into the mid-70's, which is unbearable for many.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
26 years = roughly the time needed for a generation to die out (the 1920s/30s cohort in this case)
Guys, really enjoying all the chat and (excellent) points made in this thread.
I'm also a little bit pleased John Rentoul has retweeted it too - in part to sledge the headline, and now I see just why clickbait works so well in getting more shares and views. Thanks to the Eds for publishing too - they are very generous in allowing others to share their platform. And, from upthread, I did pick the header picture actually; sometimes the Eds have to switch or modify it due to copyright or licencing issues, but not on this occasion - thankfully.
I have to jump on the Roast Pork, roast potatoes, celeriac and white cabbage now (with apple sauce) with sticky toffee pudding for dessert, so will have to duck out again.
This debate isn't going away though. There is a way Labour can win by still being true to its values of unity, collaboration, solidarity and international cooperation through a sovereign Britain - which I touched on with some ideas in the header - but it needs to be a very British and inclusive and non-threatening vision, and it means and looks something very different to what lots of its core activists think.
I hope they do a bit more reflecting on it in private.
So long as Starmer doesn't decide the way to win is to wrap himself in the flag. If that notion is confirmed all hope dies!
Are you going to vote for someone else if he does? Marginal voters went Tory last time because Corbyn and friends clearly hated the flag. Starmer needs them back.
Boris Johnson own the Union Flag. Starmer can demonstrate patriotism by promoting domestic consumption, by making difficult calls about taxation, funding healthcare and financing education properly (rather than throwing cash at Mickey Mouse Apprenticeship schemes).
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Have fun in permanent opposition then. There’s maybe 10 or 15% of people who view the flag negatively, and about 50% who view negative expressions of the flag as a salient reason for voting against a party or candidate.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
I don't hate the flag at all. Starmer has made a good start with purging Corbynism, including chucking the clown himself out of the party (for the moment).
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
The reason he does need the flags, is because Corbyn was so set against them. He needs to prove to the wider electorate that the party has changed.
Thatcher didn't need flags behind her, because everyone was well aware of her loyalties already.
Thatcher didn’t need flags behind her because she had so many on her front
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not.
That is an interesting question. What is surprising is how INCREDIBLY QUICKLY attitudes changed on gay marriage.
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
26 years = roughly the time needed for a generation to die out (the 1920s/30s cohort in this case)
The cohort that won the war you mean. The cohort that saved freedom and democracy. That cohort you mean. The cohort that gave every thing, in some cases everything they ever had. The cohort that never gets a good word.
Comments
You have to go back to 2001 when Blair won his landslide over Hague to find the last time Labour won both the popular vote in England and a majority of English seats
So it is liberalism and libertarianism struggling, hence the dire current ratings for the LDs and ReformUK making little headway on an anti lockdown ticket, while Boris' One Nation Tories plus Brexit and Starmer's Social Democratic Labour Party combined win comfortably over 80% of the vote now
That set Labour up very well when there was a mass industrialised working class that largely voted for them. As we move away from class based voted, I suspect that the LibDems (or SDP) would be a better vehicle for the leftish vote. If they can get their act together.
* I am not pretending there isn’t a problem with Tory sources of finance, but it isn’t institutionalised as it is with Labour.
As one of the people with a largely non-national political identity that Casino discusses, I do disagree that there's no such community, or that it's mostly in Liverpool and other places with a deep Labour tradition. I'd argue that it's actually the norm among young people here and in many Western countries, which is why Labour has huge leads among the young (and a consistent lead overall among everyone of working age). The concept that identity is *primarily* rooted in national pride is natural to many people of an older generation or a more traditional upbringing, but it's not very common in the under-40s. Almost nobody positively dislikes their country, but lots of us feel it's just one of many influences that make us into whole human beings. Not enough for a majority, though, so we need to be able to be genuinely friendly to the kind of amiable nationalism that simply consists of wanting to focus on getting our own country right before worrying about other places.
A key long-term question is what will change as people age. Some things do - in particular, my generation of 60s/70s leftists has turned into mostly Conservative-voting pensioners. (I frankly don't get it.) Other things don't change - the idea that gay couples are morally wrong and black people are inferior is now rare even among the very elderly, who have largely retained the tolerance of younger years. I don't fully understand what makes some values change and others not, and find it hard to predict whether the Daily Mail national identity politics which makes the Conservative Party unattractive to many young people will still put them off as they get older. I think the jury's still out on that one.
I assume that it's an accumulation of "plague on all their houses" and very wet centrists for whom Labour and the Tories are always regarded as too extreme. That's probably a product of our politics being slightly less polarised than those in the US, where loyalty to one side or fear of the other is so widespread that the no man's land in between gets pounded to dust.
If Starmer tries to outflag Johnson it means throwing xenophobic red meat to Red Wall voters. I want none of that.
Although check out Glenn Turner's performance in the NZ first innings.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-tour-of-west-indies-1971-72-62104/west-indies-vs-new-zealand-1st-test-63079/full-scorecard
Hence their MPs tend to be confined to anti Brexit wealthy areas like Richmond Park, Twickenham, St Albans, West Edinburgh, Bath and West Oxford. Beyond that they can win a few more voters at council elections to mend potholes and oppose new housing but those voters will return to the Tories and Labour at general electons
Robert Jenrick's scandalous favour to Desmond, in return for (granted, a comedic) 10 grand, confirms this.
From personal contact and phone canvassing, my impression is that most people in and outside the party are still quite willing to give Starmer a fair wind. There isn't a serious left-wing challenge brewing.
I remember one US commentator saying after Trump won that what the left needed to consider was that although Republicans were a minority they had more in common with each other than the coalition amassed against them (leaving aside the peculiarities of the electoral college).
My take is that labour have no answer to the 21st century. Having said that I don't think the tories, snp, lib dems etc have either.
The problems facing the country if you are outside the 10% these days are largely ones of
Globalisation - By which I mean that a lot of manufacturing inevitably ends up drifting to those countries with the lowest cost of labour in industries that require manual labour. This is good for those countries and a levelling up of the world in some respects and from a global perspective a good thing. From a personal...my job just got offshored to a factory in china. Not so much. I don't see any of our parties having any ideas on how to fix that.
Automation - Factories that don't move off shore tend to need fewer and fewer workers. Yes I know what some will kick in "Other jobs will come to replace them...industrial revolution blah blah". I however do not think that is necessarily a given. First automation replaced muscle power, so people moved to jobs requiring human pattern matching abilities and human interaction.
Now automation is slowly eroding those jobs too eating its way up the food chain. Translation is an example, yes currently its not good enough where translation is key but think of all the times google translate is good enough and is used then remember machine learning is taking that use and using it to train and make it better. So take muscle power jobs out, human pattern matching and human interaction out. That leaves human creativity as the only thing we have over ai. How many jobs really can we create that use only human creativity?
Companies - These have become bigger and bigger and their power to easily move around the world and rebase themselves makes them ever more unaccountable to individual governments. In addition they become ever more able to influence legislation in their favour almost to the point now certainly in the states that in some sectors companies more or less write the legislation and pass it to their pet politicians...cf ajit pai as an example
Do any of our parties have any answers to these. Most of the things we hear of as problems such as zero hour contracts, lack of pay rises etc are actually symptoms of these things.
Starmer doesn’t need to “outflag” Johnson, he just needs to get rid of the Corbynite image of hating it being relevant.
That is not particularly pleasant.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
They don't need to go overboard, and it doesn't stop them from such philosophising if it wants. Quite the reverse - they'll be able to do it more if people don't think it is from a vindictive position.
Thatcher didn't need a parade of flags behind her to prove her patriotism. Neither does Starmer
If voters really do move to the right, why are they not campaigning for women to be paid less for equal work? They might seem more small-c conservative in the sense they do not want any more radical change, but that is not quite the same thing.
Under those circumstances he's probably toast.
Much as the EU came together after the shock of Brexit to ensure no concessions to the UK and a hard headed approach to Brexit talks.
Labour needs Scotland to win again, without the support of Scottish MPs it is hard to see a non Blairite Labour Party ever winning a sustainable overall majority again, indeed in the last 70 years Labour has only won a majority in England in 1966, other than when led by Blair.
Thatcher didn't need flags behind her, because everyone was well aware of her loyalties already.
It really feels like the western world is losing its collective mind
From Section 28 (1988) to its repeal (2000 in S, 2003 in E&W) to the timidity of Civil Partnership (2004) to legal same sex Marriage (2014), it all took just 26 years
And not just in the UK, but throughout the West, the victory was surprisingly swift & overwhelming.
Even in places like RoI, with its Catholic tradition, the walls crumbled much more quickly than I ever thought possible.
Sometimes, some values really can change incredibly quickly.
The consensus view, on patriotism or love of one's country, is not to the advantage of Starmer. I think the next battle is going to be over the Rhodes statue at Oxford and we know that the government will come out in favour of keeping it and celebrating our history, it's the majority view in the nation. Labour will equivocate, try not to get involved, some lefty MPs will call for Rhodes to fall, Starmer will reluctantly disagree and people will see it as hollow and it will please no one.
Labour needs to decide whether it believes British history is worth celebrating or something that they should be embarrassed by. The public believes Labour is in the latter group and I think Starmer is too, but recognises that this is not the majority view which is why he so awkward when it comes these kinds of arguments. It's why he made that stupid kneeling gesture despite being or of the few people in the country who can actually make a difference and doesn't need to rely on gestures.
Wholeheartedly agree with @Casino_Royale on the main idea. Labour should be 10 points up on the government, Starmer has failed to convince the British people that he loves this country sufficiently to be PM and that shows.
We have got plenty of Labour patriots on PB such as @SouthamObserver and Starmer could stand to take a lesson from them on how to tackle this issue.
Most of England is white and live in the sticks. These people, be they aristos, middle class or working class, wanted Brexit. Not by a small majority and in lukewarm fashion but overwhelmingly and – because it was about identity not economics - with a passion. They are Leavers. This is their identity now and it’s a strong one. It is also, since they are the biggest part of us, our political identity. England is Leave Nation. So is the UK, because England dominates that. So therein lies the harsh truth for Labour - Leave is our dominant political identity and the Cons own Leave. It follows that barring an economic catastrophe on the Cons watch – which is possible - winning the next election is a toughie for Labour. My sense is their chances will be improved if the Con leader at the time is not brand “Boris” Johnson but unfortunately I think it will be.
So how best to go about it? The main thing I’d say is that although the Corbyn years ended in a drubbing at GE19, it would be a mistake to react to this by returning to the timid centrism of the previous era. I have always voted Labour – and in blood – but I was not enthused to join the party until 2017 and the reason I did so is because I saw that at long last they had cast off the fear of the Dacres and the Murdochs of this world and were up for changing the country in favour of ordinary working people. Bad leader, flawed policies, but the spirit was there. It must be retained. Not just as a ‘feel good’ option – although it does feel good – but as the most viable route to power.
You won’t win Leave Nation be trying to be more Leavey than this “Boris Brexit” manifestation of the Cons. You have to pitch something big and bold and different. It must be unashamedly from the left and with policies that are contemporary and practical. It needs to appeal to Labour’s metropolitan “new base” plus enough of the “old base” to get over the line. The latter is the challenge, since it will entail convincing them to vote for their economic self-interest rather than as Leavers. But it can be done. The world is changing fast.
On economic matters the tendency to be radical when young and conservative when old has been observed through history.
Which is also a possibility not to be entirely discounted.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1358335085863440386?s=19
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9233423/Ministers-rule-coronavirus-vaccine-passports.html?ito=push-notification&ci=75113&si=25474331
Not sure many but someone like Bernie would have been able to pull off that look though in fairness.
There's precisely no hope of a major Conservative revival in Scotland, absent which rolling the dice on achieving one would be foolish.
FFSAKE you WANT to be discriminating against refuseniks in a pandemic >.> Being a muppet is not a protected characteristic
As has been pointed out the over 65's voted Labour in 1997. The under 30's Tory in 1983.
Enjoy your lunch!
That's not a criticism, things have moved on, but on some issues the 'correct' answer seems so obvious in how it is presented now I wonder how they think about their own positions for so long.
Some things need thinking about a lot, but this one they can think about a lot less.
Although, just to piss off the Scots, I predict we well keep the Union flag exactly as it is. As a beacon to Scottish Rejoiners...
“We don’t want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage.”
Change happens slowly then all at once.
The postponement of last year's elections hasn't helped, as it meant Starmer missed a chance to show what his party could achieve without Corbyn at the top
I feel like that was to his advantage, actually. The Tories were still coming off a Post-GE high and covered with something of a 'rally round the flag' effect, they may well have done pretty well for a government 11 years into power.
In fact, if you go down the list of potential next Labour leaders amongst the current parliamentary Labour party, their theoretical ability to win a general election is almost precisely inversely proportional to the likelihood of them being nominated by the membership of the party to try and do so.
Maybe, though Starmer won them over. Not that he is a raging centrist or right winger, but the members were persuaded by him.
The allergic reaction is specific to the Pfizer lipid layer, it's not something that is present in the AZ vaccine so those people who can't get the Pfizer one are currently rescheduled for an AZ vaccine.
Pfizer, Moderna and AZ are all running safety trials for under 18s as well and hopefully we'll get the results for these soon.
Ultimately we're in a pandemic and everyone has a responsibility to everyone else. There needs to be a huge element of societal pressure to get take up of vaccines as close to 100% as possible. Vaccine passports, travel restrictions and private businesses being able to exclude the non-vaccinated is part of this equation.
And I'm in the final group to be done with no particular professional, demographic or health reason to bump me up - it's not a bother to me, the country is going as fast as it can on the program and by the time a proper vaccine passport system can be introduced likely everyone will have been offered the jab anyway. This barely registers as a concern.
The Sunday Mail has obtained documents showing a firm – hired using public cash – demanded investigating committee members give written guarantees they wouldn’t ask a senior official crucial questions.
No-go areas related to meetings held between the First Minister and Salmond at her home in 2018.....
When MSPs refused to sign up to RGM Solicitors’ demands, the witness – a senior official – failed to give evidence at all.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-government-paid-thousands-top-23456133
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1358381527722299393
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1358389097010761730
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1358390914713088000
Hmmm. Update.
https://twitter.com/Manterik/status/1358392127521177602
I have to concur with you that, even from the Conservative PoV, it isn't healthy for the country not to have a credible Opposition.
The past 12 months have changed Labour from being outright mendacious under Corbyn and McDonnell, to just being rather irrelevant under Starmer and whateverhernameis.
Labour need to put something onto that blank sheet of paper and look like they actually like and care for the country they want to rule.
Techie details about software:
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/05/big_data_banking_study_reveals/
Study and findings in terms of health and lifestyle -- staying up all night but spending less on alcohol
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01045-w
Keep the flag though. Looks awful without that blue.
Quiet English nationalism is turning up the volume and it will mostly be bellowing STFU and buy English sparkling wine.
The internet has been seriously liberating for the fucking stupid. Sadly.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/margaret-thatcher-1975-jumper-nine_uk_5767b0e2e4b0d033a5757f2e
Go away.