Is it just me or is the constant political with a same p on Sky Sports and BT Sports getting incredibly irriating. I just want to watch the footy, but every advert break I am bombarded by their social media abuse, BLM, eco campaigns and no escape while watching the game as they flash up BLM banner next to the score.
You have a choice. Get rid of your package.
Sounds a bit drastic. Why emasculate himself to stop hearing adverts for a bunch of Wokers?
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
It's not that. There are alternatives. Plus you don't know if someone will be good as leader until they are the leader.
The reason not to junk Starmer is because he hasn't yet had the chance to show what he can do in a scenario where Covid is not blotting out normal politics.
This starts now. Keir has a Yeir.
But what IS his big Ideir?
Patience. You'll find out in a yeir.
Agree. And if you want to find out his big ideir earlier, go and have a beer with Keir (up north where it's not dear).
Once the Celtic scroungers have all gone the English will soon realise that Labour are completely unelectable and as nature abhors a vacumn, we will see a complete realignment of politics. An independent Scotland will no doubt go back to voting Labour but with nobody left to subsidise them....
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
The leave identity won't crumble though, Labour needs to get on board with being a brexit cheerleader. It needs to start welcoming independent trade deals and make whatever number of pledges necessary to not reopen the existing brexit deal.
Labour simply isn't trusted not to sell out brexit as soon as they get power in tandem with the SNP. I know more leave voters than you and all of them suspect that Starmer will sign us up to the single market and customs union within a year of becoming PM. He was remainer and mischief maker in chief from 2016-2020 literally until the day we left the EU. He was the guy who pivoted Labour from Corbyn's "deliver a Labour brexit" idea to proposing a second referendum in 2019. Leave voters have long memories and Labour is tainted from the 2016-2019 brexit blocking shenanigans instigated by their current leader.
Here's the thing though.
There are an awful lot of people who are of the view that the UK is making a mistake here. Apart from at the height of the vaccine wars, "2016 was the wrong decision" outpolls "2016 was the right decision". I've posted this link before, but it's important;
If Labour gets on board as a Brexit cheerleader, they ship lots of votes- mostly younger, urban voters.
I don't know what the answer is, but getting on board with Brexit isn't it.
Labour are doomed to opposition for the next 2 or 3 cycles in that case. The Tory voter coalition is built on the back of brexit and traditional culture, I don't see how that can be broken apart by the current Labour party. In the same way Dave shat on the blue rinse brigade and turnip taliban to win in 2010 and 2015 Starmer needs to do the same with his remoaners and ultra woke types. They have nowhere else to go if they want to win.
Traditional culture will mean much less when voters' wallets are ravaged by higher taxes, higher interest rates and faster inflation.
This is the next big debate. It will be the economy and living standards.
Will a party calling for even more expenditure and even higher taxes and even faster greening benefit from the discontent?
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
The leave identity won't crumble though, Labour needs to get on board with being a brexit cheerleader. It needs to start welcoming independent trade deals and make whatever number of pledges necessary to not reopen the existing brexit deal.
Labour simply isn't trusted not to sell out brexit as soon as they get power in tandem with the SNP. I know more leave voters than you and all of them suspect that Starmer will sign us up to the single market and customs union within a year of becoming PM. He was remainer and mischief maker in chief from 2016-2020 literally until the day we left the EU. He was the guy who pivoted Labour from Corbyn's "deliver a Labour brexit" idea to proposing a second referendum in 2019. Leave voters have long memories and Labour is tainted from the 2016-2019 brexit blocking shenanigans instigated by their current leader.
"I'm really pleased that, whatever outcome the next Prime Minister puts before us, whether that's a deal of some sort or no deal, we've agreed that it must be subject to another referendum, and in that referendum Remain must be an option, and Labour will be campaigning for Remain.
That's a really important point of principle" - Sir Keir Starmer 2019
That's why he will never be PM - nearly two thirds of constituencies voted Leave
I never thought I would type these words but I agree with @bigjohnowls and @TheJezziah, getting rid of Corbyn was the worst thing for Labour, Two thoughts:
1. Labour didn't get hammered in 2019 because of Corbyn but because Corbyn was NOT Corbyn i.e. he was constantly being told by SKS and others that Labour needed to do everything it could do to hang on the Labour vote. The Corbyn of 2017 was successful because he had a lot to offer a significant chunk of the Labour base with his policies and, crucially, he recognised that Labour needed to recognise the Brexit vote. It was only when the likes of SKS were telling him how he needed to cut and turn and play that he lost a lot of the Brexit-supporting WWC base. Starmer was a fucking disaster for Labour's 2019 campaign in the same way as he is as leader.
2. It's time for Labour to throw the middle class woke brigade overboard and concentrate on a strategy that builds from its traditional WWC base whilst keeping the Black / Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote. Crucially, keeping the latter minimises seat loss risk in the inner-city seats. If the wokeists bugger off from Labour to the Greens in Hackney or Southwark, yes, Labour's majority may get cut from 30K-40K to 10K-15K but so what? They are still safe seats and Labour would benefit from gaining seats in its traditional areas.
I presume cutting down the trees has had quite a political impact.
A LD/Green administration would be good. Don’t know if that’s possible, maybe with support from an independent or two?
Or the lone tory, been a long time since there's been a tory on Sheffield Council, it would be good if they had some power
Sheffield Labour councillors seem to have evolved from the Golgafrinchams. Burn/chop down the trees and arrest anyone upset by it has been a fabulous policy.
AFTER the dust has settled, can we please return to TRULY important matters?
Such as the Heligoland Question!
More to the point, how do you get a Covid test 24 hours before leaving the South Sandwich Islands?
Guess you need to bring a doctor along with you? And a sandwich!
Perhaps you could summon up the ghost of the 4th Earl of Sandwich, to gain insight into current government "thinking"?
He was not just the guy for whom these un-tropic isles are named (and inventor of the sandwich) but also a prominent Tory cabinet minister.
So no doubt still well-connected & informed re: intentions of the Prime Minister. Who, like him, is one of Britain's great political minds of the 18th century.
A very simple and underestimated issue about Labour's woes can be discerned from the history of the Tories. Like Labour, most of the Tory establishment were pro Remain at referendum time. They all lost. The Tories then made what now looks like the elementary error of appointing a remainer to oversee Brexit. The terrible election campaign of 2017, demolished by non Brexit bad campaigning, overshadowed the fact that TM was a remainer.
The only way it could be put right was to have a Brexiteer in charge.
Labour have committed exactly the same mistake. We know that SKS's heart is not in Brexit. And they still lack having a younger generation of potential Labour leaders who can say: 'Brexit is a great opportunity for the centre left social democrats, and I am absolutely behind it, because......' They couldn't even find one for Hartlepool.
This is stuff you could not make up. Labour are fighting with historical weaponry.
I think the tories do need to be careful...i think all.these northern votes they are racking up are soft. If Labour actually talk about issues they care about in a way that doesn't accuse them of being thick racists, and eventually the Tories will have to turn the magic money tap off...I think they could easily return to Labour very quickly.
While we see in places like Surrey many are pissed off with the Tories.and won't immediately return while Boris is in charge.
At the moment Brexit and vaccine gives Boris the fair wind.
Many thanks for the likes yesterday on my re-election (with increased majority thanks to last minute knocking up (oooh er..) by the dream team of Jack W and Andrea) to Surrey County Council.
But, and I think little to do with us as an Authority, we almost certainly had the worst Tory performance in the country by losing a net 14 seats. We did at least gain the political scalp of the LibDem leader (who I rather liked and respected) and still hold 47 of the 81 seats. I believe HYUFD is bang on the mark for the underlying reasons.
I thought they were one of the poster childs of disease control?
Nah....South Korea is the only country now who has managed this without going full metal isolation / lockdown with 2 cases and they still bump along with a few 100 cases a day.
I still don’t really understand South Korea (not that I’ve made any effort to). They consistently have between c.4-700 cases a day but never more or less. Which suggests that their R number has basically been exactly 1 for weeks. Which in the U.K. we would be saying leaves the situation on a knife edge. And their number of deaths fluctuates between 4 and 9 a day. I don’t understand how they can be controlling it that well, without it ever breaking upwards - or moving towards elimination.
UAE numbers are similar, ranging from 1700-2000 cases per day for about the past three months, with a lot of testing going on. I guess it shows that a sensible number of restrictions on venue capacities and a generally compliant population can keep cases at a manageable level. Might also be a vaccine effect.
Once the Celtic scroungers have all gone the English will soon realise that Labour are completely unelectable and as nature abhors a vacumn, we will see a complete realignment of politics. An independent Scotland will no doubt go back to voting Labour but with nobody left to subsidise them....
I wonder if, in the end, what the SNP represents is the world's biggest and best organised protection racket. It works along the lines of 'nice little union you have got there, be a shame if anything happened to it.'
They work it so well. Notice how the SNP's share is always big enough to be a massive threat, but not quite big enough for the government in Westminster to say 'its a fair cop, its clear you want to leave, we have to give you independence now'
Westminster is still in the game, just, always.
The only reason why is the Scots want to know how big a jockgeld Johnson is prepared to pay. Looks like its going to be pretty big.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
I think the tories do need to be careful...i think all.these northern votes they are racking up are soft. If Labour actually talk about issues they care about in a way that doesn't accuse them of being thick racists, and eventually the Tories will have to turn the magic money tap off...I think they could easily return to Labour very quickly.
While we see in places like Surrey many are pissed off with the Tories.
At the moment Brexit and vaccine gives Boris the fair wind.
The danger is genuine. However, that 'if' wrt Labour is doing a whole lot of heavy lifting. The disdain felt by many in the left for the views of ordinary people is at best barely beneath the surface - and those 'thick northerners' have caught on.
On a potential Scottish referendum. will we soon be in a position that Johnston is arguing against but hoping that his hand is forced and Sturgeon is arguing for but hoping that it is blocked?
Is it just me or is the constant political with a same p on Sky Sports and BT Sports getting incredibly irriating. I just want to watch the footy, but every advert break is bombarded by social media abuse, BLM, eco campaigns and no escape while watching the game as they flash up BLM banner next to the score.
Sky is now owned by Democrat shilling ComCast - not Rupert Murdoch.
I note the Kentucky Derby beat the Oscars for viewing figures in the US this year - draw your own conclusions.
On Brexit below, a considerable proportion of the Tory parliamentary and extra-parliamentary party were supporting it. The cabinet itself was split. The Tory Brexiters were not the anti-establishment of fond imaginings.
Many thanks for the likes yesterday on my re-election (with increased majority thanks to last minute knocking up (oooh er..) by the dream team of Jack W and Andrea) to Surrey County Council.
But, and I think little to do with us as an Authority, we almost certainly had the worst Tory performance in the country by losing a net 14 seats. We did at least gain the political scalp of the LibDem leader (who I rather liked and respected) and still hold 47 of the 81 seats. I believe HYUFD is bang on the mark for the underlying reasons.
Its hardly surprising. Surrey is one of the places where Johnson is going to be looking for money to fund his towering spending plans.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
What the words mean, and what Labour mean by them, are (at least potentially) different things.
A person I know well had an automated text from what allegedly was his bank asking him about 2 transactions (not ones he had made). ( I have since seen a screenshot of the message)
He ignored it thinking it was one of those phishing attempts and they froze his account
Went to bank with passport etc and they have now told him they have shut his account due to this and a payment made into his account when he sold his dogecoin holding (say 200 tops).
They say they will transfer his funds to another account that he nominates
Once the Celtic scroungers have all gone the English will soon realise that Labour are completely unelectable and as nature abhors a vacumn, we will see a complete realignment of politics. An independent Scotland will no doubt go back to voting Labour but with nobody left to subsidise them....
They will do what the Tories are..creating money..
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
The leave identity won't crumble though, Labour needs to get on board with being a brexit cheerleader. It needs to start welcoming independent trade deals and make whatever number of pledges necessary to not reopen the existing brexit deal.
Labour simply isn't trusted not to sell out brexit as soon as they get power in tandem with the SNP. I know more leave voters than you and all of them suspect that Starmer will sign us up to the single market and customs union within a year of becoming PM. He was remainer and mischief maker in chief from 2016-2020 literally until the day we left the EU. He was the guy who pivoted Labour from Corbyn's "deliver a Labour brexit" idea to proposing a second referendum in 2019. Leave voters have long memories and Labour is tainted from the 2016-2019 brexit blocking shenanigans instigated by their current leader.
Here's the thing though.
There are an awful lot of people who are of the view that the UK is making a mistake here. Apart from at the height of the vaccine wars, "2016 was the wrong decision" outpolls "2016 was the right decision". I've posted this link before, but it's important;
If Labour gets on board as a Brexit cheerleader, they ship lots of votes- mostly younger, urban voters.
I don't know what the answer is, but getting on board with Brexit isn't it.
Part of the answer is:
Nationally dont talk about it - it is done and up to the govt to make it work. At constituency level in strong leave constituencies, ensure you have candidates who supported leave or at least not candidates who supported a second ref.
Is it just me or is the constant political with a same p on Sky Sports and BT Sports getting incredibly irriating. I just want to watch the footy, but every advert break is bombarded by social media abuse, BLM, eco campaigns and no escape while watching the game as they flash up BLM banner next to the score.
Sky is now owned by Democrat shilling ComCast - not Rupert Murdoch.
I note the Kentucky Derby beat the Oscars for viewing figures in the US this year - draw your own conclusions.
Ever heard of the pause button and FF....
But sodding BT and Sky have baked this into the actual match now...Kane goes through, he scores, lets go to the replay brought to you by our campaign against online hate speech....its like the worst of US sports coverage with constant sponsorship stuff, but rather than this brought to you in association with pepsi, its their political campaign.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
The leave identity won't crumble though, Labour needs to get on board with being a brexit cheerleader. It needs to start welcoming independent trade deals and make whatever number of pledges necessary to not reopen the existing brexit deal.
Labour simply isn't trusted not to sell out brexit as soon as they get power in tandem with the SNP. I know more leave voters than you and all of them suspect that Starmer will sign us up to the single market and customs union within a year of becoming PM. He was remainer and mischief maker in chief from 2016-2020 literally until the day we left the EU. He was the guy who pivoted Labour from Corbyn's "deliver a Labour brexit" idea to proposing a second referendum in 2019. Leave voters have long memories and Labour is tainted from the 2016-2019 brexit blocking shenanigans instigated by their current leader.
Here's the thing though.
There are an awful lot of people who are of the view that the UK is making a mistake here. Apart from at the height of the vaccine wars, "2016 was the wrong decision" outpolls "2016 was the right decision". I've posted this link before, but it's important;
If Labour gets on board as a Brexit cheerleader, they ship lots of votes- mostly younger, urban voters.
I don't know what the answer is, but getting on board with Brexit isn't it.
Part of the answer is:
Nationally dont talk about it - it is done and up to the govt to make it work. At constituency level in strong leave constituencies, ensure you have candidates who supported leave or at least not candidates who supported a second ref.
Aren't they in very short supply though in Labour?
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
Balls. The nationalists keep winning and winning and winning because the unionist parties are all shite, they're hopelessly divided, and anyway voters with British sentiments are a declining minority in Scotland. The only reason they didn't vote to go in 2014 was because the soft middle of the Scottish electorate thought it would result in higher taxes.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
I'm also extremely uneasy about Boris becoming a landlord and renting out his house in London. That's got to be a huge conflict of interest when the chancellor inevitably begins to push for more restrictions and taxes on landlords. How much will Boris' personal financial situation play into the decision making process.
Cameron rented his place out.
Yes but whether he had to pay £10k extra tax a year made virtually no difference to his net worth or state of mind. It appears it does with the PM if his bleating is to be believed.
Just noticed that Jess Philips is fav on BF for next lab leader at 4.1
I don’t think it takes much to shift that market, but you can definitely imagine her throwing her hat in the ring if they lose Batley & Spen. She’s a slightly more electable version of Angela Rayner I suppose. Gobbier but with added brains.
Can you see Jess Phillips as PM? Thought not...
More than I could picture Starmer as one, yes.
Its still a "no" though...
Just like sex in Lincolnshire, it's all relative ...
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
As a Remain voter I'm of the opinion that Brexit makes independence a bit less likely. Yes, there is a pretext for another referendum but the voters are much better informed about trade deals, currency and border issues. Scotland would have to choose between a free trade agreement and no physical border with rUK or EU membership. The currency issue is also massive. Citizenship entitlement and pension liabilities are now also even more tricky and will get more scrutiny.
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
Balls. The nationalists keep winning and winning and winning because the unionist parties are all shite, they're hopelessly divided, and anyway voters with British sentiments are a declining minority in Scotland. The only reason they didn't vote to go in 2014 was because the soft middle of the Scottish electorate thought it would result in higher taxes.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
The Union was originally held together not only by money but amnesia of historical differences. Scotland's history is that of an entirely different relationship with the European continent, and a project rooted in the most isolationist and conservative parts of England could scarcely be better designed to weaken the Union, as I'm sure you know.
I make the range of potential SNP seats now (constituency) from to 60 to 62 seats. The lower number hinges on the SCons having an outside chance of taking Perthshire South & Edinburgh Pentlands, whilst also holding Aberdeenshire West.
So, it depends then on how many the SNP pick up on the list for Highlands & Islands, and South Scotland - I presume 1 x seat for the former and 2-3 for the latter so they should end up on between 63-65 seats?
I might have got my maths wrong but I'm not sure a (bare) majority is still mathematically impossible.
No way they can get 3 seats in the south. Even 2 seats stretches the bounds of credibility.
They will get 1 in the south.
Can you talk me through this, if you don't mind?
SNP got 3 x seats in SoS last time and voting percentages there don't seem wildly different this time?
What am I missing?
They've won 2 extra constituencies in the SoS region - Ayr and East Lothian
I make the range of potential SNP seats now (constituency) from to 60 to 62 seats. The lower number hinges on the SCons having an outside chance of taking Perthshire South & Edinburgh Pentlands, whilst also holding Aberdeenshire West.
So, it depends then on how many the SNP pick up on the list for Highlands & Islands, and South Scotland - I presume 1 x seat for the former and 2-3 for the latter so they should end up on between 63-65 seats?
I might have got my maths wrong but I'm not sure a (bare) majority is still mathematically impossible.
No way they can get 3 seats in the south. Even 2 seats stretches the bounds of credibility.
They will get 1 in the south.
Can you talk me through this, if you don't mind?
SNP got 3 x seats in SoS last time and voting percentages there don't seem wildly different this time?
What am I missing?
They've won 2 extra constituencies in the SoS region - Ayr and East Lothian
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
The leave identity won't crumble though, Labour needs to get on board with being a brexit cheerleader. It needs to start welcoming independent trade deals and make whatever number of pledges necessary to not reopen the existing brexit deal.
Labour simply isn't trusted not to sell out brexit as soon as they get power in tandem with the SNP. I know more leave voters than you and all of them suspect that Starmer will sign us up to the single market and customs union within a year of becoming PM. He was remainer and mischief maker in chief from 2016-2020 literally until the day we left the EU. He was the guy who pivoted Labour from Corbyn's "deliver a Labour brexit" idea to proposing a second referendum in 2019. Leave voters have long memories and Labour is tainted from the 2016-2019 brexit blocking shenanigans instigated by their current leader.
"I'm really pleased that, whatever outcome the next Prime Minister puts before us, whether that's a deal of some sort or no deal, we've agreed that it must be subject to another referendum, and in that referendum Remain must be an option, and Labour will be campaigning for Remain.
That's a really important point of principle" - Sir Keir Starmer 2019
That's why he will never be PM - nearly two thirds of constituencies voted Leave
I never thought I would type these words but I agree with @bigjohnowls and @TheJezziah, getting rid of Corbyn was the worst thing for Labour, Two thoughts:
1. Labour didn't get hammered in 2019 because of Corbyn but because Corbyn was NOT Corbyn i.e. he was constantly being told by SKS and others that Labour needed to do everything it could do to hang on the Labour vote. The Corbyn of 2017 was successful because he had a lot to offer a significant chunk of the Labour base with his policies and, crucially, he recognised that Labour needed to recognise the Brexit vote. It was only when the likes of SKS were telling him how he needed to cut and turn and play that he lost a lot of the Brexit-supporting WWC base. Starmer was a fucking disaster for Labour's 2019 campaign in the same way as he is as leader.
2. It's time for Labour to throw the middle class woke brigade overboard and concentrate on a strategy that builds from its traditional WWC base whilst keeping the Black / Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote. Crucially, keeping the latter minimises seat loss risk in the inner-city seats. If the wokeists bugger off from Labour to the Greens in Hackney or Southwark, yes, Labour's majority may get cut from 30K-40K to 10K-15K but so what? They are still safe seats and Labour would benefit from gaining seats in its traditional areas.
Corbyn came 700,000 votes behind in 2017 following the worst Tory campaign ever. He would have been slaughtered in 2019 come whatever as long as Boris was the Tory leader. He would have done worse in both elections if his younger woke voters knew he was a proper lifelong Brexiteer. And the Brexit voting WWC would not turn out in sufficient numbers for a unilateralist.
A Labour which was WWC + BAME would be interesting. Where would it stand on gay marriage and a few other matters?
It would further splinter the non Tory vote - a fact which is already hugely to Tory advantage. The woke would split all over the place.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
What Blair had above all was a positive vision for Britain, that’s what Labour need to rediscover.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
I do think this view of Labour people's emotions is overstated, tbh, verging on gaslighting in fact, but - yes - a sense of confidence and optimism about the country and its future is essential. To the extent this really is a problem right now it must be fixed. Of all the fixes needed, it will be one of the easiest.
The trick is to attach the problems to the government, not their supporters or the country. Blair understood that with "Britain deserves better". Johnson understands that, which is why he tries to make out that he is the country, or that criticising the government is to insult its supporters in the country.
Yes, that is the bollox we need to get through and over.
"Youth unemployment is now at 10%. Just what does this government have to say to these young people facing a life with no prospects and no hope."
"There he goes again, talking this great country down, spreading doom and gloom like a cadaver at the feast of Stephen. Our young people are terrific. They have drive, they have energy, they are full to overflowing with fizz and vim and vigour. They know this government, and this Prime Minister, is four square on their side, working tirelessly to make everything as good as it can possibly be in this best of all possible worlds, while all the snivelling little git opposite does is whine whine whine. I've a good mind to ..."
Quote of the day might be the shadow minister who told @thetimes: "I don’t think the reason why we lost Hartlepool is because Thangam Debbonaire is the shadow housing secretary
The shadow minister who gave that quote? Thangam Debbonaire
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
The leave identity won't crumble though, Labour needs to get on board with being a brexit cheerleader. It needs to start welcoming independent trade deals and make whatever number of pledges necessary to not reopen the existing brexit deal.
Labour simply isn't trusted not to sell out brexit as soon as they get power in tandem with the SNP. I know more leave voters than you and all of them suspect that Starmer will sign us up to the single market and customs union within a year of becoming PM. He was remainer and mischief maker in chief from 2016-2020 literally until the day we left the EU. He was the guy who pivoted Labour from Corbyn's "deliver a Labour brexit" idea to proposing a second referendum in 2019. Leave voters have long memories and Labour is tainted from the 2016-2019 brexit blocking shenanigans instigated by their current leader.
"I'm really pleased that, whatever outcome the next Prime Minister puts before us, whether that's a deal of some sort or no deal, we've agreed that it must be subject to another referendum, and in that referendum Remain must be an option, and Labour will be campaigning for Remain.
That's a really important point of principle" - Sir Keir Starmer 2019
That's why he will never be PM - nearly two thirds of constituencies voted Leave
I never thought I would type these words but I agree with @bigjohnowls and @TheJezziah, getting rid of Corbyn was the worst thing for Labour, Two thoughts:
1. Labour didn't get hammered in 2019 because of Corbyn but because Corbyn was NOT Corbyn i.e. he was constantly being told by SKS and others that Labour needed to do everything it could do to hang on the Labour vote. The Corbyn of 2017 was successful because he had a lot to offer a significant chunk of the Labour base with his policies and, crucially, he recognised that Labour needed to recognise the Brexit vote. It was only when the likes of SKS were telling him how he needed to cut and turn and play that he lost a lot of the Brexit-supporting WWC base. Starmer was a fucking disaster for Labour's 2019 campaign in the same way as he is as leader.
2. It's time for Labour to throw the middle class woke brigade overboard and concentrate on a strategy that builds from its traditional WWC base whilst keeping the Black / Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote. Crucially, keeping the latter minimises seat loss risk in the inner-city seats. If the wokeists bugger off from Labour to the Greens in Hackney or Southwark, yes, Labour's majority may get cut from 30K-40K to 10K-15K but so what? They are still safe seats and Labour would benefit from gaining seats in its traditional areas.
Corbyn came 700,000 votes behind in 2017 following the worst Tory campaign ever. He would have been slaughtered in 2019 come whatever as long as Boris was the Tory leader. He would have done worse in both elections if his younger woke voters knew he was a proper lifelong Brexiteer. And the Brexit voting WWC would not turn out in sufficient numbers for a unilateralist.
A Labour which was WWC + BAME would be interesting. Where would it stand on gay marriage and a few other matters?
It would further splinter the non Tory vote - a fact which is already hugely to Tory advantage. The woke would split all over the place.
Labour should look for a merger - perhaps with the Greens. Rebrand and start again.
"What is challenging for Johnson is that what was then TMay’s party did exceptionally well at LE2017 and on the face of it could see losses now which is very much against the current narrative."
Second comment on that thread, from me, demonstrates a rather better sense of what was going to happen:
"Worth noting that when the 2017 local election seats were fought, the Tories also had an 11% lead over Labour on the actual result - albeit on 38%-27%. If Labour are to make any gains, they look to be from LibDems (7% now versus 18% actual in 2017). Labour will stand still as against the Tories at best (note YouGov has 3% for Refuk, but as most seats won't have a candidate that could add a point or two to the Tory lead).
Those seats last fought in 2016 could prove to be horrible for Labour, where they actually finished one point ahead of the Tories on 31%, Tories on 30%, LibDems 15%, UKIP 12%. Looking at projections for these seats - where they won 1326 Councillors to the Tories 842 - may be where the gloom in Labour's internal machine is coming from.
Starmer could be down 200-250 councillors after next Thursday."
Currently:
Cons up 172
Labour down 208....
* buffs nails *
Another one who predicted Labour gains from the LibDems. I must have missed them.
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
Balls. The nationalists keep winning and winning and winning because the unionist parties are all shite, they're hopelessly divided, and anyway voters with British sentiments are a declining minority in Scotland. The only reason they didn't vote to go in 2014 was because the soft middle of the Scottish electorate thought it would result in higher taxes.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
The Union was originally held together not only by money but amnesia of historical differences. Scotland's history is that of an entirely different relationship with the European continent, and a project rooted in the most isolationist and conservative parts of England could scarcely be better designed to weaken the Union, as I'm sure you're aware.
True if you go back to pre-modern times. Modern Scotland evolved as a part of the Union as much as England did. The greatest and most significant achievements of Scots in science, philosophy, literature, engineering were post union and to a great extent enabled by it. I won't mention the military contribution or empire building. Modern Scottish nationalism is based on grievance and hatred of the other with a veneer of "civic nationalism" and it actually downplays the achievements unlike any other nationalism that I am aware of!
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
Balls. The nationalists keep winning and winning and winning because the unionist parties are all shite, they're hopelessly divided, and anyway voters with British sentiments are a declining minority in Scotland. The only reason they didn't vote to go in 2014 was because the soft middle of the Scottish electorate thought it would result in higher taxes.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
The Union was originally held together not only by money but amnesia of historical differences. Scotland's history is that of an entirely different relationship with the European continent, and a project rooted in the most isolationist and conservative parts of England could scarcely be better designed to weaken the Union, as I'm sure you know.
There are certain arguments against Brexit that only work when it is an event in the future, but fall apart when Brexit has happened and reality confounds project fear.
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
As a Remain voter I'm of the opinion that Brexit makes independence a bit less likely. Yes, there is a pretext for another referendum but the voters are much better informed about trade deals, currency and border issues. Scotland would have to choose between a free trade agreement and no physical border with rUK or EU membership. The currency issue is also massive. Citizenship entitlement and pension liabilities are now also even more tricky and will get more scrutiny.
Yep, in 2014 the SNP argued that all the talk from the U.K. about how bad the post Indy negotiations would be for Scotland was “project fear” and in reality the U.K. would negotiate in a “mutually beneficial spirit”
However a future referendum would be very different. Because the RUK could, if they do wished, adopt a position of intending to be very generous, particularly in relation to border issues. The problem is that rUK pursuing “open border with Scotland” approach would, in effect require them to reject EU membership. So the anti-Indy camp could legimately say that many of the post Indy difficulties for Scotland would be out of their hands.
Paul Middleton @ProfPMiddleton If @theSNP end up on 64 seats, I'm sure they'll allow another party to take Presiding Officer. That would mean a 64-64 Parliament! #SP2021 #SP21 #indyref2
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
Balls. The nationalists keep winning and winning and winning because the unionist parties are all shite, they're hopelessly divided, and anyway voters with British sentiments are a declining minority in Scotland. The only reason they didn't vote to go in 2014 was because the soft middle of the Scottish electorate thought it would result in higher taxes.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
The Union was originally held together not only by money but amnesia of historical differences. Scotland's history is that of an entirely different relationship with the European continent, and a project rooted in the most isolationist and conservative parts of England could scarcely be better designed to weaken the Union, as I'm sure you know.
The Union was smashed up by devolution, and in particular the model of devolution chosen. Lop-sided devolution, which left the people of the four constituent parts of the UK all with different rights and different degrees of power (and therefore conferred the same upon their elected representatives,) not to mention the failure to devolve tax raising powers properly or to scrap and replace Barnett. It was a custom built grievance engine and the SNP have driven it at breakneck speed along that motorway to independence with no exits.
If we're going to start dragging the Auld Alliance up then you might as well blame the poor sodding English voter for the depredations of Longshanks and be done with it.
I was just looking at the PCC results (personally I don’t think the post should exist but I was looking).
It’s an interesting future poison pill for a Labour Government isn’t it? Not hard to imagine almost a Tory clean sweep and a coordinated “Labour is soft on crime” campaign emanating from those offices, with all sorts of confected arguments with the Home Office.
Maybe Cameron and Osborne did know what they were doing.
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
Balls. The nationalists keep winning and winning and winning because the unionist parties are all shite, they're hopelessly divided, and anyway voters with British sentiments are a declining minority in Scotland. The only reason they didn't vote to go in 2014 was because the soft middle of the Scottish electorate thought it would result in higher taxes.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
The Union was originally held together not only by money but amnesia of historical differences. Scotland's history is that of an entirely different relationship with the European continent, and a project rooted in the most isolationist and conservative parts of England could scarcely be better designed to weaken the Union, as I'm sure you're aware.
True if you go back to pre-modern times. Modern Scotland evolved as a part of the Union as much as England did. The greatest and most significant achievements of Scots in science, philosophy, literature, engineering were post union and to a great extent enabled by it. I won't mention the military contribution or empire building. Modern Scottish nationalism is based on grievance and hatred of the other with a veneer of "civic nationalism" and it actually downplays the achievements unlike any other nationalism that I am aware of!
All of these achievements as you listed them are correct, but the persisting differences in popular cultural views are the telltale. The average popular cultural view of the French is still entirely different, for instance.
Any idea on how the List vote percentages are in Scotland yet? Alba seem to be a dead duck, but any sign of the "Both Votes SNP" campaign working to increase their share? Or have enough of their votes splintered to Greens and Alba to hurt them?
The way the List works seems weird at times. Take Mid Scotland and Fife for instance - in 2011 they held or gained all but one of the constituencies, but still ended up with one List MSP; in 2016 they again had all but one of the constituencies, but this time they lost their only MSP.
Ballot box scotland Twitter had been publishing constituency level list results as they are released. Overall SNP seem slightly down on vote share compared with 2016, mainly to the greens. Some evidence of tactical voting, especially LibDem to SCON in the North East
Once the Celtic scroungers have all gone the English will soon realise that Labour are completely unelectable and as nature abhors a vacumn, we will see a complete realignment of politics. An independent Scotland will no doubt go back to voting Labour but with nobody left to subsidise them....
I can't agree with the use of the term "Celtic Scroungers" but I agree with the second point. The loss of the Scottish block has meant that Labour will never govern on its own again in my opinion.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
If Labour held leadership elections every 18 months as a matter of course, do you think Starmer would be favourite to win now? If the answer is no, why bother carrying on with him?
Yes, because there’s no realistic alternative. One reason why Duncan Smith was toppled was that there were two clear cut candidates to replace him in Davis and Howard.
The loss of talent under first Brown, later Miliband and then finally Corbyn really is haunting Labour.
And to be clear, the Conservatives face the same problem if Johnson falls under a bus tomorrow. The choice will be Sunak (personable, but about twelve years old, very dry, fingerprints on some of the worst Covid decisions) or Gove (stop sniggering at the back). None of the rest of them come close.
The con parliamentary party is brimming with lots of raw talent, much of it very new. Kemi Badenoch is a solid star to watch..
Kemi’s great, and doing an awesome job on the Equalities brief. Definitely a future member of the Cabinet.
Mr. Fishing, aye. Labour dicking about with the constitutional arrangement because they complacently thought they'd have Celtic fiefdoms forever has not been a great success for either the integrity of the UK or the electoral prospects of the Labour Party.
They were afraid of the nationalists and hoped it would solve the issue.
The history of New Labour was them being too clever by half, and it backfiring badly:
- Scottish devolution - dodgy dossiers - financial regulation - mass immigration to "rub the right's noses in diversity" - allowing a house price boom to placate middle England but pricing the young out of the market - letting Northern Irish terrorists turn into gangsters to keep them quiet
etc etc etc.
Unfortunately for the country, they were not nearly as clever as they thought they were.
One of the main advantages to Scotland falling off would be to kick the faltering Labour Party's walking stick away. How soon we forget 2017! We came within a hair's breadth of having Prime Minister Corbyn propped up by the SNP. The best insurance against a future far left Government in England: get shot of the Scottish MPs.
Of course, you could argue that if we had an English Parliament, equity would be restored to the Union and an accommodation between a Labour minority and Scottish nationalism at UK level wouldn't be half so destructive. But we're not getting an English Parliament, so we must deal with the reality of things as they are. Separation is therefore best for everyone, except Labour which richly deserves to suffer the consequences of the hubristic imbecility of Blair, Brown, Dewar and all the rest of them.
The Labour Party killed Britain. It deserves to be thrown into the grave along with it.
This is absurdly partisan, given the rocket boosters provided to the Nationalists by Brexit.
Balls. The nationalists keep winning and winning and winning because the unionist parties are all shite, they're hopelessly divided, and anyway voters with British sentiments are a declining minority in Scotland. The only reason they didn't vote to go in 2014 was because the soft middle of the Scottish electorate thought it would result in higher taxes.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
The Union was originally held together not only by money but amnesia of historical differences. Scotland's history is that of an entirely different relationship with the European continent, and a project rooted in the most isolationist and conservative parts of England could scarcely be better designed to weaken the Union, as I'm sure you know.
The Union was smashed up by devolution, and in particular the model of devolution chosen. Lop-sided devolution, which left the people of the four constituent parts of the UK all with different rights and different degrees of power (and therefore conferred the same upon their elected representatives,) not to mention the failure to devolve tax raising powers properly or to scrap and replace Barnett. It was a custom built grievance engine and the SNP have driven it at breakneck speed along that motorway to independence with no exits.
If we're going to start dragging the Auld Alliance up then you might as well blame the poor sodding English voter for the depredations of Longshanks and be done with it.
Countries don't just break apart by structural steps, but psychological. The historical examples are plentiful.
Many thanks for the likes yesterday on my re-election (with increased majority thanks to last minute knocking up (oooh er..) by the dream team of Jack W and Andrea) to Surrey County Council.
But, and I think little to do with us as an Authority, we almost certainly had the worst Tory performance in the country by losing a net 14 seats. We did at least gain the political scalp of the LibDem leader (who I rather liked and respected) and still hold 47 of the 81 seats. I believe HYUFD is bang on the mark for the underlying reasons.
Depends on what criteria you use to judge performance, I guess. You had the additional handicap of parts of your county being quite remainy. The Tories in my leave-voting area lost seats and have lost the council - are there any other English leave areas where the Tories lost badly?
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
The problem is Labour instinct has been gig economy bad, ban ZHC, ban Uber etc....when we know lots of people actually like the job, its allows them to earn around family commitments or as a side hustle.
That isn't to say a lot of these companies aren't predatory, but loads of people do these jobs as a side hustle as they have aspiration and instead they hear Labour want to ban it.
Off topic: An interesting point made in an article on Modi's responsibility for the situation in India:
"Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze famously showed that famines were caused not just by a shortage of food, but by the lack of a free flow of information and government accountability. Democracies that allow the press and citizens to publicly critique government actions have been shown to be immune to famines. Pandemics follow the same logic."
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
The problem is Labour instinct has been gig economy bad, ban ZHC, ban Uber etc....when we know lots of people actually like the job, its allows them to earn around family commitments or as a side hustle.
Are you saying they wouldn’t like to be paid more and have better conditions of employment?
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
What Blair had above all was a positive vision for Britain, that’s what Labour need to rediscover.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
Yes. This article yesterday in the i, from a Labour activist rang true to me
“We’re seen as patronising supply teachers. There’s some truth to the “going for a pint” test, and right now, we’re so worthy, gloomy and dull, even most Labour activists wouldn’t go for a drink with us. We also prefer to have a go at the public rather than work to win them round. I heard that one Labour canvasser told off a voter on the doorstep who wasn’t supporting the party, suggesting they “check their values”. Political charm school!”
Who goes down better in a working class boozer, a posho who has nothing in common w the locals but gets a round in and downs a pint, or a bloke who went to their school, then on to uni & comes back telling them how unenlightened they all are? Middle class academic Labour are the latter, but because they don’t get that working class people don’t hate posh people like they do, they fail to see they’re wasting their time
Yep, nothing the plebs hate more than upwardly mobile professionals. Hence why this notion that "aspiration" is what they're all about is (to put it at its mildest) ... quite sweet.
Senior Tories believe @theSNP is now going to get a majority. They say #BothVotesSNP list strategy appears to have done the business
Makes no sense. In the list votes we've seen so far the SNP are down on 2016 AND they have picked up constiuency seats. Where do these "Senior Tories" think the List gain(s) are coming from?
Senior Tories believe @theSNP is now going to get a majority. They say #BothVotesSNP list strategy appears to have done the business
Makes no sense. In the list votes we've seen so far the SNP are down on 2016 AND they have picked up constiuency seats. Where do these "Senior Tories" think the List gain(s) are coming from?
Surprises me too. Expectation management?
Beeb feed -
David Mundell anticipates SNP majority
Former Scottish Secretary David MundellImage caption: Former Scottish Secretary David Mundell David Mundell accepts the SNP are going to win and he anticipates they will have a majority, as they will pick up some list seats. etc etc
Quote of the day might be the shadow minister who told @thetimes: "I don’t think the reason why we lost Hartlepool is because Thangam Debbonaire is the shadow housing secretary
The shadow minister who gave that quote? Thangam Debbonaire
But maybe they partly lost because no one in Hartlepool knows who she is or far more importantly what Labour wants to do on housing. Or indeed, whether Labour even gives a flying f**k about housing when there's social justice to be tackled.
Off topic: An interesting point made in an article on Modi's responsibility for the situation in India:
"Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze famously showed that famines were caused not just by a shortage of food, but by the lack of a free flow of information and government accountability. Democracies that allow the press and citizens to publicly critique government actions have been shown to be immune to famines. Pandemics follow the same logic."
I'm all for democracy, but I'm not sure that the democracies of Western Europe and the United States have been immune to this particular pandemic have they?
Paul Middleton @ProfPMiddleton If @theSNP end up on 64 seats, I'm sure they'll allow another party to take Presiding Officer. That would mean a 64-64 Parliament! #SP2021 #SP21 #indyref2
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
The problem is Labour instinct has been gig economy bad, ban ZHC, ban Uber etc....when we know lots of people actually like the job, its allows them to earn around family commitments or as a side hustle.
Are you saying they wouldn’t like to be paid more and have better conditions of employment?
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
It's not a trivial exercise to identify the problem. You have to do this first in order to propose a solution. If you do it the other way around you risk wasting a lot of time. Jones argues that Labour's problem is lack of a vision that's both clear and radically different to the Conservatives. His solution is to develop that vision and he views the GE17 manifesto and campaign as something to draw upon. I'm not a total buyer of this - I think the 17 offering was old fashioned and the result somewhat flattered it due to tactical voting by Remainers - but it's a perspective that adds value and needs to be seriously considered.
It certainly adds more value than the noddy, jaundiced notion that Jeremy Corbyn is the source of all Labour's ills and the solution is to eliminate his toxic legacy by embracing the flag and eschewing radicalism or anything which smacks of looking too socialist, chasing memories of Tony Blair and 1997. I do think there is much to learn from the New Labour project, but it's in the areas of style and focus and organization, rather than policy substance and political positioning. Blair was Mr 90s and that was a different world.
What Blair had above all was a positive vision for Britain, that’s what Labour need to rediscover.
Too many of today’s Labour Party are all negative and angry in their emotions, which is a massive turn-off to many voters.
Yes. This article yesterday in the i, from a Labour activist rang true to me
“We’re seen as patronising supply teachers. There’s some truth to the “going for a pint” test, and right now, we’re so worthy, gloomy and dull, even most Labour activists wouldn’t go for a drink with us. We also prefer to have a go at the public rather than work to win them round. I heard that one Labour canvasser told off a voter on the doorstep who wasn’t supporting the party, suggesting they “check their values”. Political charm school!”
Who goes down better in a working class boozer, a posho who has nothing in common w the locals but gets a round in and downs a pint, or a bloke who went to their school, then on to uni & comes back telling them how unenlightened they all are? Middle class academic Labour are the latter, but because they don’t get that working class people don’t hate posh people like they do, they fail to see they’re wasting their time
Yep, nothing the plebs hate more than upwardly mobile professionals. Hence why this notion that "aspiration" is what they're all about is (to put it at its mildest) ... quite sweet.
So down your local working class boozer they don't aspire to say off the top of my head send one of their grandkids off to university as the first ever in their family?
Once the Celtic scroungers have all gone the English will soon realise that Labour are completely unelectable and as nature abhors a vacumn, we will see a complete realignment of politics. An independent Scotland will no doubt go back to voting Labour but with nobody left to subsidise them....
I wonder if, in the end, what the SNP represents is the world's biggest and best organised protection racket. It works along the lines of 'nice little union you have got there, be a shame if anything happened to it.'
They work it so well. Notice how the SNP's share is always big enough to be a massive threat, but not quite big enough for the government in Westminster to say 'its a fair cop, its clear you want to leave, we have to give you independence now'
Westminster is still in the game, just, always.
The only reason why is the Scots want to know how big a jockgeld Johnson is prepared to pay. Looks like its going to be pretty big.
That figure is a drect result of the Labour-LD gerrymkandering of the Scottish Parliament. Of course it is going to be borderline, it was designed that way.
Paul Middleton @ProfPMiddleton If @theSNP end up on 64 seats, I'm sure they'll allow another party to take Presiding Officer. That would mean a 64-64 Parliament! #SP2021 #SP21 #indyref2
Not sure they want to give up that control.
The current Presiding Officer at dissolution was from Labour,
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
The problem is Labour instinct has been gig economy bad, ban ZHC, ban Uber etc....when we know lots of people actually like the job, its allows them to earn around family commitments or as a side hustle.
That isn't to say a lot of these companies aren't predatory, but loads of people do these jobs as a side hustle as they have aspiration and instead they hear Labour want to ban it.
Those companies are predatory - the issue is that the business model only works if they bypass the rules.
How you fix that without being made out to be the bad guys is a very different issue
Paul Middleton @ProfPMiddleton If @theSNP end up on 64 seats, I'm sure they'll allow another party to take Presiding Officer. That would mean a 64-64 Parliament! #SP2021 #SP21 #indyref2
Not sure they want to give up that control.
The current Presiding Officer at dissolution was from Labour,
Sarwar is Niclas new best mate so that might continue.
Is it just me or is the constant political with a same p on Sky Sports and BT Sports getting incredibly irriating. I just want to watch the footy, but every advert break is bombarded by social media abuse, BLM, eco campaigns and no escape while watching the game as they flash up BLM banner next to the score.
Sky is now owned by Democrat shilling ComCast - not Rupert Murdoch.
I note the Kentucky Derby beat the Oscars for viewing figures in the US this year - draw your own conclusions.
Ever heard of the pause button and FF....
But sodding BT and Sky have baked this into the actual match now...Kane goes through, he scores, lets go to the replay brought to you by our campaign against online hate speech....its like the worst of US sports coverage with constant sponsorship stuff, but rather than this brought to you in association with pepsi, its their political campaign.
Not hating people really ought to be apolitical. 🤷🏻♂️
I'm also extremely uneasy about Boris becoming a landlord and renting out his house in London. That's got to be a huge conflict of interest when the chancellor inevitably begins to push for more restrictions and taxes on landlords. How much will Boris' personal financial situation play into the decision making process.
Cameron rented his place out.
Dave wasn't reliant on the income from that property rental to pay for his wife's expensive tastes and 6 kids worth of child support.
Wife's tastes? As well as Ms Symonds?
How did you hack Carnyx’s account, Justin?
What have I said wrong?
Edit: should have said "Ms Symonds's." Apologies.
Oh dear. A second error.
It is of course ‘Ms Symonds’.’
Believe "Ms Symonds's" and "Ms Symonds'" are both proper.
But former is clearer, which is preferable & why I use it.
Have always thought the dangling ' a rather ridiculous feature of the English language.
I was taught Symonds's as Symonds is polysyllabic - but Simms' or Simms's if it is a matter of Ms Simms.
Alex Salmond on a live Youtube broadcast just now says he is glad he brought the online community into his press conferences, with Wings "bringing sanity" amongst the "weirdos and cranks" of the mainstream media
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
The problem is Labour instinct has been gig economy bad, ban ZHC, ban Uber etc....when we know lots of people actually like the job, its allows them to earn around family commitments or as a side hustle.
That isn't to say a lot of these companies aren't predatory, but loads of people do these jobs as a side hustle as they have aspiration and instead they hear Labour want to ban it.
Those companies are predatory - the issue is that the business model only works if they bypass the rules.
How you fix that without being made out to be the bad guys is a very different issue
Not all. And this is where you have to be careful. My understanding is Amazon Flex is actually pretty decent gig. I worked a ZHC in a warehouse for a very well known high street store and the pay / conditions was fine. Tough job, but wasn't predatory.
However, we know the likes of Uber Eats, Deliveroo can't even make money during a pandemic when you can't go out and after screwing the take aways and drivers / riders. But are extremely popular service.
London is looking closer than expected, but only Lab, Con and Green are going to keep their hefty deposits. £170k being a big chunk of the cost of running the election.
Trivial to identify Labour's problems as he does. Coming up with plausible, workable, pragmatic solutions to them would be far more interesting, and challenging.
In simple terms Con are now Leave and Lab are now Remain - the leaders of the parties were the main faces of Leave and the ‘Peoples Vote’ after all. Hartlepool seems to indicate that Leavers who were formerly Lab voters don’t mind voting Tory now, & Labour are doing well in southern Remain areas.
I guess the big problem for Labour, if the it is true that voters are staying with their Brexit vote rather than their traditional party, is that Leave won roughly 64% of parliamentary constituencies according to Hanretty, so the Tories have an inbuilt advantage while that stays relevant.
It’s probably true to say it was Starmer’s Brexit policy, a second referendum in which Labour would campaign for Remain, that lost the Red Wall rather than anti Corbyn sentiment, now we know for sure that Leave areas don’t vote for Sir Keir’s Corbyn-less Labour
Whilst there is still a strong leave identity, there really isnt a strong remain one. Brexit is done. All I ask is the government gets credit/blame for how it turns out and doesnt seek to blame it on others. Remain is a terrible place for Labour to build from compared to say workers, or even current under 50s.
This is at the heart of the problem imo. The Leave identity is bigger AND stronger AND more unified than Remain. The Tories own it and until this changes will be a bugger to remove from power under FPTP.
That's only the case so long as people care about the Leave identity and not some other Big Idea that they care about more.
However Keir is Idea-free.
Yes, the crumbling of the Leave identity (or at least the Con ownership of it) is a pre-requisite for the next GE being competitive. I'm hopeful. Either Starmer will step up post pandemic or he'll be replaced in summer next year by someone who can.
The leave identity won't crumble though, Labour needs to get on board with being a brexit cheerleader. It needs to start welcoming independent trade deals and make whatever number of pledges necessary to not reopen the existing brexit deal.
Labour simply isn't trusted not to sell out brexit as soon as they get power in tandem with the SNP. I know more leave voters than you and all of them suspect that Starmer will sign us up to the single market and customs union within a year of becoming PM. He was remainer and mischief maker in chief from 2016-2020 literally until the day we left the EU. He was the guy who pivoted Labour from Corbyn's "deliver a Labour brexit" idea to proposing a second referendum in 2019. Leave voters have long memories and Labour is tainted from the 2016-2019 brexit blocking shenanigans instigated by their current leader.
The Labour pivot to Ref2 wasn't about Starmer. It was forced by the membership and by a realpolitik imperative - to mitigate the risk of being eclipsed by the LDs if they were left to swim the "stop Brexit" lane alone.
I take your general point that Labour will continue to struggle with Leavers if they don't embrace the future outside the EU. I think they'll be able to do that whilst advocating closer ties (so long as the dreaded free movement is not a part of it.)
But Labour's core support are not Leavers and this will not be changing. They have to retain and expand their Remainer vote and at the same time win back enough Leavers to get competitive. A difficult task, whoever the leader is.
Owen Jones Rose @OwenJones84 · 1h Labour figures are now saying that “tackling injustice and inequality” is the party’s mission. But that’s an abstraction to most voters: you need to talk about concrete things that matter to people’s lives - like housing, jobs, pay, services - and what you’ll do about them
Blimey, Jones has said something that is a correct analysis.
Labour should ban the words 'social justice', 'injustice', 'inequality' etc. from use by the party.
I doubt many voters have a clue what the party means by them, but many will have a suspicion it involves loads of bonkers pc stuff and/or giving free money to people they think are undeserving.
Labour should ban words like "inequality" and "injustice" because voters don't have a clue what they mean? I doubt voters really are that thick.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
Owen Jones gave some non-shampoo examples. As I posted yesterday they should talk about pay and conditions - specifically the gig economy stuff, lack of security and so on.
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
The problem is Labour instinct has been gig economy bad, ban ZHC, ban Uber etc....when we know lots of people actually like the job, its allows them to earn around family commitments or as a side hustle.
Are you saying they wouldn’t like to be paid more and have better conditions of employment?
No, not saying that.
I know a couple of workers in the gig economy, and what they want most, rather than sick pay or whatever, is more gigs. But giving them benefits would result in higher prices, so get them less work - either their employers would raise their prices to customers, or exit the market completely.
(Also not a few of them are working illegally so wouldn't get benefits anyway, but that's another story...)
Looks like it's worked to me. Nicola has destroyed Alba, whereas if SNP voters had second voted for Alba there'd be dozens of extra pro independence MSPs.
Once the Celtic scroungers have all gone the English will soon realise that Labour are completely unelectable and as nature abhors a vacumn, we will see a complete realignment of politics. An independent Scotland will no doubt go back to voting Labour but with nobody left to subsidise them....
I can't agree with the use of the term "Celtic Scroungers" but I agree with the second point. The loss of the Scottish block has meant that Labour will never govern on its own again in my opinion.
Really? Ninety years after independence we still had to bail out Ireland.
Paul Middleton @ProfPMiddleton If @theSNP end up on 64 seats, I'm sure they'll allow another party to take Presiding Officer. That would mean a 64-64 Parliament! #SP2021 #SP21 #indyref2
Not sure they want to give up that control.
The current Presiding Officer at dissolution was from Labour,
Sarwar is Niclas new best mate so that might continue.
Is it just me or is the constant political with a same p on Sky Sports and BT Sports getting incredibly irriating. I just want to watch the footy, but every advert break is bombarded by social media abuse, BLM, eco campaigns and no escape while watching the game as they flash up BLM banner next to the score.
Sky is now owned by Democrat shilling ComCast - not Rupert Murdoch.
I note the Kentucky Derby beat the Oscars for viewing figures in the US this year - draw your own conclusions.
Ever heard of the pause button and FF....
But sodding BT and Sky have baked this into the actual match now...Kane goes through, he scores, lets go to the replay brought to you by our campaign against online hate speech....its like the worst of US sports coverage with constant sponsorship stuff, but rather than this brought to you in association with pepsi, its their political campaign.
Not hating people really ought to be apolitical. 🤷🏻♂️
Comments
Senior Tories believe @theSNP is now going to get a majority. They say #BothVotesSNP list strategy appears to have done the business
Much easier and less painful to press mute.
1. Labour didn't get hammered in 2019 because of Corbyn but because Corbyn was NOT Corbyn i.e. he was constantly being told by SKS and others that Labour needed to do everything it could do to hang on the Labour vote. The Corbyn of 2017 was successful because he had a lot to offer a significant chunk of the Labour base with his policies and, crucially, he recognised that Labour needed to recognise the Brexit vote. It was only when the likes of SKS were telling him how he needed to cut and turn and play that he lost a lot of the Brexit-supporting WWC base. Starmer was a fucking disaster for Labour's 2019 campaign in the same way as he is as leader.
2. It's time for Labour to throw the middle class woke brigade overboard and concentrate on a strategy that builds from its traditional WWC base whilst keeping the Black / Bangladeshi / Pakistani vote. Crucially, keeping the latter minimises seat loss risk in the inner-city seats. If the wokeists bugger off from Labour to the Greens in Hackney or Southwark, yes, Labour's majority may get cut from 30K-40K to 10K-15K but so what? They are still safe seats and Labour would benefit from gaining seats in its traditional areas.
Perhaps you could summon up the ghost of the 4th Earl of Sandwich, to gain insight into current government "thinking"?
He was not just the guy for whom these un-tropic isles are named (and inventor of the sandwich) but also a prominent Tory cabinet minister.
So no doubt still well-connected & informed re: intentions of the Prime Minister. Who, like him, is one of Britain's great political minds of the 18th century.
Dundee East: SNP hold
The only way it could be put right was to have a Brexiteer in charge.
Labour have committed exactly the same mistake. We know that SKS's heart is not in Brexit. And they still lack having a younger generation of potential Labour leaders who can say: 'Brexit is a great opportunity for the centre left social democrats, and I am absolutely behind it, because......' They couldn't even find one for Hartlepool.
This is stuff you could not make up. Labour are fighting with historical weaponry.
While we see in places like Surrey many are pissed off with the Tories.and won't immediately return while Boris is in charge.
At the moment Brexit and vaccine gives Boris the fair wind.
But, and I think little to do with us as an Authority, we almost certainly had the worst Tory performance in the country by losing a net 14 seats. We did at least gain the political scalp of the LibDem leader (who I rather liked and respected) and still hold 47 of the 81 seats. I believe HYUFD is bang on the mark for the underlying reasons.
They work it so well. Notice how the SNP's share is always big enough to be a massive threat, but not quite big enough for the government in Westminster to say 'its a fair cop, its clear you want to leave, we have to give you independence now'
Westminster is still in the game, just, always.
The only reason why is the Scots want to know how big a jockgeld Johnson is prepared to pay. Looks like its going to be pretty big.
But if they are, what do you suggest we talk to them about instead - their favourite shampoo?
They haven't got a majority you say? Phew, no indy ref II then.
He ignored it thinking it was one of those phishing attempts and they froze his account
Went to bank with passport etc and they have now told him they have shut his account due to this and a payment made into his account when he sold his dogecoin holding (say 200 tops).
They say they will transfer his funds to another account that he nominates
Anyone heard of anything like this?
Sounds outrageous to me
Nationally dont talk about it - it is done and up to the govt to make it work.
At constituency level in strong leave constituencies, ensure you have candidates who supported leave or at least not candidates who supported a second ref.
Brexit is being used as an excuse for a re-match, but if there were to be a second referendum and the Yes camp came up short again, the nationalists would simply walk the next Holyrood election and set about finding an excuse for why there needed to be a third go.
Brexit is neither here nor there in this matter. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury rather than a net recipient then there would be a stampede for the exit door. The Union is held together by precisely one thing. Money.
Yet they are different parties, policies and leaders.
The common denominator is perceived success with dealing with Covid. They've been rewarded.
It's a one off.
A Labour which was WWC + BAME would be interesting. Where would it stand on gay marriage and a few other matters?
It would further splinter the non Tory vote - a fact which is already hugely to Tory advantage. The woke would split all over the place.
"Youth unemployment is now at 10%. Just what does this government have to say to these young people facing a life with no prospects and no hope."
"There he goes again, talking this great country down, spreading doom and gloom like a cadaver at the feast of Stephen. Our young people are terrific. They have drive, they have energy, they are full to overflowing with fizz and vim and vigour. They know this government, and this Prime Minister, is four square on their side, working tirelessly to make everything as good as it can possibly be in this best of all possible worlds, while all the snivelling little git opposite does is whine whine whine. I've a good mind to ..."
Seriously LOL
Well, he would say that wouldn't he?
Quote of the day might be the shadow minister who told @thetimes: "I don’t think the reason why we lost Hartlepool is because Thangam Debbonaire is the shadow housing secretary
The shadow minister who gave that quote? Thangam Debbonaire
However a future referendum would be very different. Because the RUK could, if they do wished, adopt a position of intending to be very generous, particularly in relation to border issues. The problem is that rUK pursuing “open border with Scotland” approach would, in effect require them to reject EU membership. So the anti-Indy camp could legimately say that many of the post Indy difficulties for Scotland would be out of their hands.
Paul Middleton
@ProfPMiddleton
If @theSNP
end up on 64 seats, I'm sure they'll allow another party to take Presiding Officer. That would mean a 64-64 Parliament!
#SP2021 #SP21 #indyref2
If we're going to start dragging the Auld Alliance up then you might as well blame the poor sodding English voter for the depredations of Longshanks and be done with it.
Enough of pandering to the right/signalling that he’s not corbyn.
Starmer can pull it off in a way corbyn couldn’t.
Full-fat levelling up. Let that be the slogan and design policies around it. Ignore the culture war and go hard on bidenesque-economics.
It’s an interesting future poison pill for a Labour Government isn’t it? Not hard to imagine almost a Tory clean sweep and a coordinated “Labour is soft on crime” campaign emanating from those offices, with all sorts of confected arguments with the Home Office.
Maybe Cameron and Osborne did know what they were doing.
(apologies if posted already, on mobile on a bus so haven’t the patience to read back!)
"You'll no longer be one pay cheque away from destitution and losing the roof over your head" is far more direct and promising than "we will tackle inequality wherever we see it & fight for social justice for all."
And stop banging on about how it is terrible that some people are rich. My experience of voters is they don't really care and just want to know whether their own lives will steadily improve rather than go backwards and especially whether their kids will be alright. Most don't sit around in spasms of jealously and angst that there are rich people in London.
As a related aside, Philip Gould always used to say one of Labour's problems was it never talked about people's aspirations.
That isn't to say a lot of these companies aren't predatory, but loads of people do these jobs as a side hustle as they have aspiration and instead they hear Labour want to ban it.
"Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze famously showed that famines were caused not just by a shortage of food, but by the lack of a free flow of information and government accountability. Democracies that allow the press and citizens to publicly critique government actions have been shown to be immune to famines. Pandemics follow the same logic."
[my bolding]
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-05-08/india-covid-pandemic-deaths-narendra-modi
Beeb feed -
David Mundell anticipates SNP majority
Former Scottish Secretary David MundellImage caption: Former Scottish Secretary David Mundell
David Mundell accepts the SNP are going to win and he anticipates they will have a majority, as they will pick up some list seats.
etc etc
The Labour lead in Nottingham City (13k) is not enough to overturn the bloodbath in the county (except in Gedling where Lab was ahead)
Aberdeenshire East (North East) List Vote:
Con ~ 15112 (36.8%, +6.1)
SNP ~ 14873 (36.2%, -7.4)
Lab ~ 3092 (7.5%, +1.1)
Lib Dem ~ 3007 (7.3%, -4.4)
Grn ~ 2326 (5.7%, +1.6)
Alba ~ 1235 (3%, +3)
AFU ~ 284 (0.7%, +0.7)
Others ~ 1143 (2.8%, -0.8)
#SP21 #BBS21 http://ballotbox.scot
What are they smoking?
Happy to announce that @EU_Commission has just approved a contract for guaranteed 900 million doses (+900 million options) with @BioNTech_Group @Pfizer for 2021-2023.
Other contracts and other vaccine technologies will follow."
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1390967173460463619
How you fix that without being made out to be the bad guys is a very different issue
Norma Redfearn (Lab, incumbent) 53.4%
Steven Robinson (Con) 31.2%
https://twitter.com/alasdair_clark/status/1391002722753732609?s=20
The video (scroll back for Salmond):
https://t.co/LUIb98VsTf?amp=1
However, we know the likes of Uber Eats, Deliveroo can't even make money during a pandemic when you can't go out and after screwing the take aways and drivers / riders. But are extremely popular service.
https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/live-results/live-mayoral-results
80% ish of first ballots counted
Khan (Lab) 40
Bailey (Con) 36
Berry (Grn) 8
Porritt (LD) 4
Omilana, Fox 2
Rose, Binface, Corbyn and a few others 1
I take your general point that Labour will continue to struggle with Leavers if they don't embrace the future outside the EU. I think they'll be able to do that whilst advocating closer ties (so long as the dreaded free movement is not a part of it.)
But Labour's core support are not Leavers and this will not be changing. They have to retain and expand their Remainer vote and at the same time win back enough Leavers to get competitive. A difficult task, whoever the leader is.
(Also not a few of them are working illegally so wouldn't get benefits anyway, but that's another story...)