Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Mr Penguin said:
A more careful analysis of the polls would show a lot of risk for Labour, IMO.
I agree that current polls don't really show clearly what is going on and talks of "swings" to Labour misleading as only a relatively small percentage of the 2019 Tory vote plan to vote Labour.- Most people don't pay attention to anything political related until the campaign actually starts, so I don't see the polls changing substantially in that time.
- Most Reform voters will go to the Conservatives when it actually comes to an election because they will trust Labour to deliver on their policies even less.
- The hard left can cause mischief, absolutely hate Starmer, and are stupid enough to do it.
- Labour haven't really set out a stall beyond "not the Tories" so will alienate some of their support who put their own opinions onto Starmer.
- Tory incompetence is priced in, Labour incompetence is not but that will start to come out when some of the shadow cabinet actually have to campaign.
- 2019 Tory voters are largely saying "Don't know" but most of those will go back to the Tories.
- The ME is a tinderbox. It wouldn't take much to make it flare up even more than it already is - imagine someone's brakes fail causing them to crash into a market stall, killing someone, which causes a riot. No intent is needed (although it is there on both sides) but it would escalate the Israel-Palestine war and that is a painful division for Labour.
- Starmer and Labour are not popular either. People say that the British system is not proportional but I think it does a good job of delivering the result that the electorate wants, which is to say that if the electorate doesn't really trust either option then the end result will be close.
- Labour have some terrible policies which will cost them votes, VAT on private schools will drive many parents back to the Conservatives or make them hesitant to vote if they are natural Labour voters. Even if the actual financial impact is quite small, people are worried about it.
- Conservatives have a boat load of cash to spend on the election and have quietly raised the limit.
- Labour lost a lot of good, experienced candidates in safe seats in both 2015 and 2019 and the lack of experience and fewer sitting MPs ready to campaign in other seats will hurt them.
- The last two elections have seen huge changes in the six months before the election - June 2019 polling showed Labour comfortably ahead of Conservatives and BXP slightly ahead / May 2017 showed Labour being 20 points behind the Conservatives less than a month before the election.
- I think there are a lot of Labour voters/members assuming they will get a big majority and once the polls start to narrow (as they always do) their confidence will shake and momentum will start to shift.
However this to my mind is more relevant to the world after the inevitable Labour election victory, in that there are voters who can be mobilised, even if they are not there now.
I think you underestimate the anger and sense of betrayal and the desire to give the Tories a kicking above all else. They will be fortunate to reach 25% of the vote IMO and Labour will have a landslide greater than 97 without evoking much enthusiasm.
JagLover said:
I agree that current polls don't really show clearly what is going on and talks of "swings" to Labour misleading as only a relatively small percentage of the 2019 Tory vote plan to vote Labour.
However this to my mind is more relevant to the world after the inevitable Labour election victory, in that there are voters who can be mobilised, even if they are not there now.
I think you underestimate the anger and sense of betrayal and the desire to give the Tories a kicking above all else. They will be fortunate to reach 25% of the vote IMO and Labour will have a landslide greater than 97 without evoking much enthusiasm.
That was there in 97 too, but Labour were actually popular then and the 97 swing (which was huge) wouldn't even get a majority of 1. However this to my mind is more relevant to the world after the inevitable Labour election victory, in that there are voters who can be mobilised, even if they are not there now.
I think you underestimate the anger and sense of betrayal and the desire to give the Tories a kicking above all else. They will be fortunate to reach 25% of the vote IMO and Labour will have a landslide greater than 97 without evoking much enthusiasm.
JagLover said:
I agree that current polls don't really show clearly what is going on and talks of "swings" to Labour misleading as only a relatively small percentage of the 2019 Tory vote plan to vote Labour.
However this to my mind is more relevant to the world after the inevitable Labour election victory, in that there are voters who can be mobilised, even if they are not there now.
I think you underestimate the anger and sense of betrayal and the desire to give the Tories a kicking above all else. They will be fortunate to reach 25% of the vote IMO and Labour will have a landslide greater than 97 without evoking much enthusiasm.
I’d still put my money on a Labour majority of 80-100 seats. Would some achievement. However this to my mind is more relevant to the world after the inevitable Labour election victory, in that there are voters who can be mobilised, even if they are not there now.
I think you underestimate the anger and sense of betrayal and the desire to give the Tories a kicking above all else. They will be fortunate to reach 25% of the vote IMO and Labour will have a landslide greater than 97 without evoking much enthusiasm.
S600BSB said:
I’d still put my money on a Labour majority of 80-100 seats. Would some achievement.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. Historically, Labour have often come to power in landslides, it was true of Atlee, Wilson & Blair twice. These things are nuanced but long term governments run out of steam & the electorate crave change off the back of it.President Merkin said:
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. Historically, Labour have often come to power in landslides, it was true of Atlee, Wilson & Blair twice. These things are nuanced but long term governments run out of steam & the electorate crave change off the back of it.
Wilson only got a landslide in one of his four election wins and then only when he was already in government.1964 - 4 seat majority
1966 - 98 seat majority
1970 - Cons won a 30 seat majority
Feb 1974 - hung parliament ("majority" of -33)
Oct 1974 - 3 seat majority
It is also almost unheard of for oppositions to win a comfortable majority when the incumbents already have one - only Heath has done it since Attlee (who won when there had been ten years since the last election).
If seat changes are the same numbers as in 1997 (the only time since 1945 that a party has gained more than 100 seats in a single election) then parliament would look like this and Labour would have a majority of 22 (this could be upto 70 if they win back Scotland on top of that swing).
Lab - 348 (202 + 146)
Con - 187 (365 - 178)
Lib - 39 (11 + 28)
Keir Starmer vows to sack aides behind ‘boys’ club’ briefings
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-la...
Ironic that this must have been leaked by someone in the meeting. Intra-party politics always seemed strange to me, especially when their party appears to be in the ascendancy.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-la...
Ironic that this must have been leaked by someone in the meeting. Intra-party politics always seemed strange to me, especially when their party appears to be in the ascendancy.
James Bond Movies are best under Labour.
Goldfinger 1964 -Labour Government
You Only Live Twice 1967 - Labour Government
On Her Majestys Secret Service 1969 – Labour Government
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 – Labour Government
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
In the 80s we had Captain Dullard Bond as played by Timothy Dalton both were turkeys – Conservative Government
Casino Royale 2006 – Labour Government
Goldfinger 1964 -Labour Government
You Only Live Twice 1967 - Labour Government
On Her Majestys Secret Service 1969 – Labour Government
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 – Labour Government
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
In the 80s we had Captain Dullard Bond as played by Timothy Dalton both were turkeys – Conservative Government
Casino Royale 2006 – Labour Government
anonymoususer said:
James Bond Movies are best under Labour.
Goldfinger 1964 -Labour Government
You Only Live Twice 1967 - Labour Government
On Her Majestys Secret Service 1969 – Labour Government
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 – Labour Government
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
In the 80s we had Captain Dullard Bond as played by Timothy Dalton both were turkeys – Conservative Government
Casino Royale 2006 – Labour Government
Post of the month sir! And so true. Goldfinger 1964 -Labour Government
You Only Live Twice 1967 - Labour Government
On Her Majestys Secret Service 1969 – Labour Government
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 – Labour Government
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
In the 80s we had Captain Dullard Bond as played by Timothy Dalton both were turkeys – Conservative Government
Casino Royale 2006 – Labour Government
anonymoususer said:
James Bond Movies are best under Labour.
Goldfinger 1964 -Labour Government
You Only Live Twice 1967 - Labour Government
On Her Majestys Secret Service 1969 – Labour Government
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 – Labour Government
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
In the 80s we had Captain Dullard Bond as played by Timothy Dalton both were turkeys – Conservative Government
Casino Royale 2006 – Labour Government
Dr No?Goldfinger 1964 -Labour Government
You Only Live Twice 1967 - Labour Government
On Her Majestys Secret Service 1969 – Labour Government
The Spy Who Loved Me 1977 – Labour Government
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
In the 80s we had Captain Dullard Bond as played by Timothy Dalton both were turkeys – Conservative Government
Casino Royale 2006 – Labour Government
Goldeneye?
Mr Penguin said:
anonymoususer said:
Minor details that dont detract from the main premise
Tory James Bond Films - bad
Labour James Bond films -good
IMDB ratings say otherwise Tory James Bond Films - bad
Labour James Bond films -good
"Labour has set out plans for building on the green belt to boost housing supply while improving "green spaces"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68849078
Vote winner for sure as it's the usual "as long as it's not my back yard".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68849078
Vote winner for sure as it's the usual "as long as it's not my back yard".
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quarter-of-pare...
VAT on schools policy will have the obvious effect.
VAT on schools policy will have the obvious effect.
Mr Penguin said:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quarter-of-pare...
VAT on schools policy will have the obvious effect.
I'm not sure which is worse, the green eyed monster logic behind the policy or the ineptitude of not being able to join the obvious dots and see the obvious impacts.VAT on schools policy will have the obvious effect.
It does not bode well.
vaud said:
anonymoususer said:
James Bond Movies are best under Labour.
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
Moonraker 1979 – Labour Government
I still think it will be labour despite being a tory voter since 97 I am not going to vote for them as they have lost their way but I have made the call not to vote at all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff