|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 15:56:35 GMT
I don't think that is quite true. I immediately thought the same I will admit. Johnson for (at least) ten years does feel abhorrent. But I think the Labour party could win back lots of the seats lost in the Midlands and North East in particular. Don't think they won a seat with a referendum result of vote Leave >55%. But they lost seats votes predominantly to the Brexit party, with small percentages to Tory, Lib Dem and SNP. These votes could be up for grabs again at the next election. We will have to see who takes over the Labour Party and the state of the UK after five more years of Boris. Five years could seem a very long time in some of the poorest constituencies in the country if some of the Brexit warnings come true. Think I heard a stat that the Tory vote only went up 1.42% with massive swings to their party. So there could be lots to play for at the next election. Have to see where we are in five years time. My worry is that where we'll be in five years will be with Labour's chance of winning anything back much reduced through gerrymandering changes to the constituency boundaries. Fully expecting the Tories to bring in this, voter ID, and anything else they can think of to minimise the chance of a democratic win for anyone else. There was supposed to be some consistency review coming through but I don't know what happened to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 16:04:31 GMT
What happened last night was probably what people thought should have happened in 2017. The Labour Party has a long way back having been wiped out in a lot of areas. There are some seats that they will win back but with the SNP having a strong hold in Scotland and parties not contesting the 18 or so NI seats. Labour will be hard pressed to win well over 300 seats in England and Wales alone. People calling for JC to resign immediately doesn't make sense as with their Deputy Leader having stood down to leave the Party totally leaderless with an un elected interim put in place would make matters worse. I don't see how JC can stay on for any length but let the party take stock over Xmas and New Year and then hold a spring leadership election to fill the two top jobs. The Party may have moved so far to the left that their rump doesn't want to go back to the more centrist left ground and after they have suffered big election defeats the remainder of any party tends to be the more hardcore element. Hopefully Brexit can now be delivered and we have a broad One Nation Conservative Government who can take us forward. There will be calls for another Scottish Referendum but the way Sturgeon and co did all they could to block Brexit I don't see Boris allowing them another vote any time soon. I was sad to see Dennis Skinner lose his seat after 49 years as although my politics are very different from his, I respected him for his principles and he was hugely entertaining to watch in Parliament. Jo Swinson losing her seat was funny and I'm not making any further Jungle jokes but their is a rumour that she and Anna Soubry are trying to get a last minute panto gig as the Ugly Sisters in a production of Cinderella. I don't think that is quite true. I immediately thought the same I will admit. Johnson for (at least) ten years does feel abhorrent. But I think the Labour party could win back lots of the seats lost in the Midlands and North East in particular. Don't think they won a seat with a referendum result of vote Leave >55%. But they lost seats votes predominantly to the Brexit party, with small percentages to Tory, Lib Dem and SNP. These votes could be up for grabs again at the next election. We will have to see who takes over the Labour Party and the state of the UK after five more years of Boris. Five years could seem a very long time in some of the poorest constituencies in the country if some of the Brexit warnings come true. Think I heard a stat that the Tory vote only went up 1.42% with massive swings to their party. So there could be lots to play for at the next election. Have to see where we are in five years time. In 2005 Labour got 355 seats and the Tories 198 and in 2010 Labour were out of power so in 5 years time we could see a change of government. I had said in the run up to yesterday that whoever won this time, the other major party was likely to win next time. For Labour now to get a majority next time would be hard but they got 40% only 2 years ago so votes are there. The key is the tight leader. Sir Kier Starmer is probably the sharpest guy in their top team but would the unions back a Sir and a QC type guy. They might go for a younger person if they will have 5 years to grow in opposition. This is where the loss of people of Chuka's quality is a huge blow to Labour. Could they even reach out to David Miliband to return? He is still only 54 years old but would he want to return to frontline politics given he has a very well paid job in NY. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 16:17:31 GMT
In 2005 Labour got 355 seats and the Tories 198 and in 2010 Labour were out of power so in 5 years time we could see a change of government. I had said in the run up to yesterday that whoever won this time, the other major party was likely to win next time. For Labour now to get a majority next time would be hard but they got 40% only 2 years ago so votes are there. The key is the tight leader. Sir Kier Starmer is probably the sharpest guy in their top team but would the unions back a Sir and a QC type guy. They might go for a younger person if they will have 5 years to grow in opposition. This is where the loss of people of Chuka's quality is a huge blow to Labour. Could they even reach out to David Miliband to return? He is still only 54 years old but would he want to return to frontline politics given he has a very well paid job in NY. There is also a fair chance that the left will refuse to cede power. In such a case, what would the centrist MPs do? I doubt they will just wait it out yet again. |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Dec 13, 2019 16:28:50 GMT
I still think it's peculiar that when you have a majority of voters voting against Conservatives (so a minority for Conservatives), or basically, more votes for the opposition, the Conservatives can win so much seats with a minority vote. This system is totally wrong in my opinion. Now we have the majority of the country disappointed. And stuck with a government that a minority voted for. It works both ways. Labour only had 43.2% of the vote in 1997, which gave them a majority 100 greater than the Tories have now. So it's an unfair system whoever wins. I think there's only ever been one occasion when a majority party in Parliament had a majority share of the vote, way back in 1931 - and even then, the Tories got 76% of the seats with only 55% of the votes. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 13, 2019 16:37:14 GMT
Wow, that last paragraph is out and out nasty. The last paragraph is a joke. Neither lady is ugly but they are called the Ugly Sisters in panto. Some places call them wicked Stepsisters when they are played by females. There was a similar joke about the House of York offering themselves up as a Panto Package as Baron Hardup, the Wicked Stepmother and the Ugly Sisters. Gosh with "jokes" like that you could write a Telegraph column. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 16:59:30 GMT
The real outcome of this election: the Leave/Remain share of the vote is as follows: ▪️Leave 47% ▪️Remain 53% And a vast majority of the people voting against the Conservatives. The number of votes for Labour and Libdems combined is already towering above the number of votes for Conservatives. And then I'm not even counting the SNP and other parties. It's amazing how flawed this seat system is. Resulting in seats that do not represent the will of the people. That’s not the real outcome of the election at all, as Labour (the UK’s 2nd largest party) refused to state if they were a remain or leave party. A vote for Labour was a vote for a second referendum, not a vote to remain in the EU. However I agree that the system is flawed, but the truth of the matter is that the conservatives won both the largest number of seats and votes. Yes, you could argue that the majority don’t want a conservative government, but that is the reality of multiple parties and a populist vote. It wouldn’t have won them this election, but I do think one of the ways forward would be for Labour and the Lib Dem party to merge (The Lib Labs?). Combined they represent almost half of the electorate and clearly offer something of value between themselves. Then if take a firm stance about keeping the union together, they could offer a real alternative to the SNP in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 17:28:19 GMT
That’s not the real outcome of the election at all, as Labour (the UK’s 2nd largest party) refused to state if they were a remain or leave party. A vote for Labour was a vote for a second referendum, not a vote to remain in the EU. However I agree that the system is flawed, but the truth of the matter is that the conservatives won both the largest number of seats and votes. Yes, you could argue that the majority don’t want a conservative government, but that is the reality of multiple parties and a populist vote. It wouldn’t have won them this election, but I do think one of the ways forward would be for Labour and the Lib Dem party to merge (The Lib Labs?). Combined they represent almost half of the electorate and clearly offer something of value between themselves. Then if take a firm stance about keeping the union together, they could offer a real alternative to the SNP in Scotland. That misunderstands the vast difference between socialism (or social democracy) and liberalism. The answer is not fewer parties, it is more parties. To try and yoke together disparate philosophies just further disenfranchises voters by given them a manufactured binary choice. An easy path to a labour win in 2014 is to propose a cross party pact to reform the electoral system to a proportional one. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 13, 2019 17:46:32 GMT
The irony is not lost, the most centrist party were well beaten yesterday, unable to be openly remain or leave as not offend, only the centre was left and that was rightly seen as having no opinion at all.
This should be seen as a warning as the centre can be perceived as a safe place from which it is difficult to build engagement and momentum as the policies can be considered anodyne and at its worst could be seen as having no no ideas.
For me the following would be my preferred direction.
The first part is for Labour is to move to be an openly Europhile Party to continue the engagement of the young voters who will naturally become more influential over the next few years, we may have left the EU but we are all Europeans and Europe will continue to be our biggest partner and influencer.
The next phase is to build on the socialist green deal policies of the manifesto and make this the core from which all policies build on, of which nationalisation of rail, energy and water can be a central tenet along with house building and making our current homes more energy efficient. This should not be too difficult as Greenpeace ranked the Labour manifesto higher than the Greens.
The welfare state and NHS are / should be a given and the imagery of Labour should subliminally include this in some way.
These two pillars along with the subliminal Party of welfare will be a key differentiator and done well could remove the bad smell of socialism and replace it with a sweeter smell of socioenvironmentalism or some such, only hopefully more catchy tag line.
This for me would build a new identity for the Party and build the foundation and vision for all or futures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 18:08:51 GMT
The irony is not lost, the most centrist party were well beaten yesterday, unable to be openly remain or leave as not offend, only the centre was left and that was rightly seen as having no opinion at all. This should be seen as a warning as the centre can be perceived as a safe place from which it is difficult to build engagement and momentum as the policies can be considered anodyne and at its worst could be seen as having no no ideas. For me the following would be my preferred direction. The first part is for Labour is to move to be an openly Europhile Party to continue the engagement of the young voters who will naturally become more influential over the next few years, we may have left the EU but we are all Europeans and Europe will continue to be our biggest partner and influencer. The next phase is to build on the socialist green deal policies of the manifesto and make this the core from which all policies build on, of which nationalisation of rail, energy and water can be a central tenet along with house building and making our current homes more energy efficient. This should not be too difficult as Greenpeace ranked the Labour manifesto higher than the Greens. The welfare state and NHS are / should be a given and the imagery of Labour should subliminally include this in some way. These two pillars along with the subliminal Party of welfare will be a key differentiator and done well could remove the bad smell of socialism and replace it with a sweeter smell of socioenvironmentalism or some such, only hopefully more catchy tag line. This for me would build a new identity for the Party and build the foundation and vision for all or futures. That’s the same again with a different cover. First thing I would suggest to any Labour metropolitan supporter is to spend time in former Labour voting areas in the North, Wales and Midlands. This isn’t a need for a rebranding exercise, the whole product is not fit for purpose. Back to my ‘labour for life but not really any more’ parents. Problem one, Labour is seen as a London based party that has no clue about life outside their bubble. Problem two, Labour are seen as telling their voters what they should believe rather than asking their voters what they want. Problem three (and this needs to be said again and again), Labour isn’t interested in changing things ‘for the likes of us’. The element with some change is the Europhile bit, but that’s the last battle. Too late now. One bright spot was Ed Balls and Alan Johnson eviscerating the odious Lansman on the ITV coverage, more of that, please! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 18:27:59 GMT
Actually I think you’ll find most northerners probably want Brexit more than they do the Labour Party. Labour refused to deliver on it and it’s cost them dearly. For northerners to elect a Tory is almost unheard of - some of the seats they won yesterday they’ve never held, and a number of them they haven’t had for decades (going back almost a century in some places). Thatcher still isn’t forgiven up there and that’s a grudge that will last a life time.
But Labour seen as a London based party? Never. I mean even Blair had a northern constituency! The Conservatives are synonymous with Westminster and Eton, worlds apart from us northern folk.
i would argue Corbin refusing to give his party a Brexit identity meant that anyone considering them hasn’t a clue what they would get. Wanting a second referendum without supporting leave or remain is just repeating the cycle and does no one any good. Usually you know where you are with Labour but not since Gordon Brown’s attempt have we really known. All Ed Miliband did was try and slag off Cameron and Corbyn promised to re-invent the wheel in an attempt to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 18:38:44 GMT
Actually I think you’ll find most northerners probably want Brexit more than they do the Labour Party. Labour refused to deliver on it and it’s cost them dearly. For northerners to elect a Tory is almost unheard of - some of the seats they won yesterday they’ve never held, and a number of them they haven’t had for decades (going back almost a century in some places). Thatcher still isn’t forgiven up there and that’s a grudge that will last a life time. But Labour seen as a London based party? Never. I mean even Blair had a northern constituency! The Conservatives are synonymous with Westminster and Eton, worlds apart from us northern folk. Blair was many things but never ‘northern’! I just watched Yorkshire local news, which I don’t usually, and the idea of Labour being London based is very, very widespread. Maybe it’s a synonym for ‘out of touch’ for some but, after Miliband and Corbyn a non London or Southern leader is a necessity now. Starmer, Thornberry etc. would be a bad idea. |
|
7,189 posts
|
Post by Jon on Dec 13, 2019 18:47:54 GMT
Blair was many things but never ‘northern’! I just watched Yorkshire local news, which I don’t usually, and the idea of Labour being London based is very, very widespread. Maybe it’s a synonym for ‘out of touch’ for some but, after Miliband and Corbyn a non London or Southern leader is a necessity now. Starmer, Thornberry etc. would be a bad idea. Given the pressure to have a female Labour leader, my money's on Angela Rayner, Rebecca Long-Bailey or Lisa Nandy. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 19:04:49 GMT
They are allowed to choose and most of them choose to wear the burka of the own free will. The whole point of the article was that Denmark at that time was legislating against the burqa - thereby denying women the choice. Johnson was arguing for middle ground - yes, there may be situations where people might want/expect/need to see a person’s face, and in those situations we should be free to request it (though no need for the woman to comply). But otherwise it was a Muslim woman’s right to choose to wear what she wants. |
|
213 posts
|
Post by peelee on Dec 13, 2019 19:54:02 GMT
Kensington went Liberal Democrat, I see. Those tactical voting advisors/Lib Dems who used it at the opening of the general election campaign as an example of what was likely — see upthread where I explained unlikelihood based on actual local knowledge — certainly deserve a footnote in the eventual write-up of the 2019 General Election.
At about the same time a leaflet dropped through our door informing us that (never-seen-before-around-here) Sam Gyimah, recent Conservative Party leadership candidate, would become our Liberal Democrat MP, followed a day later by another missive with about seven snaps of Jo Swinson on four sides declaring that she intended to be our next Prime Minister. They worked as leaflets in grabbing our attention, as we read and re-read them with incredulity. All for free, they were; we'd have to have paid money for this sort of thing in London's West End.
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Dec 13, 2019 20:06:10 GMT
They are allowed to choose and most of them choose to wear the burka of the own free will. The whole point of the article was that Denmark at that time was legislating against the burqa - thereby denying women the choice. Johnson was arguing for middle ground - yes, there may be situations where people might want/expect/need to see a person’s face, and in those situations we should be free to request it (though no need for the woman to comply). But otherwise it was a Muslim woman’s right to choose to wear what she wants. And it would have been perfectly possible to make that point without the insulting comparisons to bank robbers and letterboxes. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 13, 2019 20:06:15 GMT
it's an unfair system whoever wins. I think there's only ever been one occasion when a majority party in Parliament had a majority share of the vote, way back in 1931 - and even then, the Tories got 76% of the seats with only 55% of the votes. It's bizarre. There is a huge disconnect between how they do this and how they treat seats in parliament. This should change. Parliament should be formed on how people actually voted and not be formed based on a minority vote.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 20:21:15 GMT
Kensington went Liberal Democrat, I see. Those tactical voting advisors/Lib Dems who used it at the opening of the general election campaign as an example of what was likely — see upthread where I explained unlikelihood based on actual local knowledge — certainly deserve a footnote in the eventual write-up of the 2019 General Election. At about the same time a leaflet dropped through our door informing us that (never-seen-before-around-here) Sam Gyimah, recent Conservative Party leadership candidate, would become our Liberal Democrat MP, followed a day later by another missive with about seven snaps of Jo Swinson on four sides declaring that she intended to be our next Prime Minister. They worked as leaflets in grabbing our attention, as we read and re-read them with incredulity. All for free, they were; we'd have to have paid money for this sort of thing in London's West End. This needs putting to bed, the tactical vote comparison site for Kensington, shows three saying vote Labour and two Lib Dem. Labour finished second and lost. The same comparison site showed three saying Lib Dems were best placed in Cities of London and Westminster and two saying Labour. Lib Dems finished second and lost. The moral, DYOR. All parties will take the positives (and, to be honest, at the time of that first leaflet, they were probably accurate). If everyone had looked at the overview then maybe there would be another Lib Dem and Labour MP each instead of two Conservatives. Better still, use a PR system and we can get rid of this tactical voting nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 13, 2019 20:25:29 GMT
Kensington went Liberal Democrat, I see. No it didn't, it went Conservative x |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 13, 2019 21:33:38 GMT
Kensington went Liberal Democrat, I see. No it didn't, it went Conservative x So...all the 'tactical voting' sites said to vote Lib Dem in Kensington and yet Labour lost by a mere 150 votes in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 21:51:31 GMT
No it didn't, it went Conservative x So...all the 'tactical voting' sites said to vote Lib Dem in Kensington and yet Labour lost by a mere 150 votes in the end. No. As already posted. "This needs putting to bed, the tactical vote comparison site for Kensington, shows three saying vote Labour and two Lib Dem. Labour finished second and lost." |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 13, 2019 21:54:48 GMT
So...all the 'tactical voting' sites said to vote Lib Dem in Kensington and yet Labour lost by a mere 150 votes in the end. No. As already posted. "This needs putting to bed, the tactical vote comparison site for Kensington, shows three saying vote Labour and two Lib Dem. Labour finished second and lost." Still... |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 13, 2019 21:57:14 GMT
I don't think that is quite true. I immediately thought the same I will admit. Johnson for (at least) ten years does feel abhorrent. But I think the Labour party could win back lots of the seats lost in the Midlands and North East in particular. Don't think they won a seat with a referendum result of vote Leave >55%. But they lost seats votes predominantly to the Brexit party, with small percentages to Tory, Lib Dem and SNP. These votes could be up for grabs again at the next election. We will have to see who takes over the Labour Party and the state of the UK after five more years of Boris. Five years could seem a very long time in some of the poorest constituencies in the country if some of the Brexit warnings come true. Think I heard a stat that the Tory vote only went up 1.42% with massive swings to their party. So there could be lots to play for at the next election. Have to see where we are in five years time. In 2005 Labour got 355 seats and the Tories 198 and in 2010 Labour were out of power so in 5 years time we could see a change of government. I had said in the run up to yesterday that whoever won this time, the other major party was likely to win next time. For Labour now to get a majority next time would be hard but they got 40% only 2 years ago so votes are there. The key is the tight leader. Sir Kier Starmer is probably the sharpest guy in their top team but would the unions back a Sir and a QC type guy. They might go for a younger person if they will have 5 years to grow in opposition. This is where the loss of people of Chuka's quality is a huge blow to Labour.
Could they even reach out to David Miliband to return? He is still only 54 years old but would he want to return to frontline politics given he has a very well paid job in NY. For f***s sake I'll be honest. I was going to highlight the Kier Starmer bit to FFS but then saw the Chuka bit. Couldn't be bothered to unbold to FFS the Miliband sentence. I'll be honest, what a shocking post |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 21:58:25 GMT
No. As already posted. "This needs putting to bed, the tactical vote comparison site for Kensington, shows three saying vote Labour and two Lib Dem. Labour finished second and lost." Still... Still what? Maybe it would be more useful to wonder why, in scores of seats in the north, midlands and Wales (rather than a couple in London), why Labour did so badly where there was no significant Lib Dem vote. Look elsewhere to find out why this disaster happened. |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 13, 2019 21:59:49 GMT
The irony is not lost, the most centrist party were well beaten yesterday, unable to be openly remain or leave as not offend, only the centre was left and that was rightly seen as having no opinion at all. This should be seen as a warning as the centre can be perceived as a safe place from which it is difficult to build engagement and momentum as the policies can be considered anodyne and at its worst could be seen as having no no ideas. For me the following would be my preferred direction. The first part is for Labour is to move to be an openly Europhile Party to continue the engagement of the young voters who will naturally become more influential over the next few years, we may have left the EU but we are all Europeans and Europe will continue to be our biggest partner and influencer. The next phase is to build on the socialist green deal policies of the manifesto and make this the core from which all policies build on, of which nationalisation of rail, energy and water can be a central tenet along with house building and making our current homes more energy efficient. This should not be too difficult as Greenpeace ranked the Labour manifesto higher than the Greens. The welfare state and NHS are / should be a given and the imagery of Labour should subliminally include this in some way. These two pillars along with the subliminal Party of welfare will be a key differentiator and done well could remove the bad smell of socialism and replace it with a sweeter smell of socioenvironmentalism or some such, only hopefully more catchy tag line. This for me would build a new identity for the Party and build the foundation and vision for all or futures. Behave fella. You are Chuka. I know you are |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 13, 2019 22:16:10 GMT
Still what? Maybe it would be more useful to wonder why, in scores of seats in the north, midlands and Wales (rather than a couple in London), why Labour did so badly where there was no significant Lib Dem vote. Look elsewhere to find out why this disaster happened. We know why it happened...Brexit x |
|
