The Labour Party

Postman Pep said:
Plenty of assumptions about me in there but again nothing on the point initially raised.... beyond your 'ming vase theory' of course.

Rather than avoiding committing to anything unpopular they are making a firm commitment to ruling out something that has popular support. Is it really the electorate they are taking into account when making these calculations?



There is similar levels of support for public ownership/nationalisation (again ruled out) and against further private sector involvement in the NHS (very much ruled in). Maybe I'm not so out of step with public opinion as you try to portray?

As for a utopia Starmer last week vowed to 'smash the class ceiling'......seemingly by making the pie bigger without any adjustment to the size of the portions. Instead of continually telling me to put up and shut up maybe have a think about the question Goodall raises here. Not for my benefit more because it might come in handy when you are out on the stump.


Click to expand...

The only assumption about you was that "I suspected you had good intentions". If that's not the case, then I'd be surprised. Perhaps you've misread the rest of the post?

The "point initially raised" that I addressed, was that there was little difference between the Tories and Labour.

Still, ruling out a wealth tax isn't the same as austerity. Austerity was a discredited plan to cut back on public services based on some fantasy that it was "crowding out" the private sector. While the rest of the world were trying to grow their economies, after the 2008 crash, Osborne was on some mission to cut as much public spending as he could before the public realised it was a stupid plan. Labour in 1997 were ruling out plenty of tax rises, and rises in public spending, but I don't think anyone looks back and suggests the 1997-2010 government was defined by anything like Austerity.

I've said before, and probably to you, that I think Labour could be bolder, but it's very clear what they've decided to do (the ming vase theory isn't mine - it's been mentioned numerous times in the press), and misrepresenting it is playing straight into the Tories hands. I've not told you to shut up, and I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just disagreeing with you. If you want to spend your time on politics forums being critical of Labour rather than the Tories, then it's up to you, and I'll continue to disagree with you ;)
 
There is a case for Labour getting into power (at all costs) governing competently but not doing anything much else for a term, and thus building trust. And then trying to start to reform stuff in a second term.

I can see how that might play with political strategists. But it really is a policy of barren despair. If how we are now, but a bit better managed, is the best we can achieve, we might as well all top ourselves, or emigrate.

I thank God every day that I am not young.
 
BrianW said:
There is a case for Labour getting into power (at all costs) governing competently but not doing anything much else for a term, and thus building trust. And then trying to start to reform stuff in a second term.

I can see how that might play with political strategists. But it really is a policy of barren despair. If how we are now, but a bit better managed, is the best we can achieve, we might as well all top ourselves, or emigrate.

I thank God every day that I am not young.
Click to expand...
I think the political reality is the case for austerity as made by Cameron way back, is now actually valid. The tories despite implementing austerity measures have fkd everything. Especially with Brexit and covid on top.

So there is very little you can do. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for them. The tories deserve to be wiped out at the next election. Absolute shower of arseholes and I truly hope they are reduced to 3rd party status.
 
BrianW said:
Looks like about 18% lead. https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/#

I would say it's all but impossible for the Tories to come back from that, it's now about the size of the Labour majority and how many Tory MPs there will be after the GE.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, you can go back a long way and the lowest number that Tories have ever formed a government with is Cameron’s 36% in 2010 (and even then he had to form a coalition). Every other Tory government formed going back to WWII has needed greater than 36%.

They’re currently wallowing in the high 20s in every poll - which is always a default loss (though theoretically could win with unprecedented left wing vote splitting). The big problem they’ll have is their lack of ability to attract new voters. Now Brexit is a busted flush which attracted about 6%+ voters to their side, and they have slipped below their 36% waterline they then need to start bringing more young voters in than the opposition… which frankly they’ve not done for actual decades.

I did a piece of analysis on another site which showed that because of their demographics their vote share will fall 1.5-2.0% every election cycle until they reverse the trend of losing young voters to the opposition. If their natural baseline level is less than 36% and they’re dropping 2% per cycle of their traditional older voter base then they are badly badly fucked to the point of needing to reinvent themselves or face extinction.
 
BrianW said:
Looks like about 18% lead. https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/#

I would say it's all but impossible for the Tories to come back from that, it's now about the size of the Labour majority and how many Tory MPs there will be after the GE.
Click to expand...
There are a few problems with the polls that make things a lot trickier.

For a start, actual elections have never been won with the 20%+ leads various leaders have had. It's almost certain that will drop a lot towards the election.

Many more of the Tory 2019 voters are answering "don't know" when asked about the next election that the 2019 Labour vote. This could be a reluctance that ebbs away when it comes to actually voting.

Labour *could* need up to 13% lead just to get a majority. A few of the polling companies have suggested this, although with a lot of tactical voting this could come down significantly - the problem is we don't know how much there will be.

Add it together, and those leads look a lot less uncertain - particularly in terms of getting a majority.
 
I think a major factor at the GE will be whether younger voters (pretty much anyone under 50) can be arsed to get out and vote or not.

That may depend on whether their anger at the Tory Party (very strong in many younger people) exceeds their indifference to a Labour Party that offers very little to them - or anyone else.

Another major factor will be the extent (or not) of tactical voting against the Tories.

Of course, the ridiculous and totally indefensible FPTP voting system does not help. So much depends on not how many votes you have, but whether they are concentrated in particular constituencies. 20 million votes spread out evenly across the country nets very few seats. That's why it's a fucking farce and why I laugh at notions such as 'mandates'. It's like me claiming to be the most popular man in this house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top