The Labour Party

[Vic]

Tbf he said slightly better not they're all the same.

Again he appeared to be questioning their commitment to austerity not their avoidance. Seems pretty unequivocal to me.
View attachment 91743



I suppose it comes down to people's perceptions of what the ming vase contains. Ken will be happy you will continue to pretend.

Was that it?

I was expecting Ken to say something like the "bigot" that got Gordon Brown into trouble.

 

[Postman Pep]

Was that it?

I was expecting Ken to say something like the "bigot" that got Gordon Brown into trouble.

I know completely devoid of any meaningful contemt as per. Presumably they cut out the son of a toolmaker segment where Ange looked even more disillusioned:)

Nothing to say about Reeves and her fiscal staitjacket?

 

[bluenova]

Tbf he said slightly better not they're all the same.

Again he appeared to be questioning their commitment to austerity not their avoidance. Seems pretty unequivocal to me.
View attachment 91743



I suppose it comes down to people's perceptions of what the ming vase contains. Ken will be happy you will continue to pretend.

"Tbf he said slightly better not they're all the same."

Sure - I'll say that's bullshit too.

It's easy to list the achievements of the last Labour government, but after 13 years most people would probably fail to list more than a couple of things the Tories have actually done, never mind a list of positive changes.

I suspect you have good intentions, but it comes across that you'd rather the Tories win so you can keep bitching from the side lines. There is a world of good things that politicians can do between where the Tories are now, and a Postman Pep Utopia. The video you shared talks about the cost of living crisis, public services, growing the economy etc. Yet the guy who shared it suggests that Ken is a racist, sexist, who mostly cares about the rich getting more wealthy. If you assume everyone who ever voted Tory only has those values, then you're writing off half the country, and things will never change.

 

[hilts]

"Tbf he said slightly better not they're all the same."

Sure - I'll say that's bullshit too.

It's easy to list the achievements of the last Labour government, but after 13 years most people would probably fail to list more than a couple of things the Tories have actually done, never mind a list of positive changes.

I suspect you have good intentions, but it comes across that you'd rather the Tories win so you can keep bitching from the side lines. There is a world of good things that politicians can do between where the Tories are now, and a Postman Pep Utopia. The video you shared talks about the cost of living crisis, public services, growing the economy etc. Yet the guy who shared it suggests that Ken is a racist, sexist, who mostly cares about the rich getting more wealthy. If you assume everyone who ever voted Tory only has those values, then you're writing off half the country, and things will never change.

Half the country? Not even close.

 

[bluenova]

Half the country? Not even close.

I'm glad that's the point you take away :/

A surprising number of voters switch party from one election to the next, so the number who have "ever voted Tory" is going to be a lot higher than their highest recent vote shares. The survey below suggests a third changing their vote is commonplace these days, and it was an astonishing 43% between 2010 and 2015 (skewed by the Lib Dem collapse).

How many voters really switch parties in British elections? What the evidence tells us

The British electorate is volatile but one party has to benefit more than the others for that to actually affect the outcome.

theconversation.com

Bear in mind, that's just between general elections - obviously a lot of people would have voted differently in European and local elections, further increasing the pool of of people who have "ever voted Tory".

Obviously turnout isn't close to 100%, but I'm not aware of any research which suggests non-voters wouldn't vote in a similar way, and given that there's considerable churn amongst voters/non-voters from election to election, the number who have voted at some point is a lot higher than the turnout for any single election. For example the vote in 2017 was just under 70%, and only a couple of points up on 2015, yet 17% of 2015 voters didn't vote in 2017. That's just voter churn between two elections two years apart.

 

[hilts]

I'm glad that's the point you take away :/

A surprising number of voters switch party from one election to the next, so the number who have "ever voted Tory" is going to be a lot higher than their highest recent vote shares. The survey below suggests a third changing their vote is commonplace these days, and it was an astonishing 43% between 2010 and 2015 (skewed by the Lib Dem collapse).

How many voters really switch parties in British elections? What the evidence tells us

The British electorate is volatile but one party has to benefit more than the others for that to actually affect the outcome.

theconversation.com

Bear in mind, that's just between general elections - obviously a lot of people would have voted differently in European and local elections, further increasing the pool of of people who have "ever voted Tory".

Obviously turnout isn't close to 100%, but I'm not aware of any research which suggests non-voters wouldn't vote in a similar way, and given that there's considerable churn amongst voters/non-voters from election to election, the number who have voted at some point is a lot higher than the turnout for any single election. For example the vote in 2017 was just under 70%, and only a couple of points up on 2015, yet 17% of 2015 voters didn't vote in 2017. That's just voter churn between two elections two years apart.

Like I said nowhere near half the country

 

[bluenova]

Like I said nowhere near half the country

A really impressive comeback ;)

In multiple single elections the Tory vote has been a third of the total electorate (including those that didn't vote).

Given that:

Churn between just two consecutive elections has been around 30% of voters for the last couple of decades, and up to 43% in 2015.
Someone aged 40 could have already voted in 6 general elections, and many more local/European elections
People often vote differently in local/generals.

I'd be astonished if that figure isn't approaching half the country.

If you want to show me where I'm going wrong (without any pedantic comments about people who aren't allowed to vote like kids, or foreign nationals), then I'd be genuinely interested to hear. I personally, found the churn figures quite astonishing. I'd seen plenty of those flow diagrams showing where voters move between elections, but hadn't realised just how much all that added up to.

 

[hilts]

A really impressive comeback ;)

In multiple single elections the Tory vote has been a third of the total electorate (including those that didn't vote).

Given that:

Churn between just two consecutive elections has been around 30% of voters for the last couple of decades, and up to 43% in 2015.
Someone aged 40 could have already voted in 6 general elections, and many more local/European elections
People often vote differently in local/generals.

I'd be astonished if that figure isn't approaching half the country.

If you want to show me where I'm going wrong (without any pedantic comments about people who aren't allowed to vote like kids, or foreign nationals), then I'd be genuinely interested to hear. I personally, found the churn figures quite astonishing. I'd seen plenty of those flow diagrams showing where voters move between elections, but hadn't realised just how much all that added up to.

Interesting stuff

 

[bluenova]

Interesting stuff

Now, I know you don't mean that ;)

But it does explain why politicians target swing voters.

Between 2010 and 2015 something like 13m voters changed their vote. Given that the Tories won both elections with less than that number of votes, it's bizarre, but that's people for you.

 

[Postman Pep]

"Tbf he said slightly better not they're all the same."

Sure - I'll say that's bullshit too.

It's easy to list the achievements of the last Labour government, but after 13 years most people would probably fail to list more than a couple of things the Tories have actually done, never mind a list of positive changes.

I suspect you have good intentions, but it comes across that you'd rather the Tories win so you can keep bitching from the side lines. There is a world of good things that politicians can do between where the Tories are now, and a Postman Pep Utopia. The video you shared talks about the cost of living crisis, public services, growing the economy etc. Yet the guy who shared it suggests that Ken is a racist, sexist, who mostly cares about the rich getting more wealthy. If you assume everyone who ever voted Tory only has those values, then you're writing off half the country, and things will never change.

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.