|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 14, 2024 9:26:22 GMT
Corks! A load of polls tonight showing Labour dipping close to or (just) below 40%, some with the Conservatives not far ahead of Reform and one with them just behind Reform. Generally, all the other parties up a bit at the expense of the (currently) big two.
Thanks to our FPTP voting system, political geography and a manifesto which to me looks reassuringly dull (but may make some radical left-wing voters think 'is that it?'), I stick to my earlier prediction of a super-colossal Labour majority on a relatively small vote share (small for the size of the majority / seats won.) And the Conservatives still a very clear second in seat numbers (though way behind) even if they are only a low second in vote share (not that far ahead of third place I mean.) With the Lib Dems not doing as well as (maybe some) expected unless they have amazingly well targeted voting in just the right seats. And the other smaller parties in England winning almost or actually 0 seats despite relatively good vote shares. Result: A super-huge majority, and so far as I can see, nothing that hugely different planned to do with it? Time will tell.
1997 all over again, in other words Not quite. 1997 Labour were better than this lot, apart from the future war criminal of course. |
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 14, 2024 9:37:33 GMT
Corks! A load of polls tonight showing Labour dipping close to or (just) below 40%, some with the Conservatives not far ahead of Reform and one with them just behind Reform. Generally, all the other parties up a bit at the expense of the (currently) big two.
Thanks to our FPTP voting system, political geography and a manifesto which to me looks reassuringly dull (but may make some radical left-wing voters think 'is that it?'), I stick to my earlier prediction of a super-colossal Labour majority on a relatively small vote share (small for the size of the majority / seats won.)
And the Conservatives still a very clear second in seat numbers (though way behind) even if they are only a low second in vote share (not that far ahead of third place I mean.) With the Lib Dems not doing as well as (maybe some) expected unless they have amazingly well targeted voting in just the right seats. And the other smaller parties in England winning almost or actually 0 seats despite relatively good vote shares.
Result: A super-huge majority, and so far as I can see, nothing that hugely different planned to do with it? Time will tell.
Honestly from reading the manifesto, I think Labour are bolder than they’re being given credit for. It’s just instead of pulling their big ideas out of a hat in the election cycle (which the Tories have been trying, and mostly failing to reap any benefits from), they’re briefed them long in advance. So stuff like the National Wealth Fund investments, renationalisation of railways by not renewing contract when they expire, Miliband’s Great British Energy, the employment package etc doesn't feel big because they’ve been talking about them for over a year now. Which is entirely deliberate strategy on their part, as the Starmer pitch is promising not to rock the boat too much after the years of political chaos. As for Reform’s polling, all it will do is put the fear of god in the Tories as the spectre of Canada 1993 haunts them. That won’t actually happen, but Tory MPs love a panic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2024 9:51:28 GMT
Corks! A load of polls tonight showing Labour dipping close to or (just) below 40%, some with the Conservatives not far ahead of Reform and one with them just behind Reform. Generally, all the other parties up a bit at the expense of the (currently) big two.
Thanks to our FPTP voting system, political geography and a manifesto which to me looks reassuringly dull (but may make some radical left-wing voters think 'is that it?'), I stick to my earlier prediction of a super-colossal Labour majority on a relatively small vote share (small for the size of the majority / seats won.)
And the Conservatives still a very clear second in seat numbers (though way behind) even if they are only a low second in vote share (not that far ahead of third place I mean.) With the Lib Dems not doing as well as (maybe some) expected unless they have amazingly well targeted voting in just the right seats. And the other smaller parties in England winning almost or actually 0 seats despite relatively good vote shares.
Result: A super-huge majority, and so far as I can see, nothing that hugely different planned to do with it? Time will tell.
Honestly from reading the manifesto, I think Labour are bolder than they’re being given credit for. It’s just instead of pulling their big ideas out of a hat in the election cycle (which the Tories have been trying, and mostly failing to reap any benefits from), they’re briefed them long in advance. So stuff like the National Wealth Fund investments, renationalisation of railways by not renewing contract when they expire, Miliband’s Great British Energy, the employment package etc doesn't feel big because they’ve been talking about them for over a year now. Which is entirely deliberate strategy on their part, as the Starmer pitch is promising not to rock the boat too much after the years of political chaos. As for Reform’s polling, all it will do is put the fear of god in the Tories as the spectre of Canada 1993 haunts them. That won’t actually happen, but Tory MPs love a panic. Reform are doing exactly what Farage needs to achieve his goal of co-opting the right entirely. He's - and clearly this won't be policy but it's what's happening - propping up the Labour majority even further by splitting the Tory vote, so marginals will end up red. Farage has - in the last two weeks - gone from 33-1 to be next Tory leader to 6-1 second favourite. He's played a very, very long game. But so have the Le Pens in France and they're closer to power than ever. I wouldn't like to think a Tory party made entirely of Farage types - proven charlatans and liars - would stand a chance but, well, we're in a world where Trump is a felon yet is polling higher because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 14, 2024 9:53:44 GMT
The main thing Farage cares about is himself. A real nasty piece of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Jun 14, 2024 10:38:39 GMT
Honestly from reading the manifesto, I think Labour are bolder than they’re being given credit for. It’s just instead of pulling their big ideas out of a hat in the election cycle (which the Tories have been trying, and mostly failing to reap any benefits from), they’re briefed them long in advance. So stuff like the National Wealth Fund investments, renationalisation of railways by not renewing contract when they expire, Miliband’s Great British Energy, the employment package etc doesn't feel big because they’ve been talking about them for over a year now. Which is entirely deliberate strategy on their part, as the Starmer pitch is promising not to rock the boat too much after the years of political chaos. As for Reform’s polling, all it will do is put the fear of god in the Tories as the spectre of Canada 1993 haunts them. That won’t actually happen, but Tory MPs love a panic. Reform are doing exactly what Farage needs to achieve his goal of co-opting the right entirely. He's - and clearly this won't be policy but it's what's happening - propping up the Labour majority even further by splitting the Tory vote, so marginals will end up red. Farage has - in the last two weeks - gone from 33-1 to be next Tory leader to 6-1 second favourite. He's played a very, very long game. But so have the Le Pens in France and they're closer to power than ever. I wouldn't like to think a Tory party made entirely of Farage types - proven charlatans and liars - would stand a chance but, well, we're in a world where Trump is a felon yet is polling higher because of it. Yeah the real battle for Farage is just getting himself into the Commons and then trying to rally what’s left of the right, less so winning seats in any number. I could see a major dividing line in the post-election Tory leadership battle being collaborating with him or not. |
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 16, 2024 21:19:33 GMT
Corks! A load of polls tonight showing Labour dipping close to or (just) below 40%, some with the Conservatives not far ahead of Reform and one with them just behind Reform. Generally, all the other parties up a bit at the expense of the (currently) big two.
Thanks to our FPTP voting system, political geography and a manifesto which to me looks reassuringly dull (but may make some radical left-wing voters think 'is that it?'), I stick to my earlier prediction of a super-colossal Labour majority on a relatively small vote share (small for the size of the majority / seats won.)
And the Conservatives still a very clear second in seat numbers (though way behind) even if they are only a low second in vote share (not that far ahead of third place I mean.) With the Lib Dems not doing as well as (maybe some) expected unless they have amazingly well targeted voting in just the right seats. And the other smaller parties in England winning almost or actually 0 seats despite relatively good vote shares.
Result: A super-huge majority, and so far as I can see, nothing that hugely different planned to do with it? Time will tell.
Honestly from reading the manifesto, I think Labour are bolder than they’re being given credit for. It’s just instead of pulling their big ideas out of a hat in the election cycle (which the Tories have been trying, and mostly failing to reap any benefits from), they’re briefed them long in advance. So stuff like the National Wealth Fund investments, renationalisation of railways by not renewing contract when they expire, Miliband’s Great British Energy, the employment package etc doesn't feel big because they’ve been talking about them for over a year now. Which is entirely deliberate strategy on their part, as the Starmer pitch is promising not to rock the boat too much after the years of political chaos. As for Reform’s polling, all it will do is put the fear of god in the Tories as the spectre of Canada 1993 haunts them. That won’t actually happen, but Tory MPs love a panic. Umm... not being especially sceptical, but... isn't rail renationalisation just rail not-refranchising? And the current train operators will still own everything and it will have to be leased from them? The National Wealth Fund sounds good, but the amounts are miniscule. Perhaps they will grow with time, but compared to the national wealth we already collectively own through our pension funds, it's tiny.
Great British Energy really could have been the big thing, but it's going to be Little British Energy because from was it £28bn per year, it's now a fraction of that and spread across the whole 5 year parliament. I don't understand why the lack of ambition, unless the markets running scared after the Truss debacle has made them ultra-cautious about borrowing? I genuinely think this is a pity; as originally billed it sounded similar to the U.S. 'Inflation Reduction Act' which seems to be working and I think it would have worked here too. Government putting money into something with a definite financial return like energy production should be acceptable.
The policy you didn't mention which might achieve something significant imo is New Towns. We need a massive amount of building of just about everything. Honestly, for the nation of Brunel and Telford we are collectively pathetic at building things and the HS2 farce just about sums it all up. More effort and money seems to go into enquiries, reports, surveys and consultations about a project than the actual building of it. The housing targets still look much too tame to me, they need to do a Macmillan and shove through the houses we need as a country, where we need them, asap. Most of our green and pleasant land looks nice enough but is a monoculture from the wildlife perspective. A housing estate with decent open spaces and varied gardens can be far better habitat than fields of one crop with all other plant and animal life suppressed.
EDIT: That was Macmillan as housing minister in Churchill's 1951 government I was thinking of, not as PM later in the 50s. I forget the housebuilding targets he set and worked towards, but they were very large indeed - and they were met.
|
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 16, 2024 21:48:09 GMT
Honestly from reading the manifesto, I think Labour are bolder than they’re being given credit for. It’s just instead of pulling their big ideas out of a hat in the election cycle (which the Tories have been trying, and mostly failing to reap any benefits from), they’re briefed them long in advance. So stuff like the National Wealth Fund investments, renationalisation of railways by not renewing contract when they expire, Miliband’s Great British Energy, the employment package etc doesn't feel big because they’ve been talking about them for over a year now. Which is entirely deliberate strategy on their part, as the Starmer pitch is promising not to rock the boat too much after the years of political chaos. As for Reform’s polling, all it will do is put the fear of god in the Tories as the spectre of Canada 1993 haunts them. That won’t actually happen, but Tory MPs love a panic. Reform are doing exactly what Farage needs to achieve his goal of co-opting the right entirely. He's - and clearly this won't be policy but it's what's happening - propping up the Labour majority even further by splitting the Tory vote, so marginals will end up red. Farage has - in the last two weeks - gone from 33-1 to be next Tory leader to 6-1 second favourite. He's played a very, very long game. But so have the Le Pens in France and they're closer to power than ever. I wouldn't like to think a Tory party made entirely of Farage types - proven charlatans and liars - would stand a chance but, well, we're in a world where Trump is a felon yet is polling higher because of it. Yes, absolutely, and I worry what the unexpected snap election in France (where the first round results will come out a few days ahead of our vote) might do. If the FN do very well there, will it strengthen Reform's vote here - or will it make people determined to vote against them?
Which is why (despite a severe wobble on my part over their National Service plan, awful idea) I will be voting Conservative after all. They're going to lose badly and I know my vote won't make a difference, but even in fractions of a decimal percentage point, I want to know I did my tiny bit to put the Conservatives as far ahead of Reform as possible. And just hope they are ahead, and that the good people of Clacton do their national duty and tactically vote Tory regardless of normal party politics!
Our political pendulum has swung from centre-left to centre-right and back again since time immemorial and while Labour aren't exactly my mug of picket-line tea  I know I can live with them in their current form, and I'd hope all but the most ardent left-wingers would say the same about a centre-right party - and there's only one on offer. If either party goes to the extreme (not 'extreme' according to their opponents' political hyperbole but for real, as I would say Labour did a very few years ago) then the country has a massive problem because 'the other lot' are going to win, sooner or later. Who'd have thought in 2019 that Labour would be heading for a landslide in 2024? Not me. What if the far left which lost so heavily then had still been in control? I think that under current circumstances, they would be about to take power... |
|
|
|
Post by bethhigdon on Jun 17, 2024 16:11:45 GMT
Reform are doing exactly what Farage needs to achieve his goal of co-opting the right entirely. He's - and clearly this won't be policy but it's what's happening - propping up the Labour majority even further by splitting the Tory vote, so marginals will end up red. Farage has - in the last two weeks - gone from 33-1 to be next Tory leader to 6-1 second favourite. He's played a very, very long game. But so have the Le Pens in France and they're closer to power than ever. I wouldn't like to think a Tory party made entirely of Farage types - proven charlatans and liars - would stand a chance but, well, we're in a world where Trump is a felon yet is polling higher because of it. Yes, absolutely, and I worry what the unexpected snap election in France (where the first round results will come out a few days ahead of our vote) might do. If the FN do very well there, will it strengthen Reform's vote here - or will it make people determined to vote against them?
Which is why (despite a severe wobble on my part over their National Service plan, awful idea) I will be voting Conservative after all. They're going to lose badly and I know my vote won't make a difference, but even in fractions of a decimal percentage point, I want to know I did my tiny bit to put the Conservatives as far ahead of Reform as possible. And just hope they are ahead, and that the good people of Clacton do their national duty and tactically vote Tory regardless of normal party politics!
Our political pendulum has swung from centre-left to centre-right and back again since time immemorial and while Labour aren't exactly my mug of picket-line tea I know I can live with them in their current form, and I'd hope all but the most ardent left-wingers would say the same about a centre-right party - and there's only one on offer. If either party goes to the extreme (not 'extreme' according to their opponents' political hyperbole but for real, as I would say Labour did a very few years ago) then the country has a massive problem because 'the other lot' are going to win, sooner or later. Who'd have thought in 2019 that Labour would be heading for a landslide in 2024? Not me. What if the far left which lost so heavily then had still been in control? I think that under current circumstances, they would be about to take power... I don't get this mind set at all.
Why not just vote for literally any other party that isn't obviously evil?
It's not like you are short of options in the UK, unlike the here in the US where we're trapped in a two party system.
It's also not like Labour is all that 'left' leaving. At best they're center left or maybe even center right as they're policies are closer to the Democrats here.
|
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 17, 2024 20:50:38 GMT
Yes, absolutely, and I worry what the unexpected snap election in France (where the first round results will come out a few days ahead of our vote) might do. If the FN do very well there, will it strengthen Reform's vote here - or will it make people determined to vote against them?
Which is why (despite a severe wobble on my part over their National Service plan, awful idea) I will be voting Conservative after all. They're going to lose badly and I know my vote won't make a difference, but even in fractions of a decimal percentage point, I want to know I did my tiny bit to put the Conservatives as far ahead of Reform as possible. And just hope they are ahead, and that the good people of Clacton do their national duty and tactically vote Tory regardless of normal party politics!
Our political pendulum has swung from centre-left to centre-right and back again since time immemorial and while Labour aren't exactly my mug of picket-line tea I know I can live with them in their current form, and I'd hope all but the most ardent left-wingers would say the same about a centre-right party - and there's only one on offer. If either party goes to the extreme (not 'extreme' according to their opponents' political hyperbole but for real, as I would say Labour did a very few years ago) then the country has a massive problem because 'the other lot' are going to win, sooner or later. Who'd have thought in 2019 that Labour would be heading for a landslide in 2024? Not me. What if the far left which lost so heavily then had still been in control? I think that under current circumstances, they would be about to take power... I don't get this mind set at all.
Why not just vote for literally any other party that isn't obviously evil?
It's not like you are short of options in the UK, unlike the here in the US where we're trapped in a two party system.
It's also not like Labour is all that 'left' leaving. At best they're center left or maybe even center right as they're policies are closer to the Democrats here.
Sorry, I wrote a long reply and my broadband went down again and I lost it. (I've been Internet-less for most of the last few days.)
In short, our political balance between parties isn't so different from yours as you might think. There are only two parties which can hold power, in practice.
Imagine you were a moderate Republican and had a moderate candidate to vote for but you voted for some random candidate as a protest and woke up to find your party had responded to a bad defeat by going MAGA. I can't stop that happening here obviously, but at least I can say I voted for my moderate Conservative and hope they win their seat and help keep their party on the centre-right where it belongs.
Because if either main party isn't moderate, there's a real risk they can still win by default if 'the current lot' leave voters wanting a change. Labour are about to win big here and I doubt that 1 voter in 10 could name three of their policies or even cares what they are; just that they're 'the other lot' and not The Tories is enough right now. I'm not worried by the prospect, but if it was 2017 or 2019 I'd have been very worried indeed because I think the same sentiment would still have taken them to power. And I wouldn't want the reverse to happen either.
|
|
|
|
Post by bethhigdon on Jun 17, 2024 21:06:41 GMT
I don't get this mind set at all.
Why not just vote for literally any other party that isn't obviously evil?
It's not like you are short of options in the UK, unlike the here in the US where we're trapped in a two party system.
It's also not like Labour is all that 'left' leaving. At best they're center left or maybe even center right as they're policies are closer to the Democrats here.
Sorry, I wrote a long reply and my broadband went down again and I lost it. (I've been Internet-less for most of the last few days.)
In short, our political balance between parties isn't so different from yours as you might think. There are only two parties which can hold power, in practice.
Imagine you were a moderate Republican and had a moderate candidate to vote for but you voted for some random candidate as a protest and woke up to find your party had responded to a bad defeat by going MAGA. I can't stop that happening here obviously, but at least I can say I voted for my moderate Conservative and hope they win their seat and help keep their party on the centre-right where it belongs.
Because if either main party isn't moderate, there's a real risk they can still win by default if 'the current lot' leave voters wanting a change. Labour are about to win big here and I doubt that 1 voter in 10 could name three of their policies or even cares what they are; just that they're 'the other lot' and not The Tories is enough right now. I'm not worried by the prospect, but if it was 2017 or 2019 I'd have been very worried indeed.
See that doesn't translate to the US as there's no such thing as a 'moderate Republican'. Not since Nixon made a devil's deal with the KKK in the 60s.
The Dems are the center-right, and honestly I wish there was was a further left party to vote for.
So therefore I have to ask...
1.If Labor is closer to the Dems then why aren't they center right enough for you?
2.Why must things be center-right and not true center, or even center-left?
3.Do you really believe that the Tories are any better than Reform given their past history and current far-right policies?
4. Wouldn't just voting Labor do more to keep both Reform and the Tories out?
|
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 17, 2024 21:17:58 GMT
I don't get this mind set at all.
Why not just vote for literally any other party that isn't obviously evil?
It's not like you are short of options in the UK, unlike the here in the US where we're trapped in a two party system.
It's also not like Labour is all that 'left' leaving. At best they're center left or maybe even center right as they're policies are closer to the Democrats here.
Sorry, I wrote a long reply and my broadband went down again and I lost it. (I've been Internet-less for most of the last few days.)
In short, our political balance between parties isn't so different from yours as you might think. There are only two parties which can hold power, in practice.
Imagine you were a moderate Republican and had a moderate candidate to vote for but you voted for some random candidate as a protest and woke up to find your party had responded to a bad defeat by going MAGA. I can't stop that happening here obviously, but at least I can say I voted for my moderate Conservative and hope they win their seat and help keep their party on the centre-right where it belongs.
Because if either main party isn't moderate, there's a real risk they can still win by default if 'the current lot' leave voters wanting a change. Labour are about to win big here and I doubt that 1 voter in 10 could name three of their policies or even cares what they are; just that they're 'the other lot' and not The Tories is enough right now. I'm not worried by the prospect, but if it was 2017 or 2019 I'd have been very worried indeed because I think the same sentiment would still have taken them to power. And I wouldn't want the reverse to happen either.
Yep. After 14 years of Tories it is enough right now. But I bet ask those people to name the Tories policies & they couldn't name any, well they'd probably mumble something about boats & Rwanda. After 14 years that's quite damning. |
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 17, 2024 22:03:30 GMT
Sorry, I wrote a long reply and my broadband went down again and I lost it. (I've been Internet-less for most of the last few days.)
In short, our political balance between parties isn't so different from yours as you might think. There are only two parties which can hold power, in practice.
Imagine you were a moderate Republican and had a moderate candidate to vote for but you voted for some random candidate as a protest and woke up to find your party had responded to a bad defeat by going MAGA. I can't stop that happening here obviously, but at least I can say I voted for my moderate Conservative and hope they win their seat and help keep their party on the centre-right where it belongs.
Because if either main party isn't moderate, there's a real risk they can still win by default if 'the current lot' leave voters wanting a change. Labour are about to win big here and I doubt that 1 voter in 10 could name three of their policies or even cares what they are; just that they're 'the other lot' and not The Tories is enough right now. I'm not worried by the prospect, but if it was 2017 or 2019 I'd have been very worried indeed because I think the same sentiment would still have taken them to power. And I wouldn't want the reverse to happen either.
Yep. After 14 years of Tories it is enough right now. But I bet ask those people to name the Tories policies & they couldn't name any, well they'd probably mumble something about boats & Rwanda. After 14 years that's quite damning. Not really. I expect you're right and I didn't mean it as a criticism of Labour's policies, just a fact. Most people really don't pay much attention to politics even at election time.
Not every election campaign is driven by policy - the last one certainly was, for example, also 1979 and 1983 were classic examples. 1997 and 2010 to a lesser extent. But not every election is like that. When the two main parties accept more or less the same economic landscape after the election, and there's no huge divider like Brexit, people probably won't know about policies and go on how they 'feel'. 2015 was a recent example although there were more economic policy differences then than now, as I recall it.
|
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 18, 2024 10:35:43 GMT
As for Reform’s polling, all it will do is put the fear of god in the Tories as the spectre of Canada 1993 haunts them. That won’t actually happen, but Tory MPs love a panic. Realised I didn't answer this bit.
I must say that having looked at some of those MRP polls for seats I know well, I'm starting to wonder a bit. There are four seats, all Tory since approximately forever. That's made me wonder how good these extrapolated polls really are, because I know the Lib Dems have sometimes been quite close in one of the four seats. And Labour nowhere at all in any of them, ever. Yet the last poll I saw predicted the Lib Dems' formerly best placed seat being taken - by Labour! Not there, not in a million years. If the Conservative vote really did split and collapse as forecast, I would have expected two possible Lib Dem gains out of the four seats and one of them very possible.
So is it the End Of Days or "only" 1997?  |
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 18, 2024 11:00:18 GMT
Yep. After 14 years of Tories it is enough right now. But I bet ask those people to name the Tories policies & they couldn't name any, well they'd probably mumble something about boats & Rwanda. After 14 years that's quite damning. Not really. I expect you're right and I didn't mean it as a criticism of Labour's policies, just a fact. Most people really don't pay much attention to politics even at election time.
Not every election campaign is driven by policy - the last one certainly was, for example, also 1979 and 1983 were classic examples. 1997 and 2010 to a lesser extent. But not every election is like that. When the two main parties accept more or less the same economic landscape after the election, and there's no huge divider like Brexit, people probably won't know about policies and go on how they 'feel'. 2015 was a recent example although there were more economic policy differences then than now, as I recall it.
That is what the tories are hoping for, & hoping we all forget the past 14 years. All they have is this manufactured bigoted culture war. |
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 18, 2024 11:21:46 GMT
Not really. I expect you're right and I didn't mean it as a criticism of Labour's policies, just a fact. Most people really don't pay much attention to politics even at election time.
Not every election campaign is driven by policy - the last one certainly was, for example, also 1979 and 1983 were classic examples. 1997 and 2010 to a lesser extent. But not every election is like that. When the two main parties accept more or less the same economic landscape after the election, and there's no huge divider like Brexit, people probably won't know about policies and go on how they 'feel'. 2015 was a recent example although there were more economic policy differences then than now, as I recall it.
That is what the tories are hoping for, & hoping we all forget the past 14 years. All they have is this manufactured bigoted culture war. I think you missed my point. I meant that neither side is really going big on policy at this election. Especially on the economy/spending, which is where elections are traditionally fought/won/lost.
'Vote for us. We'll put up taxes a bit less than them.' 'Vote for us. We'll increase public spending by a fraction of a percent of GDP more than them.'
I mean, it's not Thatcher v. Foot is it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2024 11:22:53 GMT
Not really. I expect you're right and I didn't mean it as a criticism of Labour's policies, just a fact. Most people really don't pay much attention to politics even at election time.
Not every election campaign is driven by policy - the last one certainly was, for example, also 1979 and 1983 were classic examples. 1997 and 2010 to a lesser extent. But not every election is like that. When the two main parties accept more or less the same economic landscape after the election, and there's no huge divider like Brexit, people probably won't know about policies and go on how they 'feel'. 2015 was a recent example although there were more economic policy differences then than now, as I recall it.
That is what the tories are hoping for, & hoping we all forget the past 14 years. All they have is this manufactured bigoted culture war. Which they can't win. They'll be outflanked for that vote by Reform, and to a massive level of conservatives with a small "c", they're not responding to the Tories focusing on small boats over the cost of living crisis. Middle to high income earners are now massively worried about mortgage payments for the first time in the last 50 years - that's when you know Tories are in trouble. One of their own MPs said he can't afford his house payments now. I think they'll lose a lot of voters but also see a lot stay home. Starmer isn't inspiring people like Blair did in 1997 - regardless of subsequent debacles so it won't be an historic election like 1945, with a totally revolutionary government. But perhaps that's what people want after 8 years since Brexit broke the country into factions - nice, boring politics for a while. Some adults back in the room. |
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 18, 2024 11:33:29 GMT
That is what the tories are hoping for, & hoping we all forget the past 14 years. All they have is this manufactured bigoted culture war. Which they can't win. They'll be outflanked for that vote by Reform, and to a massive level of conservatives with a small "c", they're not responding to the Tories focusing on small boats over the cost of living crisis. Middle to high income earners are now massively worried about mortgage payments for the first time in the last 50 years - that's when you know Tories are in trouble. One of their own MPs said he can't afford his house payments now. I think they'll lose a lot of voters but also see a lot stay home. Starmer isn't inspiring people like Blair did in 1997 - regardless of subsequent debacles so it won't be an historic election like 1945, with a totally revolutionary government. But perhaps that's what people want after 8 years since Brexit broke the country into factions - nice, boring politics for a while. Some adults back in the room. As indeed happened in 1997. Blair won fewer votes even that first time in 1997 than Major did in 1992, so I've never been convinced he hugely inspired people. (Inspired excellent media coverage though!) Many Conservatives simply didn't vote in 1997 or in 2001.
I think you're right btw - 'boring' politics is likely to be exactly what people want. 'Vote for me. I'm rather boring.' It's a vote-winner!
|
|
|
|
Post by timleschild on Jun 18, 2024 11:35:16 GMT
That is what the tories are hoping for, & hoping we all forget the past 14 years. All they have is this manufactured bigoted culture war. I think you missed my point. I meant that neither side is really going big on policy at this election. Especially on the economy/spending, which is where elections are traditionally fought/won/lost.
'Vote for us. We'll put up taxes a bit less than them.' 'Vote for us. We'll increase public spending by a fraction of a percent of GDP more than them.'
I mean, it's not Thatcher v. Foot is it? I know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2024 12:15:48 GMT
Which they can't win. They'll be outflanked for that vote by Reform, and to a massive level of conservatives with a small "c", they're not responding to the Tories focusing on small boats over the cost of living crisis. Middle to high income earners are now massively worried about mortgage payments for the first time in the last 50 years - that's when you know Tories are in trouble. One of their own MPs said he can't afford his house payments now. I think they'll lose a lot of voters but also see a lot stay home. Starmer isn't inspiring people like Blair did in 1997 - regardless of subsequent debacles so it won't be an historic election like 1945, with a totally revolutionary government. But perhaps that's what people want after 8 years since Brexit broke the country into factions - nice, boring politics for a while. Some adults back in the room. As indeed happened in 1997. Blair won fewer votes even that first time in 1997 than Major did in 1992, so I've never been convinced he hugely inspired people. (Inspired excellent media coverage though!) Many Conservatives simply didn't vote in 1997 or in 2001.
I think you're right btw - 'boring' politics is likely to be exactly what people want. 'Vote for me. I'm rather boring.' It's a vote-winner!
In 1997 though, Blair got a lot more of the votes. He clearly got people to cross the line, it was his whole shtick. Of course some will never do that and stay voting for their mob forever but in 1997 like 2019 it's clear Blair got people in places who didn't vote Labour to do so. Either way, I think the story of the next few years is what form the right takes to respond. Double down with some Braverman-Patel-Mordaunt party and try and appeal to the voters they ARE going to lose this time with an even more right-wing Tory party? Or try and fight Labour on the centre - difficult to do when so many centrists were deselected in 2019. I don't think that either happens easily. I honestly can't believe this seems like an even remotely possible option but...I would not be shocked - right now - to see the Tories go into the next election with Farage as leader. Cult of personality, populist and because he's never been in office he has no real record to attack unlike Braverman, Patel, Mordaunt and most Tories who could feasibly do it. We're at a turning point in politics, I think. One of those eras like the merger of the Whigs and Liberal Unionists in 1912 or Labour winning under their original Keir, or their 1945 revolution of the state. I don't think the Tories going forwards can or will be the same. Time will tell, and they'll need to get some more whippings first but long term, I think we're at a crossroads for them. |
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Jun 18, 2024 12:40:35 GMT
As indeed happened in 1997. Blair won fewer votes even that first time in 1997 than Major did in 1992, so I've never been convinced he hugely inspired people. (Inspired excellent media coverage though!) Many Conservatives simply didn't vote in 1997 or in 2001.
I think you're right btw - 'boring' politics is likely to be exactly what people want. 'Vote for me. I'm rather boring.' It's a vote-winner!
In 1997 though, Blair got a lot more of the votes. He clearly got people to cross the line, it was his whole shtick. Of course some will never do that and stay voting for their mob forever but in 1997 like 2019 it's clear Blair got people in places who didn't vote Labour to do so. Yes, he got a lot more of the votes that were cast in 1997 and some were former Conservative voters, but no, he didn't win a larger vote than the Conservatives had in 1992. Not inspiring your opponents' supporters to come out and vote against you is also a winning tactic, but it's not the same as inspiring them to vote for you.
I don't think 2019 qualifies either, even with 'Get Brexit Done' and the Red Wall and all that. I think more previously Labour voters didn't vote, than switched. A different set of non-voters produced a different result.
Scotland in 2015 is the most recent genuinely 'voting change' election I can think of. High turnout, different voting choice, very different result. UK wide, 1945, 1950/1, 1963/4 and 1979. Turnouts are so much lower from 1997 onwards - from 2001 even more so - there are always a lot of non-voters to consider and who they didn't vote for. And I think there will be this time.
|
|
I know I can live with them in their current form, and I'd hope all but the most ardent left-wingers would say the same about a centre-right party - and there's only one on offer. If either party goes to the extreme (not 'extreme' according to their opponents' political hyperbole but for real, as I would say Labour did a very few years ago) then the country has a massive problem because 'the other lot' are going to win, sooner or later. Who'd have thought in 2019 that Labour would be heading for a landslide in 2024? Not me. What if the far left which lost so heavily then had still been in control? I think that under current circumstances, they would be about to take power...
