A Political Thread pt. 2

[ncurd]

SNP wins emphatic victory, but falls just short of overall majority

The SNP has won an emphatic victory in the Holyrood elections, but did not gain an overall majority.

www.google.co.uk

Sir John Curtis saying a combination of factors including collapse of the Brexit party vote, Labour's vote and also as you said 10% going to the independent candidate.

Still, a bad result for Labour whatever way you look at it. Especially a former Labour stronghold.

Oh yeah absolutely a bad result, not gonna sugarcoat that. It shows the electorate haven't moved that much from 2019 and whatever Lab have done post-Corbyn has made zero impact in areas like Hartlepool in terms of their chances. I don't think its seismic result people are making out either just a really poor expected one.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Oh yeah absolutely a bad result, not gonna sugarcoat that. It shows the electorate haven't moved that much from 2019 and whatever Lab have done post-Corbyn has made zero impact in areas like Hartlepool in terms of their chances. I don't think its seismic result people are making out either just a really poor expected one.

Have we now got to the point where Labour has become electorally irrelevant? Added to Lib Dems and Greens, who are already squeezed out under the FPTP system. It seems obvious that They should now combine into one party (broad centre left party) to fight the Tories.

If it's going to take at least 2-3 elections to cut down this story majority then might as face the music and give the electorate some kind of alternative.

 

[ncurd]

Have we now got to the point where Labour has become electorally irrelevant? Added to Lib Dems and Greens, who are already squeezed out under the FPTP system. It seems obvious that They should now combine into one party (broad centre left party) to fight the Tories.

If it's going to take at least 2-3 elections to cut down this story majority then might as face the music and give the electorate some kind of alternative.

I mean arguably no in 2005 Michael Howard's Tories (god the Tories has a succession of laughable candidates) had less seats than Labour do now and only a 0.3 difference in the vote share. So historically I think its fair to say rumours of the Lab parties demise are greatly exaggerated, its just in a very bad place right now.

I think the real answer for immediate change is a electoral pact with the Green's and LD's (and pray others follow) everyone steps down in seats they were not the highest placed party out of the pact. Fight the election as an alliance against the Tories. Promise to enact an agreed PR system within a year, hold a new general election under PR within 3. Keep doing that till they win

That'll lead to the break down of Lab to its two to three factions, likely an emergent One-Nation Tory party and possibly the current one splitting in two as well.

 

[ncurd]

 

[BiggusLaddus]

This is the Brexit parliament, the Torys are the brexit party and Starmer was the arch-remainer.

Nothing will change until brexit has been worked through and the outcomes are obvious. So far the negatives have either been masked by covid or written off as teething problems.

If it does become the predicted disaster then the tory vote might well collapse. Until then, this is what we're stuck with.

 

[ncurd]

This is the Brexit parliament, the Torys are the brexit party and Starmer was the arch-remainer.

He wasn't possibly would of been if he'd been leader he was certainly the biggest pro-EU voice on Labour front bench and being the shadow secretary for Exiting the European Union meant he had a very visible part of opposing governement plans. But Labour under Corbyn was until the very end pro-Brexit (just a softer kind).

The arch-remainers were back benchers of both parties. Benn, Cooper & Letwin are the ones I'd give that tag to.

 

[BiggusLaddus]

I meant the general public perception, rather than reality.

 

[Wasps92]

They are also Unfortutely and typically uneducated.

Have to be to think a party " riddled with middle class champagne socialists." is worse than a party riddled with legit champagne capitalists.

They really aren't but sadly attitudes like yours are typical of Labour nowadays. Then you wonder why your condescending attitude translates into heavy defeats in elections and referendums.

 

[ncurd]

I meant the general public perception, rather than reality.

Its one of those madening things that I don't know how you fix. Public perception compared to reality are separate things.

Like people claiming Labour only care about identity politics when Starmer has managed to severely **** off a lot people that care heavily about that stuff for not banging on about it.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The Tories are simply better at lying and then shamelessly breaching their promises, whether made to the electorate or signed in international agreements. Tories attack labour relentlessly with little regard for the truth of their statements, just putting that idea in people's heads is enough. Labour on the other hand are completely feeble and aren't holding the Tories to account for the very real wrongdoing they are involved in. They don't even need to lie but they are not hammering home what a shower of **** the current government are. Starmer is Mr diplomat and whilst I would normally like that, what is needed is a figure who will go right for Johnson's throat and hold the lying ******* to account.

We haven't had a government this incompetent, this corrupt and this dishonest in ages and yet they get a free pass.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

They really aren't but sadly attitudes like yours are typical of Labour nowadays. Then you wonder why your condescending attitude translates into heavy defeats in elections and referendums.

Isn't the condescending attitude from both sides?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Voting in favour of rampant corruption, unabashed racism, homophobia and transphobia, classism, hungry children, underfunded pretty much everything you can think of, just to own the libs



It's exactly the issue with modern politics - it's sports now.
"I don't care how horrible my team is as long as the other one loses."

I don't vote for labour because they're labour, I vote(d) for them because they were the most closely aligned to my views - God knows who I'll vote for in the next GE, I'll make that decision at the time.
Being called names on twitter by someone isn't going to change how I vote.

 

[Wasps92]

Isn't the condescending attitude from both sides?

My dad voted Labour all of his life until 2015, so either as you claim he suddenly became uneducated or the party has changed dramatically and he feels it no longer reflects his politics.

I think it's the latter and I'd guess it's the same all over Labour's former heartlands.

 

[ncurd]

My dad voted Labour all of his life until 2015, so either as you claim he suddenly became uneducated or the party has changed dramatically and he feels it no longer reflects his politics.

I think it's the latter and I'd guess it's the same all over Labour's former heartlands.

Changed dramatically how? What about Ed Milliband's Labour changed it?

Because so far you've just said a bunch of nonsense that doesn't stack up.

An example is my in-laws voted LD for years but that party hasn't changed much at all. Speaking to them when I first met them it was quite clear they voted LD because that was who was popular in the area (Paddy Ashdown was the MP) but the party never reflected their outlook on things.

Labour under Milliband was no real discernible difference from Kinnock, Blair and Brown. In fact one of the major issues people had with him was he felt like another Blair clone hence the brilliant (but slightly inaccurate) Green party ad

Then you go to 2017 and it Corbyn who's a complete 70's throwback...


Looking at the history I don't think Labour changed that much at all.




Think I'll be waiting a while for an answer though because for someone who accused a party of only playing identity politics you haven't actually been interested in addressing anything else to said today in this thread.

 

[Which Tyler]

Surely, it's not about education level, but messaging - which the tories own. They can come up with things that are simply not true; and get enough repeats of it, and have it unchallenged (in public view) that it sticks and hurts.
Labour (and Lib Dem, and Green and...) can't get genuine scandals to stick.

The owns the media - including the BBC now; the right owns fake news.
"education" plays a part - but only really in terms of critical thinking skills, and remaining skeptical in the face of mis-information, and having your prejudices pandered to.

 

[Wasps92]

Changed dramatically how? What about Ed Milliband's Labour changed it?

Because so far you've just said a bunch of nonsense that doesn't stack up.

An example is my in-laws voted LD for years but that party hasn't changed much at all. Speaking to them when I first met them it was quite clear they voted LD because that was who was popular in the area (Paddy Ashdown was the MP) but the party never reflected their outlook on things.

Labour under Milliband was no real discernible difference from Kinnock, Blair and Brown. In fact one of the major issues people had with him was he felt like another Blair clone hence the brilliant (but slightly inaccurate) Green party ad

Then you go to 2017 and it Corbyn who's a complete 70's throwback...


Looking at the history I don't think Labour changed that much at all.




Think I'll be waiting a while for an answer though because for someone who accused a party of only playing identity politics you haven't actually been interested in addressing anything else to said today in this thread.

The Labour Party which was more interested in fighting against Brexit over some warped belief that voting to leave was / is racist rather than listening to what the electorate (especially in the "red wall") were saying. They've been heading away from the working class for years and have become increasingly London centric. Corbyn was a seventies throwback yet that didn't mean the party as a whole were. JC has been anti-EU his whole life, something which put him at odds with the vast majority of the party.

 

[ncurd]

Another example would be the LD's after 2010 people say the 'party' changed, but in reality it hadn't it was even in Kennedy's time the center ground between Lab and Tory and very squeezed at that particular time. Then they went into coalition with Tories and suddenly LD voters felt betrayed because they hadn't sided with Labour. Yet the party hadn't changed much at all its policy base was still broadly the same ad they were actually enacting a good proportion of manifesto they were elected on. People deserted them in their droves for understandable reasons they thought the party was decidedly anti-Tory as they were, that didn't actually make it true.

Surely, it's not about education level, but messaging - which the tories own. They can come up with things that are simply not true; and get enough repeats of it, and have it unchallenged (in public view) that it sticks and hurts.
Labour (and Lib Dem, and Green and...) can't get genuine scandals to stick.

The owns the media - including the BBC now; the right owns fake news.

Honestly someone showed me a stat the other day only 5% of people read print media, 40% get it from online. I do think the social media bubble of confirmation bias is far more of issue. This person has said a thing I want to agree with so they must be correct.

The Labour Party which was more interested in fighting against Brexit over some warped belief that voting to leave was / is racist rather than listening to what the electorate (especially in the "red wall") were saying. They've been heading away from the working class for years and have become increasingly London centric. Corbyn was a seventies throwback yet that didn't mean the party as a whole were. JC has been anti-EU his whole life, something which put him at odds with the vast majority of the party.

That's 2017 GE and 2016 referendum, you said your Dad switched in 2015...so that doesn't add up. "It became more London Centric", how? "It said they were racist", when?
Here's a better question why did the working class vote leave? I'm not from up North, I'm not working class (some of my grandparents were) but I'm also not London based (I'm from the Westcountry) and pretty much dislike city life. However I do think one thing is true Brexit wasn't about racism (although to pretend there wasn't a sizable racist vote would be equally stupid) you look at it and it was we want change vote or stick to the man vote.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Surely, it's not about education level, but messaging - which the tories own. They can come up with things that are simply not true; and get enough repeats of it, and have it unchallenged (in public view) that it sticks and hurts.
Labour (and Lib Dem, and Green and...) can't get genuine scandals to stick.

The owns the media - including the BBC now; the right owns fake news.
"education" plays a part - but only really in terms of critical thinking skills, and remaining skeptical in the face of mis-information, and having your prejudices pandered to.

Fair enough assessment.
Maybe seeing the reaction to covid and how certain groups refused to follow any scientific advice has made me a lot more jaded about certain groups.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Aren't the Tories massively " London centric", especially financial London?

I just fail to see why the tories are deemed the party for them now?
Brexit has gone through, so what's it about now?

 

[ncurd]

Aren't the Tories massively " London centric", especially financial London?

Hugely, its the bit that never adds up its the political equivalent of 1+1=a banana

I get how Farage and his grift worked as a bunch of anti-establishment toe rags. They were upstart party that for the most part were a political joke until Cameron bet the farm on it and turned it into a real national debate. Even before 2012 they polled below 5% before a sudden surge (does anyone know what happened at beginign of that year to start them picking up huge votes, did we have EU elections? Nope 2014 when they really surged.

But how someone who went to bloody Eton who poltical career mainly bolstered by being London Mayor became the man of the Northeners. It just doesn't make any sense other parties sure but the Tories I think its just baffling.