The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[markavfc40]

As an opposition in your wildest dreams you wouldn't dream up so many open goals to shoot into but it seems that Labour aren't just failing to score they aren't either bothering to shoot. 

They should be screaming from the roof tops about what is happening in the NHS which is now on its knees and failing patients. With the way below inflation pay offers they should 100% be backing workers from every sector  With energy bills going through the roof, and fuel costs alongside them, whilst energy and fuel companies are making record profits and paying out huge dividends to shareholders they should be all over making a case for renationalisation. With Brexit being shown to be an absolute disaster they should be making a case for closer ties with Europe.

Instead they are pretty much mute offering up no radical solutions or real alternatives. The way the country is being run simply isn't working for the masses, in fact it is well and truly broken, and there is a huge chasm crying out for a party to fill yet Labour are pussy footing around not wanting to offend Daily Mail/Torygraph/Sun editors and its readers it seems.

Sitting back and watching the Tories tear themselves to pieces in the hope of picking up a few of their scraps, in terms of turning a few blue voters red, will only take Labour so far. They could already be smashing the door to number 10 down though if they'd grow a pair and actually spell out an alternative. This country is crying out for one. If Labour misses this boat due to sitting on their hands they may find the ship to number 10 has well and truly sailed and they will have failed all of us.

[ml1dch]

5 hours ago, bickster said:

Why did Starmer create the internal fight? Surely the person that went against party discipline for a Shadow Cabinet member was the one that caused this not Starmer

How was the reaction when Corbyn removed Owen Smith in 2018 for a broadly similar "offence"?

I expect that it was broadly the people saying that removing Reeves is A Bad Thing thing who were saying that Corbyn was right to ditch Smith, and vice versa?

[blandy]

  

13 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

How was the reaction when Corbyn removed Owen Smith in 2018 for a broadly similar "offence"?

I expect that it was broadly the people saying that removing Reeves is A Bad Thing thing who were saying that Corbyn was right to ditch Smith, and vice versa?

You can always do a search to find out 

On 23/03/2018 at 18:48, ml1dch said:

Owen Smith: "this Brexit stuff is a bit silly really, isn't it?"

Jeremy Corbyn: "you're fired"

I'm sure they're still just biding their time and waiting for opinion to move though.

[OutByEaster?]

Fired for making up policy on the spot.

If there's one thing we know Starmer won't stand for, it's policy.

 

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

How did he get on in the election?

He was 2,227 votes away from being Prime Minister, despite a co-ordinated effort from members of his own party to undermine his campaign and the complete opposition of the written and broadcast press in the UK.

The second highest share of the vote since 1970 for any Labour leader and the highest for any Labour leader with a soul for 50 years.

 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

He was 2,227 votes away from being Prime Minister

Was he? (genuinely) how did you work that out. Labour got 32% of the vote (Tories 43.6% and 3.7 million votes more than Labour) Labour's seat count fell by 60 and their percentage of the vote fell by about 7 or 8%.

How the heck would 2,227 votes switching reverse that? 

edit - Jon said "a couple of years ago" - which I took to be the 2019 election. 

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Was he? (genuinely) how did you work that out. Labour got 32% of the vote (Tories 43.6% and 3.7 million votes more than Labour) Labour's seat count fell by 60 and their percentage of the vote fell by about 7 or 8%.

How the heck would 2,227 votes switching reverse that? 

He means in very specific seats, that is the number that would have been needed to be added to the Labour tally in order to take those seats. So if they lost Little Thrumpington by 20 votes and Wallop-in--the-Nethers by 8 votes, 28 votes are needed to make those switch. 

edit - or thirty I suppose, if we want to be pedantic. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by ml1dch

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

He means in very specific seats, that is the number that would have been needed to be added to the Labour tally in order to take those seats. So if they lost Little Thrumpington by 20 votes and Wallop-in--the-Nethers by 8 votes, 28 votes are needed to make those switch. 

edit - or thirty I suppose, if we want to be pedantic. 

So how many of the closest result between parties seats is that that would have to have switched? - it still seems incongruously low (as well is highly, statistically, improbable. I know FPTP is a dreadful system, but still...

[blandy]

I've just googled it and it's bollex (no offence to anyone). The 8 most marginal seats where Labour was second (to anyone) adds up to way more than 2,227 votes switching

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-marginality/

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

So how many of the closest result between parties seats is that that would have to have switched? - it still seems incongruously low (as well is highly, statistically, improbable. I know FPTP is a dreadful system, but still...

Indeed, but it's also relying on the counter-factual that without the DUP holding the balance of power, the Lib Dems, SNP et al would have chosen to support a Corbyn-led Labour Government. So in this version, it only needed half a dozen seats to change from Tory to Labour, leaving DUP + Tory as slightly less than everyone else, rather than slightly more than everyone else.

Obviously this theory fails somewhat with all those parties notably not supporting a Corbyn administration when they had the chance in late 2019, when Johnson lost his majority. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by ml1dch

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

this theory fails somewhat

Not half. And it's not from the last election either, which is what I assumed "a couple of years ago" meant, but even if it meant 5 years ago, it's still nonsense for the reasons you say. Even in 2017, Labour was 56 seats short of the baby eaters, never mind getting a majority and being able to govern on their own.

[bickster]

22 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

He was 2,227 votes away from being Prime Minister, despite a co-ordinated effort from members of his own party to undermine his campaign and the complete opposition of the written and broadcast press in the UK.

The second highest share of the vote since 1970 for any Labour leader and the highest for any Labour leader with a soul for 50 years.

 

So is this the 2017 election where the experienced Labour Party staff that he didn't put in place ignored his instructions and he did rather well despite his targeting strategy being shite or the 2019 election where the staff he put in place carried out his plan and ... well yes it's there for all to see

[ml1dch]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not half. And it's not from the last election either, which is what I assumed "a couple of years ago" meant, but even if it meant 5 years ago, it's still nonsense for the reasons you say. Even in 2017, Labour was 56 seats short of the baby eaters, never mind getting a majority and being able to govern on their own.

Sorry, I've just seen you were looking at 2019 figures. Here's the equivalent 2017 ones that the spurious 2,227 votes claim comes from

[Demitri_C]

10 hours ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

Why?

(If your answer is "because people won't vote for a working class northern woman", we should think about why that is) 

Unlikeable, far too aggresive without really getting her a point across. She would upset alot of people and i dont think people would  warm to her.

[markavfc40]

17 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Unlikeable, far too aggresive without really getting her a point across. She would upset alot of people and i dont think people would  warm to her.

Amazing how two people can see the same things in a person but see them differently. What you describe as her being aggressive I see as her being passionate and empathetic, empathy that comes from lived experience. I also think she gets her point across brilliantly as you can't fake something that comes from true lived experience, comes from what you have not only lived yourself but comes from the environment you come from be that family, friends, neighbours, those you encounter through your work etc, and I mean real work not having been a career politician. 

I think you may be used to seeing those who fake it and who come across polished because they are playing a role and it is all an act to get your vote. Rayner isn't polished no but she is real as she doesn't fake it because she doesn't have to.

I think she is remarkable. Have a look at her back story, it is inspiring. 

Edited July 28, 2022 by markavfc40

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

i dont think people would  warm to her

In addition to what Mark said, one of the things about her, if you hear on the radio, talking generally, or see her on TV on some chat thing, is that people do warm to her. She was on the radio last week hosting a phone in and she’s been on morning telly and comes over really well.

[Demitri_C]

15 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Amazing how two people can see the same things in a person but see them differently. What you describe as her being aggressive I see as her being passionate and empathetic, empathy that comes from lived experience. I also think she gets her point across brilliantly as you can't fake something that comes from true lived experience, comes from what you have not only lived yourself but comes from the environment you come from be that family, friends, neighbours, those you encounter through your work etc, and I mean real work not having been a career politician. 

I think you may be used to seeing those who fake it and who come across polished because they are playing a role and it is all an act to get your vote. Rayner isn't polished no but she is real as she doesn't fake it because she doesn't have to.

I think she is remarkable. Have a look at her back story, it is inspiring. 

No worries we don't have to agree on this. But i know alot of die hard labour supporters and they cant stand her. She is either you love or hate her camp. Personally think starmer would do a better job than her.

[Seat68]

36 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Unlikeable, far too aggresive without really getting her a point across. She would upset alot of people and i dont think people would  warm to her.

Dem your spelling is getting worse, it's spelled northern. 

[cyrusr]

6 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Fired for making up policy on the spot.

If there's one thing we know Starmer won't stand for, it's policy.

 

[bickster]

Quote

Labour have soared to a 13-point lead in the polls as Conservatives scrap over their future leadership, according to the latest exclusive survey by Savanta for The Independent.

The advantage recorded by Labour in the poll comes close to its best performance since Sir Keir Starmer became leader in 2019, and would put him on course for a comfortable overall majority 

Indie

Sorry can't see the actual figures (paywall), I'm sure they'll be available elsewhere shortly but I have seen comments that the Sevanta COmRes poll has the Tories on 29% and also that the fieldwork was before "The Sacking"

If that 29% figure is correct then "soaring" is doing a lot of work as Labour will have dropped 2% from 44% to 42% since the last Sevanta poll, so the crucial thing in the margins of this, is where have the 6% of those votes gone?