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

[ml1dch]

I reckon it'll be pretty close. Relatively speaking, obviously. But a majority measured in the single thousands rather than tens of thousands.

Incidentally, I don't think Sauron is the best "even him" example. He's probably on several Tory candidate shortlists and is seen as having a bright ministerial future.

 

[HanoiVillan]

54 minutes ago, Chindie said:

North Shropshire is such a forlorn hope they might as well have just conceded the election. Sauron could put a blue tie on and win that seat.

For sure, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But it is just categorically absurd to look at a seat in which Labour have finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 elections, including all of the last 3, and conclude that they should support the party that finished 3rd. It makes no sense whatsoever. 

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

For sure, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But it is just categorically absurd to look at a seat in which Labour have finished 2nd in 6 of the last 7 elections, including all of the last 3, and conclude that they should support the party that finished 3rd. It makes no sense whatsoever. 

Well it makes sense if you believe the LibDems are truthful, decent and honest. (as that's where the story originates from, not any actual polling)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(yes you can pick yourself up off the floor, I was joking)

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

If it were my ambition to persuade Labour to support proportional representation or a tactical progressive voting arrangement, I would simply not make up absolute nonsense about the best party to vote for in a seat from a tactical perspective:

 

 

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

Well it makes sense if you believe the LibDems are truthful, decent and honest. (as that's where the story originates from, not any actual polling)

 

I read that for the last by election, down south somewhere last week, the LDs basically didn't bother, and left it to Labour, and the reverse is happening for the shropshire one. A kind of informal agreement between the two parties. So while you are both sort of right around what you say, I think the reality might be that while the LDs are somewhat over-egging their status, here, there's probably something in it, under the circumstances.

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

I read that for the last by election, down south somewhere last week, the LDs basically didn't bother, and left it to Labour, and the reverse is happening for the shropshire one. A kind of informal agreement between the two parties. So while you are both sort of right around what you say, I think the reality might be that while the LDs are somewhat over-egging their status, here, there's probably something in it, under the circumstances.

I see there are people online suggesting something similar, ie just kind of giving up on trying on the basis that well-Lib-Dems-love-by-elections-don't-they, and *if* that is true, that suggests a different problem to me, which is one of an utter lack of ambition. Labour got more than 30% of the vote in this seat in 2017, and it's a by-election against a government who have been getting some pretty poor press lately. The line for the media around their reshuffle was 'we want to look like a government-in-waiting'. *If* they are just giving up on this seat, that don't look much to me like a government-in-waiting. 

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I see there are people online suggesting something similar, ie just kind of giving up on trying on the basis that well-Lib-Dems-love-by-elections-don't-they, and *if* that is true, that suggests a different problem to me, which is one of an utter lack of ambition. Labour got more than 30% of the vote in this seat in 2017, and it's a by-election against a government who have been getting some pretty poor press lately. The line for the media around their reshuffle was 'we want to look like a government-in-waiting'. *If* they are just giving up on this seat, that don't look much to me like a government-in-waiting. 

It seems smart to me, but I'm not party political/tribal.

The two seats - last week and this one are massive Tory safe seats. It's pretty unlikely that the tories won't hold on to both, but the only way they don't is if the oppo parties co-operate to an extent. Which is what they appear to have tacitly done. Who knows if it'll work, but rather than LDs and Labour fighting hard for each other's votes and the tories having a clearer run, co-operation of a kind seems a better chance, to me, of getting the baby eater out (yeah, I know he's resigned in disgrace, but cut off the head and another grows back).

[bickster]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

It seems smart to me, but I'm not party political/tribal.

The two seats - last week and this one are massive Tory safe seats. It's pretty unlikely that the tories won't hold on to both, but the only way they don't is if the oppo parties co-operate to an extent. Which is what they appear to have tacitly done. Who knows if it'll work, but rather than LDs and Labour fighting hard for each other's votes and the tories having a clearer run, co-operation of a kind seems a better chance, to me, of getting the baby eater out (yeah, I know he's resigned in disgrace, but cut off the head and another grows back).

There's a fundamental flaw in this though, if the electorate don't realise that you want them to make a binary choice

If Labour aren't really trying here as you suggest, Then what happens if the electorate don't realise this?

I'm all for an alliance as long as electoral reform is at the heart of it but to get that alliance going then whispers and standing candidates that you don't want to win is a nonsense. You either make the choice as binary as possible or don't bother imo

[chrisp65]

Absolutely right.

Labour make a big deal of not entering agreements, deals, or pacts. Then choose what seats they’ll soft pedal tactically.

Which then comes over as they couldn’t quite be arsed. If they can’t be arsed to canvass, I can’t be arsed to vote for them.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

If Labour aren't really trying here as you suggest, Then what happens if the electorate don't realise this?

Yeah, of course. Going by what I've read, my understanding is that as was alluded to earlier, in part, the LDs are going round saying "if you don't want the Tory to win, you need to vote for us" and Labour is not making much of an effort. So the messaging is along the lines you mention. The flip side, or something that also needs to be factored in, is a significant chunk of voters (anywhere) wouldn't appreciate a more direct kind of instruction (in this case from Labour) "don't vote for us, vote for them" - either because they don't like the surrogate party (in this case the LDs), or they don't like being told what to do, or they don't like being deprived of a candidate (where parties drop out) or they....etc.

So as much as there are people who (and I'm one of them) would vote for almost anyone to not have a Tory win, there are others who absolutely no matter what will want to vote for Labour above anyone else, whatever the circumstances, and taking away their choice would really not be appreciated.

I think it was at the Labour conference that the delegates/attendees whatever they're called put forward a motion to enter formal agreements with other parties to get rid of the tories, but the Unions, or whoever it was defeated that motion (IMO unfortunately). So Labour is perhaps hamstrung nationally in going as far as might make the situation better (if not in this seat, then others).

[blandy]

49 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Absolutely right.

Labour make a big deal of not entering agreements, deals, or pacts. Then choose what seats they’ll soft pedal tactically.

Yeah. Their conference sadly forced them not to, but a heck of a lot of their consituency parties don't like that one bit, hence what's gone on here.

If either you're tribal to the national party, or are a sort of "Labour curious" voter, then it's going to put you right off what they're doing in Shropshire North.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

but the Unions, or whoever it was defeated that motion (IMO unfortunately).

Yes it was the Unions

 

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

So Labour is perhaps hamstrung nationally in going as far as might make the situation better

Agree with that too

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Yeah. Their conference sadly forced them not to, but a heck of a lot of their consituency parties don't like that one bit, hence what's gone on here.

If either you're tribal to the national party, or are a sort of "Labour curious" voter, then it's going to put you right off what they're doing in Shropshire North.

Is the bolded actually what is happening here? The constituency party are deciding to half ass it? I assumed this was a more a central office we-won't-bother-giving-you-much-time-or-many-resources thing; find it hard to picture the CLP deciding to give up and support the Lib Dems, and the candidate himself has been moderately prominent giving media interviews. 

[bickster]

36 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is the bolded actually what is happening here? The constituency party are deciding to half ass it?

That's not what Pete's saying. What is going on in the constituency is that Labour are actually campaigning locally and seemingly doing well (hence Johnsons appearance to get the candidates name wrong on Friday) despite the lack of national Labour resources

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is the bolded actually what is happening here? The constituency party are deciding to half ass it? I assumed this was a more a central office we-won't-bother-giving-you-much-time-or-many-resources thing; find it hard to picture the CLP deciding to give up and support the Lib Dems, and the candidate himself has been moderately prominent giving media interviews. 

I saw a thing on the telly and it looks like it's a mix of the main central office party recognising it's not somewhere they can win, as you say/ask, plus a lack of funding and while the candidate might be keen to do well, no one seems to think he will. I have no idea what the local individual party member people think - I haven't lived there since 1984. 

This is from the FT which might help?

Quote

Meanwhile, Labour has decided not to campaign heavily in the Shropshire North by-election on December 16, even though the party finished second there in the 2019 general election, allowing the Lib Dems to be the focus for anti-Tory protest. Labour strategists have said the rural Shropshire seat — left vacant after the resignation of former minister Owen Paterson in the sleaze row — is inhospitable terrain for the party and not worth spending scarce resources on. One said: “We can see the Lib Dems have focused on Shropshire North and they’ll probably end up a good second there. They came second in the recent local elections — from their perspective it makes sense for them to concentrate their resources there.”

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

This is from the FT which might help?

Thanks for the link. I still find the rationale absolutely baffling, and I wouldn't be completely astonished to see Labour finish 2nd anyway.

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thanks for the link. I still find the rationale absolutely baffling, and I wouldn't be completely astonished to see Labour finish 2nd anyway.

I'd wager a fair amount that they don't.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

I'd wager a fair amount that they don't.

Meh, go on then; a gentleman's bet, or a charity of your choice?

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Meh, go on then; a gentleman's bet, or a charity of your choice?

More a turn of phrase. But I'd happily throw "a tenner to the VT coffers" in if you wanted to add a bit of extra interest to the inevitable Tory hold.

(also quite happy not to, it wasn't intended as a slap-across-the-face-with-a-duelling-glove move)

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

More a turn of phrase. But I'd happily throw "a tenner to the VT coffers" in if you wanted to add a bit of extra interest to the inevitable Tory hold.

(also quite happy not to, it wasn't intended as a slap-across-the-face-with-a-duelling-glove move)

A tenner to VT it is!

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, Paul33 said:

...... and then vote in the lunatic leftie extremists who will finish the job of destroying the country. I'll go for the lesser of the two evils please !!!

So many questions, and hopefully you'll stick around to discuss rather than throwing this nonsense out there and disappearing   BUT... to start;

a]  If you're actively acknowledging that the current government are destroying the country (i.e: "...who will finish the job"), why wouldn't you want a change?  They're destroying the country!
b]  Who exactly do you class as the "lunatic leftie extremists"?
c]  I'm still unsure which the lesser of two evils is

I don't think you'll respond because "your type" tend not to, but it would be great if you did.

EDIT: Transfered from the Tory Topic - Bicks