steve
Member
Posts: 12,613
|
Post by steve on May 3, 2023 17:40:55 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,613
|
Post by steve on May 3, 2023 17:45:27 GMT
matt126I don't pretend to be entirely unbiased but I've yet to see anything other than lib dems posters up anywhere it is a not exactly subliminal message that we are still here.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 3, 2023 17:54:24 GMT
Got my professional indemnity insurance quote today.
Made me wonder what the premiums would be for unprofessional indemnity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 3, 2023 18:00:45 GMT
All true, but all it means is that Corbyn lost roughly as badly as Foot, Kinnock and Miliband, which is nothing to get excited about. Oh, you and your half-empty!! Very good luck tomorrow, hope it goes well. And to Steve as well. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,680
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 3, 2023 18:04:29 GMT
The point you make re-Scotland is very pertinent. The widely expressed comment that 2019 was Labour's worst election result since 1935 is very simplistic - bordering on the ignorant. In terms of GB vote share it was simply not true at all in that Labours 33% vote share was better than had been achieved in 2015- 2010 - 1987 - and 1983. Even in terms of MPs elected to Parliament it was certainly not true of England where fewer Labour MPs were elected in both 1983 and 1987. In the latter year Labour won 229 seats across GB - 50 being in Scotland so that the England & Wales total was 179. In 2019 Labour won 203 seats - but had only a single seat in Scotland with England & Wales having 202 - only 20 seats below the total achieved there in 1992. All true, but all it means is that Corbyn lost roughly as badly as Foot, Kinnock and Miliband, which is nothing to get excited about. Kinnock, like Foot, had a sizeable split-vote to contend with, which meant it was hard to win unless Tories imploded, as they did in the Mid-Nineties for Smith and Blair. You can see how Labour’s polling tended to fall when LDs rose in ‘92 (also worth noting how Tories rescued things with a leadership change again).   |
|
|
|
Post by moby on May 3, 2023 18:05:53 GMT
@rafwan Unfortunately or fortunately I have a life outside politics .Family comes first. My issue with Corbyn primarily related to his ineptitude during the Brexit campaign and that I felt he was incapable of attracting sufficient support from the floating vote in the key constituencies to ever win a general election. As it happens unfortunately I was found right in both cases. As to Corbyn, he was zipping up and down the country campaigning for remain, but, the media largely ignored him. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 3, 2023 18:08:57 GMT
… and he took a two week holiday during the campaign. Naughty, naughty! Another case of a lie being halfway round the world before the truth gets its boots on. This is certainly what Jo Swinson claimed on the Today programme. Never trust a Liberal!! (Don’t mean you, Steve, you’re not a real Liberal … . And good luck tomorrow) |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,566
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 3, 2023 18:09:49 GMT
I am rather busy atm but would be goof if someone unpick that Scottish R&W to see how many SNP2019-Lab net switchers there are. I expect much of the narrowing to be due to SNP 2019 DKs but facts would be nice to know. SNP 2019 voters now (Headline, excluding don't know): SNP 74% Labour 16% (3% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to SNP) Lib Dem 3% Con 2% Green 2% SNP 2019 voters including don't know but weighted by likelihood to vote SNP 70% Labour 16% (3% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to SNP) Lib Dem 3% Con 2% Green 2% Don't know 6% SNP 2019 voters including don't know unweighted by likelihood to vote SNP 68% Labour 16% (2% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to SNP) Lib Dem 3% Con 2% Green 2% Don't know 7% Won't vote 1% Edit: So more of a direct switch to Labour than to don't know by more than 2 to 1. Obviously, many of those voters will have voted Labour in the past (i.e. pre-2014) so it is presumably a less difficult move (in either direction) than switching between Labour and Tory is in England. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,566
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 3, 2023 18:13:27 GMT
All true, but all it means is that Corbyn lost roughly as badly as Foot, Kinnock and Miliband, which is nothing to get excited about. Kinnock, like Foot, had a sizeable split-vote to contend with, which meant it was hard to win unless Tories imploded, as they did in the Mid-Nineties for Smith and Blair. You can see how Labour’s polling tended to fall when LDs rose: The question you need to ask yourself is why did those voters not vote for Foot and Kinnock but did vote for Blair. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on May 3, 2023 18:13:33 GMT
As to Corbyn
I financially contributed to his campaign for leadership, and tried to help Momentum.
However, he became more open once he was elected and some of his speeches were like Mussolini's from the 1920s. Some among the grassroot followers were even more extreme right. He has never been real lefty (and hence a kind of shame that I fell for his rhetoric in the beginning). He is essentially a fascist.
He was also completely incompetent (didn't know that there were no UK NHS, no UK education system, didn't know what was needed for the housing, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 3, 2023 18:13:57 GMT
Oh goodie, I'm quite looking forward to tomorrow night / Friday - its feels like ages since we've had a 'proper' election rather than Tory selectorate ones. I would be very surprised if Labour gained more than 600 seats, and matched their current OP leads. Realistically 400-600 and an 8% lead over the Tories (given these elections don't include Labour Metropolitan heartlands and were last contested in '19 which was a very poor year for the Tories) would be a fine result for Labour. The 'smaller' parties will do disproportionately well due to the 'activist' nature of those who tend to vote in them. The Tories will take a hit - but it wont be fatal.
I'm sure Graham is feeling vindicated (slightly smug) with the current polling in Scotland. I guess it just goes to show how no party is invincible and political dominance can be a transient beast.
On analysis of GEs, personally in our winner takes all, fptp elected dictatorship system, ultimately it doesn't matter how much you lost by, a loss is a loss and the other sides gets to rule while you have to suck it up for at least the next 4-5 years. In this system you win by building up the most effective electoral coalition - if your coalition gets 40% of the votes but your opponent gets 40% but is more efficient in translating votes to seats you lose. You may in another GE get a whopping big majority with only 37%. The problem the centre left has had is that the centre-right has been much more effective in playing this system over time.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,680
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 3, 2023 18:18:14 GMT
The problem the centre left has had is that the centre-right has been much more effective in playing this system over time.
Blair got lucky with a Tory implosion just as Starmer is getting lucky now, in fact he might even be getting an SNP implosion. It’s true that the right have been quite effective at shafting the left, though the victory might be a little phyrric. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 3, 2023 18:21:09 GMT
moby That Mark Pack piece really is a load of huff and puff. Follow the links about Corbyn’s ‘holiday’ and you find not a shred of evidence!! No matter, the lie was halfway round the world!I It was after this nonsense that I began to pay more attention to ‘claims’ about Corbyn and their veracity. Pack is, of course, president of the LibDems and close associate of naughty fibber Jo Swinson.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,680
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 3, 2023 18:21:17 GMT
Kinnock, like Foot, had a sizeable split-vote to contend with, which meant it was hard to win unless Tories imploded, as they did in the Mid-Nineties for Smith and Blair. You can see how Labour’s polling tended to fall when LDs rose: The question you need to ask yourself is why did those voters not vote for Foot and Kinnock but did vote for Blair. You can see in the polling the Tory collapse after Black Weds and consequent Labour gain. Before Blair. Tories never recovered. But there was a lot of internicine stuff as well  |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,566
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 3, 2023 18:24:58 GMT
The question you need to ask yourself is why did those voters not vote for Foot and Kinnock but did vote for Blair. You can see in the polling the Tory collapse after Black Weds and consequent Labour gain. Before Blair. Tories never recovered. But there was a lot of internicine stuff as well You are missing this point. They chose to vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat, as they might have done and did in the 1980s. Why? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,680
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 3, 2023 18:27:51 GMT
You can see in the polling the Tory collapse after Black Weds and consequent Labour gain. Before Blair. Tories never recovered. But there was a lot of internicine stuff as well You are missing this point. They chose to vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat, as they might have done and did in the 1980s. Why? There will be only so many seats where voting LD would be the most viable anti-Tory alternative. (At times in the past LDs also position themselves to the left of Labour in some respects, so might not be that attractive for some switchers) Also, LDs got 18% in 1992, 17% in 1997, only a small diff. 17% is enough to do for Labour if Tories don’t implode. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on May 3, 2023 18:31:26 GMT
laszlo4new(GASP!!) Well, I suppose we are all entitled to our own opinion … !
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 3, 2023 18:39:58 GMT
As to Corbyn I financially contributed to his campaign for leadership, and tried to help Momentum. However, he became more open once he was elected and some of his speeches were like Mussolini's from the 1920s. Some among the grassroot followers were even more extreme right. He has never been real lefty (and hence a kind of shame that I fell for his rhetoric in the beginning). He is essentially a fascist. He was also completely incompetent (didn't know that there were no UK NHS, no UK education system, didn't know what was needed for the housing, etc.) |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,680
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 3, 2023 18:41:05 GMT
As to Corbyn I financially contributed to his campaign for leadership, and tried to help Momentum. However, he became more open once he was elected and some of his speeches were like Mussolini's from the 1920s. Some among the grassroot followers were even more extreme right. He has never been real lefty (and hence a kind of shame that I fell for his rhetoric in the beginning). He is essentially a fascist. He was also completely incompetent (didn't know that there were no UK NHS, no UK education system, didn't know what was needed for the housing, etc.) Their fault for not reading UKPR. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 3, 2023 18:42:58 GMT
You can see in the polling the Tory collapse after Black Weds and consequent Labour gain. Before Blair. Tories never recovered. But there was a lot of internicine stuff as well You are missing this point. They chose to vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat, as they might have done and did in the 1980s. Why? Because the Tories were more loathed by then? I read somewhere that Tories stayed at home. 4.4 Million of them certainly stopped voting Tory, although yes Blair's vote went up 2 million. LD was not that much down. So I think not scaring the Tory horses could be said to be one of the Blair "achievements" to getting the landslide, just as it looks like being a win for Starmer on current polling. TBC but Starmer does have a higher lead that Miliband's single figure leads 18 months before the 2015 election. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 3, 2023 18:43:00 GMT
Kinnock, like Foot, had a sizeable split-vote to contend with, which meant it was hard to win unless Tories imploded, as they did in the Mid-Nineties for Smith and Blair. You can see how Labour’s polling tended to fall when LDs rose: The question you need to ask yourself is why did those voters not vote for Foot and Kinnock but did vote for Blair. We could also why did they vote for Wilson. Many who voted for Blair in 1997 had ceased to do so by 2001 - albeit reflected in massive abstention and a very low national turnout. By 2005 many were supporting the LDs - though other issues - particularly Iraq - had become salient by that time |
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 3, 2023 18:46:17 GMT
I am rather busy atm but would be goof if someone unpick that Scottish R&W to see how many SNP2019-Lab net switchers there are. I expect much of the narrowing to be due to SNP 2019 DKs but facts would be nice to know. SNP 2019 voters now (Headline, excluding don't know): SNP 74% Labour 16% (3% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to SNP) Lib Dem 3% Con 2% Green 2% SNP 2019 voters including don't know but weighted by likelihood to vote SNP 70% Labour 16% (3% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to SNP) Lib Dem 3% Con 2% Green 2% Don't know 6% SNP 2019 voters including don't know unweighted by likelihood to vote SNP 68% Labour 16% (2% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to SNP) Lib Dem 3% Con 2% Green 2% Don't know 7% Won't vote 1% Edit: So more of a direct switch to Labour than to don't know by more than 2 to 1. Obviously, many of those voters will have voted Labour in the past (i.e. pre-2014) so it is presumably a less difficult move (in either direction) than switching between Labour and Tory is in England. Thanks to pjw for that. I would just add as a qualifier to this, that R&W do not use a panel, and their cross-breaks are far more variable than those of YouGov or Opinium. The last 2 full Scottish YouGov's showed 13% of 2019SNP>Lab and 13% of 2019SLab>SNP (after excl DKs). This was in the context of a 37/28 SNP lead. The previous YouGov in March had 12% SNP>Lab and 11% SLab>SNP. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 3, 2023 18:47:39 GMT
You can see in the polling the Tory collapse after Black Weds and consequent Labour gain. Before Blair. Tories never recovered. But there was a lot of internicine stuff as well You are missing this point. They chose to vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat, as they might have done and did in the 1980s. Why? To be accurate the swingback from Alliance/LD to Labour was already well under way by that time - as reflected in both the 1987 and 1992 results. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,680
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 3, 2023 18:52:59 GMT
As for Miliband, others argued in the past he got done in part by the rise in the UKIP vote. Here’s the graph anyways, see whst you think…  |
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 3, 2023 18:54:46 GMT
You are missing this point. They chose to vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat, as they might have done and did in the 1980s. Why? Because the Tories were more loathed by then? I read somewhere that Tories stayed at home. 4.4 Million of them certainly stopped voting Tory, although yes Blair's vote went up 2 million. LD was not that much down. So I think not scaring the Tory horses could be said to be one of the Blair "achievements" to getting the landslide, just as it looks like being a win for Starmer on current polling. TBC but Starmer does have a higher lead that Miliband's single figure leads 18 months before the 2015 election. Looking back to 20 months before the 2015 Election (as we may have to wait that long for Jan 2025), Labour under Milliband had an average lead of 5-6 points, compared to 15 points now. Of course, it is doubtful that he even had that much of a lead, as the pollsters were all about 6 points adrift when the actual result emerged in May 2015. Comparing polls-with-polls, the Tories achieved a 3% swing-back in those 20 months to turn a 5 point Lab lead to a 1-point Con lead. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,566
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 3, 2023 19:03:04 GMT
Carfrew/Shevii/Graham:
The point is that Blair didn't frighten the horses for lots of middle of the road non-Conservative voters in the way that Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn (for different reasons) did. He also ruthlessly ditched anything that he thought might put people off voting Labour. It is a sad truth of FPTP that to win you have to get a lot of people to vote for you who are not particularly left wing.
Someone (I think it was hireton) posted a link to a very interesting article on the relationship between local election results and subsequent GEs. In this the author estimated that on the basis of the results under John Smith and Smith's own personal ratings (which were mediocre) had Smith lived to lead Labour into the 1997 GE then Labour would have won, but with a 'normal' working majority (not stated but I took it to be something between 20-50). The advent of Blair converted that into a landslide.
It is no good pointing to this oil shock or that war or this emergence of a third party as the reasons for Labour's many defeats. The Conservatives faced the same political environment and consistently came out as the winners. Labour needs to learn how to win under FPTP. I for one am fed up of losing.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,680
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 3, 2023 19:07:51 GMT
Carfrew/Shevii/Graham: The point is that Blair didn't frighten the horses for lots of middle of the road non-Conservative voters in the way that Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn (for different reasons) did. It was already over before Blair got a sniff. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,566
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 3, 2023 19:08:38 GMT
SNP 2019 voters now (Headline, excluding don't know): SNP 74% Labour 16% (3% of 2019 Labour voters have switched to SNP) Lib Dem 3% Con 2% Green 2% Thanks to pjw for that. I would just add as a qualifier to this, that R&W do not use a panel, and their cross-breaks are far more variable than those of YouGov or Opinium. The last 2 full Scottish YouGov's showed 13% of 2019SNP>Lab and 13% of 2019SLab>SNP (after excl DKs). This was in the context of a 37/28 SNP lead. The previous YouGov in March had 12% SNP>Lab and 11% SLab>SNP. Which would imply that the reason Labour have closed the gap on the SNP is not so much a big increase in 2019 SNP switching to Labour but rather those 2019 Labour voters who had moved to the SNP have come back. Add in some gains from the Conservatives and SNP and there you have it. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,566
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 3, 2023 19:09:25 GMT
Carfrew/Shevii/Graham: The point is that Blair didn't frighten the horses for lots of middle of the road non-Conservative voters in the way that Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn (for different reasons) did. It was already over before Blair got a sniff. See the rest of my post. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 3, 2023 19:11:10 GMT
FPTP did not stop Wilson winning several times!
A 'normal' working majority under a proper Labour government would have been far better than what we ended up with under Blair.
|
|
