Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 11:42:59 GMT
"It ( Brexit) has not turned out well. Polls now show very clear majorities saying that the Brexit deal promoted by Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak is hurting British economic interests and denying Britons rights of easy travel, work and retirement in Europe that they once enjoyed. But Labour can sail serenely above this. Starmer is the party’s first leader in decades not having to, as Harold Wilson put it, “wade in shit” on Europe. Labour shadow ministers, MPs and candidates are not going to reopen the EU question with demands for a new referendum. Europe is now a problem for Sunak not Starmer. Leaving the EU was meant to be a crowning achievement for the Tory right but not having to defend EU policy has freed Labour, for the time being, from what is seriously hurting their sister parties across the Channel. The first law of politics is unintended consequences. And Labour’s poll leads prove the point." perhaps concentrate less on the unintended consequences, and more on the intended ones. Con lost the 2005 election. They only won in 2010 because they had started to adopt euroscepticism, to win back people defecting to UKIP. Its not as if they were popular, the big number of lib wins as an alternative opposition shows that. The intended consequence of euroscepticism was to win, and it bought them 14 years in power. So now its all starting to unravel as it was based upon a big fat lie. Well, so what, obviously they didnt set out to lose popular support, but it was clearly inevitable this day would come when brexit failed to deliver. But so what, they had 14 years in government to get up to all sorts of stuff benefitting themselves as a class.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 11:47:57 GMT
That poll the other day that suggested, what was it? - if I recall correctly, up to 16 million of us could vote tactically. That's the thing that could get the Liberals beyond the late 20s/ early to mid-30s in terms of seats and beyond say the 40 seat mark. For that to happen though, I think they will need the lead between Labour and the Tories to narrow. As it is, in most seats Labour voters will be able to vote for their party of choice. If it's getting tight the likes of me would vote Liberal if they were the best placed to beat the Tory. (Not that I have to do that - as in my constituency, Dartford the Liberals are nowhere). Not sure that logic works. If the race is tight, then the only way to defeat con is to vote lab. If in doubt, vote lab. But if lab have a big lead then as a voter you can afford to vote for who you want, which may be lib rather than lab. Similarly, if you are a pretty committed con supporter but see clearly they will lose, then you might go lib in the hopes of keeping lab out.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 2, 2024 12:04:07 GMT
Re seats for parties outside 'the big two' at the next GE. My thinking is:
Lib Dems - will obviously benefit from Conservative unpopularity and tactical voting. However, they started from a much higher base in both votes and seats in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than they do now. The 2015, 17 and 19 GE's have significantly diminished the number of seats where they are clearly in contention. Also the moderate Starmer is in a position to take the votes of middle class 'small l' liberal voters, these being the same the Lib Dems are after. Davey is no Ashdown or Kennedy either. Hence my view is c35 is a likely ceiling.
SNP - I think some here are writing them off too lightly. They will lose seats for sure, but maybe not as many as expected. Most Scottish polls have shown the SNP as still ahead of Labour. Although there are marginals, many SNP held seats have significant majorities. There is also the sitting MP incumbency factor to consider. They won 48 seats in 2019. A forecast of 18 implies they will lose 62% of those. There is nothing in the Scottish polling to suggest the SNP are doing that badly. Rather than 18, something in the 28-35 range seems more likely.
RefUK - I can easily believe they could win 8-10% of the vote (UKIP exceeded this in 2015), but they would win zero seats as a result. I don't think Farage will stand for election for this reason, although obviously he will campaign on a dog-whistle racist 'immigration' ticket. His ego will relish the publicity.
Greens - I understand the theory that they may lose Brighton Pavilion to Labour, but they have picked a very strong (albeit not local) candidate and I think they might hang on. On the other hand I think they will come up short in Bristol (although closing the gap). The Greens big opportunity will be at the end of a term of Labour government.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 2, 2024 12:40:20 GMT
Wazza sacked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 12:46:29 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 13:12:55 GMT
colin"The result has been that very many come not to study but to take advantage of the work opportunities. They recoup the fees paid to study in Britain, by earning enough over the next two years to send remittances home and then to manipulate the system to move to other jobs and eventually apply for permanent residence. ( After five years of living in the UK people can obtain indefinite leave to remain, and then move on to gain citizenship.)" Do you see this as a problem, if so why? If they are gainfully contributing best of luck to them.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 13:14:59 GMT
Paul I suspect it has something to do with millionaire kick ball. There's always a place on a free transfer at the hatters
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 13:17:03 GMT
colin "The result has been that very many come not to study but to take advantage of the work opportunities. They recoup the fees paid to study in Britain, by earning enough over the next two years to send remittances home and then to manipulate the system to move to other jobs and eventually apply for permanent residence. ( After five years of living in the UK people can obtain indefinite leave to remain, and then move on to gain citizenship.)" Do you see this as a problem, if so why? If they are gainfully contributing best of luck to them. They ( + dependents) are probably not according to O'Brien's data-not even to the finances of the universities which sought them.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 13:21:22 GMT
Frog faced hate gimp Nigel Farage says the Tories have " failed on small boats" because those who entered the country this way, the only option for the majority, whose claims for asylum status are legitimate have been granted asylum. Think about that it's akin to saying the Kindertransports that saved tens of thousands of children from the Nazi's was a failure because they were granted leave to remain. Obnoxious waste of skin.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 2, 2024 13:23:37 GMT
"They are probably not according to O'Brien's data-not even to the finances of the universities which sought them."
sorry I've absolutely no idea what you're trying to say there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 13:33:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jan 2, 2024 13:53:55 GMT
Colin (re: "Visa policy scandal that lets poorest migrants stay in the UK.")
It always strikes me as a bit rich when neo-lib brexiteers agonise over the consequences of replacing a market-led labour system with centrally planned, bureaucratic allocation.
The Single Market is essentially about achieving a more optimal use of available resources, including labour. It worked well for the UK in meeting the market-led demand for labour in shortage areas. And it's arguable that productivity has been damaged by the current Whitehall-led system, in that we're bringing in twice as many immigrants with no increase in national output.
In theory, I'd expect someone like you to say, "let's open up the labour market and leave it to market forces." But that sort of economic rationalism is rather trumped by disdain for the EU and all its works, it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 13:59:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2024 14:08:49 GMT
Colin (re: "Visa policy scandal that lets poorest migrants stay in the UK.") It always strikes me as a bit rich when neo-lib brexiteers agonise over the consequences of replacing a market-led labour system with centrally planned, bureaucratic allocation. The Single Market is essentially about achieving a more optimal use of available resources, including labour. It worked well for the UK in meeting the market-led demand for labour in shortage areas. And it's arguable that productivity has been damaged by the current Whitehall-led system, in that we're bringing in twice as many immigrants with no increase in national output. In theory, I'd expect someone like you to say, "let's open up the labour market and leave it to market forces." But that sort of economic rationalism is rather trumped by disdain for the EU and all its works, it seems. I cant be responsible for what you "expect" of me. My take from O'Brien's accusations and associated data is that the Post Study visa scheme which was supposed to encourage "the brightest and the best" has done the very opposite. Reason ? -my conclusion is that the universities in question have exploited a complete failure by HO to assemble this data and monitor it.-political and administrative incompetence. On the Care Sector visas , I think the low pay environment there, caused by underfunding of the service was always going to encourage low pay entrants. Failure of Government policy. Both of these visa sectors were planned-but never monitored/managed after the event.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 2, 2024 14:11:31 GMT
Thanks for the link, I can find little to disagree with in the analysis that Jon Cruddas advances.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 2, 2024 14:31:41 GMT
Re seats for parties outside 'the big two' at the next GE. My thinking is: Lib Dems - will obviously benefit from Conservative unpopularity and tactical voting. However, they started from a much higher base in both votes and seats in 1997, 2001 and 2005 than they do now. The 2015, 17 and 19 GE's have significantly diminished the number of seats where they are clearly in contention. Also the moderate Starmer is in a position to take the votes of middle class 'small l' liberal voters, these being the same the Lib Dems are after. Davey is no Ashdown or Kennedy either. Hence my view is c35 is a likely ceiling. SNP - I think some here are writing them off too lightly. They will lose seats for sure, but maybe not as many as expected. Most Scottish polls have shown the SNP as still ahead of Labour. Although there are marginals, many SNP held seats have significant majorities. There is also the sitting MP incumbency factor to consider. They won 48 seats in 2019. A forecast of 18 implies they will lose 62% of those. There is nothing in the Scottish polling to suggest the SNP are doing that badly. Rather than 18, something in the 28-35 range seems more likely. RefUK - I can easily believe they could win 8-10% of the vote (UKIP exceeded this in 2015), but they would win zero seats as a result. I don't think Farage will stand for election for this reason, although obviously he will campaign on a dog-whistle racist 'immigration' ticket. His ego will relish the publicity. Greens - I understand the theory that they may lose Brighton Pavilion to Labour, but they have picked a very strong (albeit not local) candidate and I think they might hang on. On the other hand I think they will come up short in Bristol (although closing the gap). The Greens big opportunity will be at the end of a term of Labour government. I will be surprised if the LDs win as many as 30 seats. Unlike in 1997 and other elections of the pre-Coalition period,there are many left of centre voters who refuse to consider them as an alternative - and who are now much more likely to switch to the Greens as a protest vote. Re-SNP. There have have been several polls showing Labour and the SNP neck and neck - and some have Labour ahead. On old boundaries a level pegging result in terms of vote share would imply 26 Labour gains at SNP expense with the latter reduced to 22 seats. Some gains from the Tories might partially offset those losses though far from certain. In the context of a Westminster 'Get the Tories out' election' I can see labour making further progress in Scotland , and will not be surprised by circa 30 gains there.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 2, 2024 14:33:29 GMT
Thanks for the link, I can find little to disagree with in the analysis that Jon Cruddas advances. As he writes about a century that has produced only six Labour prime ministers – MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – Cruddas offers his own reinterpretation of Labour history by assessing how its competing traditions and visions for advancing socialist justice – the belief in redistributing wealth, increasing liberty and freedom, and ideas on how to promote human virtue – have played out.
Notably, three of the six failed to win overall majorities in all the General Elections they fought (I'm not counting the 1931 election of the National Government). You have to question how good as role-models for any Prime Minister that MacDonald, Callaghan and Brown were and you could argue that Starmer is most in the image of Blair (both coming into politics through the legal profession); I don't think any Labour supporter could complain if he emulated Blair and won three General Elections in a row.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 2, 2024 14:46:11 GMT
Thanks for the link, I can find little to disagree with in the analysis that Jon Cruddas advances. As he writes about a century that has produced only six Labour prime ministers – MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – Cruddas offers his own reinterpretation of Labour history by assessing how its competing traditions and visions for advancing socialist justice – the belief in redistributing wealth, increasing liberty and freedom, and ideas on how to promote human virtue – have played out.
Notably, three of the six failed to win overall majorities in all the General Elections they fought (I'm not counting the 1931 election of the National Government). You have to question how good as role-models for any Prime Minister that MacDonald, Callaghan and Brown were and you could argue that Starmer is most in the image of Blair (both coming into politics through the legal profession); I don't think any Labour supporter could complain if he emulated Blair and won three General Elections in a row. Many Labour supporters would be very unhappy at the prospect of a Blair-type figure winning elections only to continue implementing Tory policies. Blair effectively cemented Thatcher's agenda for years - continued Privatisation etc - it was a great betrayal and a repeat of that would be very unwelcome. Very little difference to allowing the Tories carry on.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 2, 2024 14:48:27 GMT
Colin (re: "Visa policy scandal that lets poorest migrants stay in the UK.") It always strikes me as a bit rich when neo-lib brexiteers agonise over the consequences of replacing a market-led labour system with centrally planned, bureaucratic allocation. The Single Market is essentially about achieving a more optimal use of available resources, including labour. It worked well for the UK in meeting the market-led demand for labour in shortage areas. And it's arguable that productivity has been damaged by the current Whitehall-led system, in that we're bringing in twice as many immigrants with no increase in national output. In theory, I'd expect someone like you to say, "let's open up the labour market and leave it to market forces." But that sort of economic rationalism is rather trumped by disdain for the EU and all its works, it seems. May I be The first to commend you for yr perfect compound-adjective hyphenation. And for yr deft avoidance of hyphenating"centrally planned." A Bear or sucker trap. If Brexiteers were rational they wouldnt be Brexiteers: many, most?were emotional nativist. After all, anyone who ever believed a word Johnson said, including the small crew of Born-Again Johnsonians on here- no names, no pack drill, we know the guilty MEN - was a hopeless judge of character & innocent, or unreflective of any knowledge of his recent history. The points about post-study-visa labour muddy the main issue. The new policy on foreign students - most of whom pay their way in trumps, leaving aside the non-material positive elements - is the dumbest of the dumb.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 2, 2024 14:50:38 GMT
I don't consider myself a Guardianista, whatever one may be, but I read this a couple of days ago and my main takeaway was something I already knew - the Labour Party has proved a very poor instrument for winning parliamentary majorities. If Starmer manages to do that he would be only the 4th to do so out of 15 full-time leaders since 1924, so good luck to him.
|
|
|
Post by expatr on Jan 2, 2024 14:51:32 GMT
The Lib Dems look improbably high (can't see them getting more than about 35) and the SNP improbably low, which tends to make the rest of it doubtful. Still, we can have our own 2024 predictions game and offer up our best guesses. What was the final outcome of the 2023 version I wonder? I think it is mid-table mediocrity for me. Ford is predicting that a Lib Dem vote share of 12% is going to do some extraordinarily heavy lifting to garner 64 seats, isn't he? While I suppose it's feasible if some very effective tactical ABT voting takes place, but I think he might be wrong on both counts. I'm a bit with you and see about 30 seats for the Lib Dems with a national vote share circa 15%. I don't disagree with much of the rest, although I suspect the Tories will recover to the very low 30s vote share and get nearer to 200 seats. If they run a very strong culture war type campaign, which might be the most effective weapon left in their threadbare Arsenal (sorry, Crofty), then I could see them holding a few more Red Wall seats than some are currently predicting. They will suffer in their old heartlands though at the hands of both Labour and the Lib Dems. Ford is right about Scotland, I think, and this may well be Labour's ace in the pack in the next election, coupled with a strong showing in Wales too. I could see a sort of 2019 election in reverse in terms of Labour/Tory seat/vote shares with Labour getting a 60-80 overall majority. I think Ford is over-egging the Reform UK vote share, though. Shorn of the Brexit factor I think it will be essentially a Far Right vote circa 4-5%. Sane brexiteers will return to the mainstream parties and RefUK will feed off the old EDF and NF vote. I had a play with Ford's figures in the EC calculator and came up with L381, C199, LD 27, SNP19, Gn 1 if no tactical voting and
L418, C149, LD 45, SNP 15 and Gn 1 if using tactical fractions implied in the best for Britain survey.
Leaving aside the vote share I can't see any way to get to his LD figures on any plausible tactical voting patterns.
As far as his share goes. My instinct is that Farage won't come back and REform will stay lower (although I don't rule out a selective not standing against certain types of Tory in some parts of the country). I'm not sure that the Tories will recover much above 26% absent events - my sense visiting the country for the first time in a long time is a measure of disgust with the incumbents which I've never seen before (it is considerably stronger than in 1997 when Major certainly wasn't hated in the way the Sunak is) And I think tactical voting is likely to be high given the general sense of throw the bastards out.
FWIW I suspect that the final seat share will be something like the tactical projection for L -420 C 150, LD 35 fewer and SNP 25. But events can still change things
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 2, 2024 14:53:45 GMT
Many Labour supporters would be very unhappy at the prospect of a Blair-type figure winning elections only to continue implementing Tory policies. Blair effectively cemented Thatcher's agenda for years - continued Privatisation etc - it was a great betrayal and a repeat of that would be very unwelcome. Very little difference to allowing the Tories carry on.You clearly weren't a user or employee of public sector services between 1997-2010. There was a massive difference in funding, capability, reach and morale compared to the grim 1990s and the grim 2010s.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 2, 2024 15:01:49 GMT
As he writes about a century that has produced only six Labour prime ministers – MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – Cruddas offers his own reinterpretation of Labour history by assessing how its competing traditions and visions for advancing socialist justice – the belief in redistributing wealth, increasing liberty and freedom, and ideas on how to promote human virtue – have played out.
Notably, three of the six failed to win overall majorities in all the General Elections they fought (I'm not counting the 1931 election of the National Government). You have to question how good as role-models for any Prime Minister that MacDonald, Callaghan and Brown were and you could argue that Starmer is most in the image of Blair (both coming into politics through the legal profession); I don't think any Labour supporter could complain if he emulated Blair and won three General Elections in a row. Many Labour supporters would be very unhappy at the prospect of a Blair-type figure winning elections only to continue implementing Tory policies. Blair effectively cemented Thatcher's agenda for years - continued Privatisation etc - it was a great betrayal and a repeat of that would be very unwelcome. Very little difference to allowing the Tories carry on. I did say that they could not complain, not that they would not complain, as your comment illustrates. For me the only thing that can be legitimately held against Blair is the Iraq War, and supporting the decision that G W Bush made regardless of what anyone else thought, instead of insisting on due process at the UN.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 2, 2024 15:04:16 GMT
Frog faced hate gimp Nigel Farage says the Tories have " failed on small boats" because those who entered the country this way, the only option for the majority, whose claims for asylum status are legitimate have been granted asylum. Think about that it's akin to saying the Kindertransports that saved tens of thousands of children from the Nazi's was a failure because they were granted leave to remain. Obnoxious waste of skin. View AttachmentIt has been airbrushed out of UK history that there was substantial opposition in many quarters to accepting Jewish asylum seekers into Britain in the 1930s, much of it overtly racist. I have no doubt if Farage had been around at the time he would have been on about "invasions" of foreigners and being "swamped" by an alien culture. There were plenty that thought that way.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 2, 2024 15:13:55 GMT
Many Labour supporters would be very unhappy at the prospect of a Blair-type figure winning elections only to continue implementing Tory policies. Blair effectively cemented Thatcher's agenda for years - continued Privatisation etc - it was a great betrayal and a repeat of that would be very unwelcome. Very little difference to allowing the Tories carry on.You clearly weren't a user or employee of public sector services between 1997-2010. There was a massive difference in funding, capability, reach and morale compared to the grim 1990s and the grim 2010s. Throughout that period I worked in the public sector - education and the Civil Service. I experienced the ongoing erosion of working conditions of service coupled with a failure to increase pay levels. Salary increments disappeared and morale was at absolutely rock bottom - indeed far worse than under Thatcher back in the 1980s. Maybe it was different in the Health Service - but Local government workers were also very badly treated.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 2, 2024 15:15:14 GMT
New Year new Avatar
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 2, 2024 15:19:18 GMT
Leaving aside your Richard Littlejohn originated jibe, I found it an interesting read. Cruddas is a thoughtful soft Left Labour figure who is always worth listening to, particularly on Labour Party history. Less so on the substance of politics, alas I think it's always worth knowing where people may be coming from when they make personal criticisms of other politicians, especially those within their own party. Cruddas, a leading but ultimately disappointingly dull light in the Milliband leadership years, has been largely sidelined by Starmer. I wonder if this is colouring his judgement a little? Personal antagonisms in politics can often be generated by a feeling that one's valuable contributions and qualities are being overlooked. Cruddas who, as I say, I quite like personally, disappointed me greatly when he was overseeing a number of policy review groups during the time Ed Milliband was Labour leader. I had high hopes for what they might produce but, as I recall, they were largely vacuous word salad blancmanges that came to naught in terms of translation into Labour policy. I have to say that they rather reminded me of Cruddas interviews whenever I've listened to him talking politics! My assessment of Cruddas would be likeable, interesting when talking Labour history but ultimately politically ineffectual.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 2, 2024 15:36:02 GMT
My assessment of Cruddas would be likeable, interesting when talking Labour history but ultimately politically ineffectual. Whilst your assessment of Cruddas is one I would find difficult to dispute nonetheless he makes a significant point about KS and the apparent absence of what might be described as a philosophical foundation to his politics (that is something, generally, more reminiscent of Conservative leaders than Labour leaders). It is an open question as to whether this is an electoral asset or weakness, but the analysis is sound as to the lack of a "foundation" it appears to me. The other element of the analysis that I agree with fundamentally is that KS has favoured one wing of the party. I have always thought that the Labour Party was at its most successful when both wings worked together. Even Tony Blair, in his early cabinets needed to balance both wings. Harold Wilson was most successful in that regard and he said one of the things he was most proud of as leader was keeping his party together. I fear that relying on the weakness of the Conservatives will work for a while but it will not inspire or redeem public trust in politics or politicians.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,804
|
Post by Danny on Jan 2, 2024 15:41:02 GMT
My take from O'Brien's accusations and associated data is that the Post Study visa scheme which was supposed to encourage "the brightest and the best" has done the very opposite. Was it really intended to do that? Surely, the main aim was to get in students to pay fees to subsidise UK education, and to wait at tables in their spare time?
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 2, 2024 15:42:39 GMT
somerjohn On train. Last week's 5 hours late! This one an hour late. Counts as punctual. PS. My young nephew - the deep-thinking member of the family & far cleverer than the rest of his plodding relis - works in post-grad admin at the Uni of Essex. Hence he has direct knowledge of the subject to illustrate my excellent post the other day. (Which is worst boasting or self-advertisement?). 1. Essex is in dire straits. The number of domestic entrants has dipped - which he explains, skilfully, as a mixture of Covid, underlying trends, polcy to pay back debt, glum economic prognosis. Their fees hv been capped in effect for years. 2. PG applications are falling sharply already. Why? A hostile climate, rising fees, world depression. He thinks the new policy will make things mch worse. The Uni is Colchester's largest employer: A no of its projects are threatened. Does anyone in power give a damn about Uni finances or the soft power they generate. When the right-wing press indirectly shapes Uni policy this what you get. Bloody-minded chaos. Oh, Happy New Year, ha ha.
|
|