|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 15, 2024 11:03:57 GMT
Another day, another mooted Tory rebellion. It's Death Wish X.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 11:04:49 GMT
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/14/general-election-poll-tories-worst-defeat-1997-labour/The Conservatives are heading for an electoral wipeout on the scale of their 1997 defeat by Labour, the most authoritative opinion poll in five years has predicted.
The YouGov survey of 14,000 people forecasts that the Tories will retain just 169 seats, while Labour will sweep to power with 385 – giving Sir Keir Starmer a 120-seat majority.
Every Red Wall seat won from Labour by Boris Johnson in 2019 will be lost, the poll indicates, and the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, will be one of 11 Cabinet ministers to lose their seats.
The Tories will win 196 fewer seats than in 2019, more than the 178 Sir John Major lost in 1997.
The poll exposes the huge influence that Reform UK is set to have on the election result. The Right-wing party would not win any seats, but support for it would be the decisive factor in 96 Tory losses – the difference between a Labour majority and a hung Parliament.
There is also bad news for the Scottish National Party, which is predicted to lose almost half of its seats to Labour, retaining only 25. It is an interesting survey but there appears to be lot of nonsense included - eg it suggests big swings to the Tories in Liverpool Walton and Starmer's own seat It also implies that the SNP will win seats which not SNP- held at the time of the last Yougov MRP survey in May 2023. Prima facie this is all very unlikely. Also note that the claim that Reform will make the difference between a big Labour majority and a Hung Parliament comes entirely from the Telegraph NOT Yougov!
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Jan 15, 2024 11:09:27 GMT
They can never stop their addiction to the Tory psycho-drama and seemingly, they can never understand how this internal madness is seen from the outside. They seem incapable of learning. Defeat them this year and they really could disintegrate.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 11:15:52 GMT
I am afraid you have rather missed the point that the high vote shares given to Lab + Con combined throughout the 1950s - and to a lesser extent the 1960s - was due to the fact that in most seats voters were only presented with a choice of two candidates! Except that libs were not barred from standing candidates. Presumably they either didnt think they had any chance of winning so just did not bother trying, or they had so few local activist there wasnt really any local party organisation to do so. The lack of third party candidates can itself be taken as a measure of voter solidarity with the big two. Not at all. There was a widely held view at the time that it made sense for the Liberals to concentrate on a fairly small number of seats - and also to avoid the expense of fighting most constituencies. The main point is,however, that there were always Liberal supporters in the 500 seats not being contested - regardless of whether a Liberal candidate was standing. Those voters then had but two options - to abstain /spoil their ballot papers or to choose between the candidates who did appear on their ballot papers. Most clearly did the latter - thereby artificially boosting the Tory and Labour national vote shares.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 15, 2024 11:28:38 GMT
James E,
Could it be the case that MRP weightings( which is what drives seat predictions) has a similar impact to DK/WV reweighting while approaching from a different angle?
Either way as per a recent post from you a 12% underlying margin of victory based on current VIs plus reasonable swingback is pretty close to the 11% in this YG MRP.
Not withstanding your fair reservations about sample size, and therefore part of the application by extension, this MRP does back up our contention that UNS seriously undercalculates the number of seats Labour are set to take.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 15, 2024 11:28:55 GMT
Anthony Wells also has seen through the silly interpretation the Telegraph put on the latest poll
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,401
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 15, 2024 11:51:37 GMT
colin “ Under FPTP a Conservative Party which cannot reconcile its strands of opinion into a cohesive One Nation offering will be forced to think about its purpose in opposition-probably for ten years at least. I doubt I will see another Tory Government.” The predicted General Election is one week after a significant birthday for me. Not seeing another Tory government for the remainder of my birthdays would be a wonderful, perpetual present. FPTP being ended would be the cherry 🍒 on the birthday cake. Excellent ! I get a bit confused about opinions on PR. They tend to produce coalitions -right ?. Thats the purpose-representation of all strands of opinion ? But when the LDs went into coalition with Con & got their voters represented in government , the self same Labour supporters who yearn for PR now , called that a "sell out" . LD's were "traitors" to the LOC for doing that. And they still think badly of LD for it to this day. As I say-I find it confusing. You are assuming that people support PR for party political advantage. Several posters, me included, have said we support PR as a matter of principle, so that votes are correctly reflected. My personal view is that under PR the Conservatives would be in government most of the time, either as part of "grand coalitions" with Labour and perhaps the Lib Dems (so excluding the extremes of left and right) or as part of centre-right/right coalitions with Reform (or equivalent). The chance of the fractious, divided and mutually hostile LoC parties getting their act together to form a stable coalition seems the least likely option.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,279
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2024 12:03:54 GMT
"Ah-I see that the Telegraph is an acceptable source on occasions"
Yougov are the source, the unsupported ludicrous assertion that refukians would 100% transfer to the Tories is their own invention. With just 3 competitive parties and an utterly irrelevant far right nationalist " referendum party" 43% secured an overwhelming victory for Labour in 1997
While vanilla Starmer isn't a Blair Sunakered is far less personally popular than Major and the pre brexitanian Tories hadn't led the country into a slow motion economic disaster of their own making.
It's entirely possible that we could see a Tory collapse on the same scale as the Canadian conservative party. Good riddance
Turn that frown upside down
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 15, 2024 12:09:59 GMT
colin “ Under FPTP a Conservative Party which cannot reconcile its strands of opinion into a cohesive One Nation offering will be forced to think about its purpose in opposition-probably for ten years at least. I doubt I will see another Tory Government.” The predicted General Election is one week after a significant birthday for me. Not seeing another Tory government for the remainder of my birthdays would be a wonderful, perpetual present. FPTP being ended would be the cherry 🍒 on the birthday cake. Excellent ! I get a bit confused about opinions on PR. They tend to produce coalitions -right ?. Thats the purpose-representation of all strands of opinion ? But when the LDs went into coalition with Con & got their voters represented in government , the self same Labour supporters who yearn for PR now , called that a "sell out" . LD's were "traitors" to the LOC for doing that. And they still think badly of LD for it to this day. As I say-I find it confusing. I refer the Right Hon Gentleman Colin to the UKPR version of Hansard (Carfers - help if you're out there lurking) and I think you will find that I am on record as saying that the Lib Dems were perfectly entitled to enter a coalition with the Tories, and there were clear constitutional, electoral and even political justifications for them doing so. I had no problem with that beyond my obvious preference for a different sort of coalition. What then transpired, and how Clegg and the Lib Dem leadership conducted themselves in the coalition, is an entirely different matter and, to be honest, nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or otherwise of various voting systems. Under FPTP, I have no issue with electoral pacts, tactical voting, parliamentary alliances or even formal coalitions, however politically incompatible or sustainable they may be. When needs must, and arithmetic demands, then the devil will drive. I think I've also been on record to say that, in some ways, I'd quite like a minority Labour Government depending on Lib Dem support emerging from the next election. We may then get something really radical on constitutional reform. And maybe, many other things too. Another Tory Government just offers a terrible dead end on all these things, I fear.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 15, 2024 12:12:51 GMT
colin “ Under FPTP a Conservative Party which cannot reconcile its strands of opinion into a cohesive One Nation offering will be forced to think about its purpose in opposition-probably for ten years at least. I doubt I will see another Tory Government.” The predicted General Election is one week after a significant birthday for me. Not seeing another Tory government for the remainder of my birthdays would be a wonderful, perpetual present. FPTP being ended would be the cherry 🍒 on the birthday cake. Excellent ! I get a bit confused about opinions on PR. They tend to produce coalitions -right ?. Thats the purpose-representation of all strands of opinion ? But when the LDs went into coalition with Con & got their voters represented in government , the self same Labour supporters who yearn for PR now , called that a "sell out" . LD's were "traitors" to the LOC for doing that. And they still think badly of LD for it to this day. As I say-I find it confusing. It was a "sell out" because those votes had been won under completely false pretenses- not least the signed in blood statement on student fees which I don't think was ever covered by "different circumstances" argument because the original statement "we will vote against" was so definite and widely publicised. The same thing would be unlikely to happen under PR to the same degree because there would be a wider range of parties and while I'm sure accusations of sell outs would still occur they would have less validity because there's less need to be all things to all people as LD was trying to be pre 2010.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 15, 2024 12:13:54 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,279
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2024 12:16:06 GMT
"But when the LDs went into coalition with Con & got their voters represented in government , the self same Labour supporters who yearn for PR now , called that a "sell out" . LD's were "traitors" to the LOC for doing that. And they still think badly of LD for it to this day. "
Colin more significantly the liberal democrats own support and membership considered it to various extents a sell out. While Clegg might have self identified as Tory lite he was leading a party that identified as centre left.
The fact that within a year of the start of the coalition liberal democrat support had fallen by 50% reflected this.
The problem with coalitions under fptp is that it makes for strange bedfellows. The obvious coalition in 2010 if fair voting had been in place would have been a Labour lib dem coalition with around 55% Labour and 45% lib dems representing over 50% of all votes cast .
While I wasn't in the liberal democrat party at the time I know enough people who were and that seems to be the overwhelming consensus view.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 15, 2024 12:42:59 GMT
Except that libs were not barred from standing candidates. Presumably they either didnt think they had any chance of winning so just did not bother trying, or they had so few local activist there wasnt really any local party organisation to do so. The lack of third party candidates can itself be taken as a measure of voter solidarity with the big two. Not at all. There was a widely held view at the time that it made sense for the Liberals to concentrate on a fairly small number of seats - and also to avoid the expense of fighting most constituencies. The main point is,however, that there were always Liberal supporters in the 500 seats not being contested - regardless of whether a Liberal candidate was standing. Those voters then had but two options - to abstain /spoil their ballot papers or to choose between the candidates who did appear on their ballot papers. Most clearly did the latter - thereby artificially boosting the Tory and Labour national vote shares. One of the big differences in the 50s and 60s, was that the threshold for retaining one's deposit was 12.5% not 5%. Admittedly the deposit was smaller, £150 IIRC in cash terms. I have a feeling that the change to £500 was made because there was a by-election where many servicemen stood because £150 was less than the cost of buying oneself out of the services at the time. This was not long after National Service had ceased, but I cannot remember if it was at the end of the Macmillan or the beginning of the Wilson years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2024 12:44:13 GMT
I refer the Right Hon Gentleman Colin to the UKPR version of Hansard (Carfers - help if you're out there lurking) and I think you will find that I am on record as saying that the Lib Dems were perfectly entitled to enter a coalition with the Tories, and there were clear constitutional, electoral and even political justifications for them doing so. I had no problem with that beyond my obvious preference for a different sort of coalition. What then transpired, and how Clegg and the Lib Dem leadership conducted themselves in the coalition, is an entirely different matter and, to be honest, nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or otherwise of various voting systems. Under FPTP, I have no issue with electoral pacts, tactical voting, parliamentary alliances or even formal coalitions, however politically incompatible or sustainable they may be. When needs must, and arithmetic demands, then the devil will drive. I think I've also been on record to say that, in some ways, I'd quite like a minority Labour Government depending on Lib Dem support emerging from the next election. We may then get something really radical on constitutional reform. And maybe, many other things too. Another Tory Government just offers a terrible dead end on all these things, I fear. Fair enough. Will leave you climaxing with your copy of today's Telegraph I think AW is cautioning about too much excitement re. that poll-but I don't suppose you will be listening to him. ! Anyway -try & pace yourself and leave some energy for all those Portillo moments later in the year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2024 12:48:10 GMT
Excellent ! I get a bit confused about opinions on PR. They tend to produce coalitions -right ?. Thats the purpose-representation of all strands of opinion ? But when the LDs went into coalition with Con & got their voters represented in government , the self same Labour supporters who yearn for PR now , called that a "sell out" . LD's were "traitors" to the LOC for doing that. And they still think badly of LD for it to this day. As I say-I find it confusing. It was a "sell out" because those votes had been won under completely false pretenses- not least the signed in blood statement on student fees which I don't think was ever covered by "different circumstances" argument because the original statement "we will vote against" was so definite and widely publicised. The same thing would be unlikely to happen under PR to the same degree because there would be a wider range of parties and while I'm sure accusations of sell outs would still occur they would have less validity because there's less need to be all things to all people as LD was trying to be pre 2010. Thanks. I'm not convinced that PR would absolve parties in that way. I have considerable reservations about atomised politics. I prefer Big Tent to lots of Little Tents. But thats not perfect either , I know -and I dont want to start debating PR so leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 15, 2024 12:51:17 GMT
Excellent ! I get a bit confused about opinions on PR. They tend to produce coalitions -right ?. Thats the purpose-representation of all strands of opinion ? But when the LDs went into coalition with Con & got their voters represented in government , the self same Labour supporters who yearn for PR now , called that a "sell out" . LD's were "traitors" to the LOC for doing that. And they still think badly of LD for it to this day. As I say-I find it confusing. You are assuming that people support PR for party political advantage. Several posters, me included, have said we support PR as a matter of principle, so that votes are correctly reflected. My personal view is that under PR the Conservatives would be in government most of the time, either as part of "grand coalitions" with Labour and perhaps the Lib Dems (so excluding the extremes of left and right) or as part of centre-right/right coalitions with Reform (or equivalent). The chance of the fractious, divided and mutually hostile LoC parties getting their act together to form a stable coalition seems the least likely option. Hmmmm. Broadly agree, but aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? In terms of how a representative voting system will likely change both voting and political party behaviour. It may transform turnouts and also break the demographic straitjacket that paralyses so much of our current politics. Gerontocracy banished. One of the traps we all fall into on this debate, especially gnarled and wizened old political fossils like most of us are on this site, is transfering trusty and comfortable political (alleged) verities on to a transformed electoral and constitutional world.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 15, 2024 12:52:54 GMT
I refer the Right Hon Gentleman Colin to the UKPR version of Hansard (Carfers - help if you're out there lurking) and I think you will find that I am on record as saying that the Lib Dems were perfectly entitled to enter a coalition with the Tories, and there were clear constitutional, electoral and even political justifications for them doing so. I had no problem with that beyond my obvious preference for a different sort of coalition. What then transpired, and how Clegg and the Lib Dem leadership conducted themselves in the coalition, is an entirely different matter and, to be honest, nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or otherwise of various voting systems. Under FPTP, I have no issue with electoral pacts, tactical voting, parliamentary alliances or even formal coalitions, however politically incompatible or sustainable they may be. When needs must, and arithmetic demands, then the devil will drive. I think I've also been on record to say that, in some ways, I'd quite like a minority Labour Government depending on Lib Dem support emerging from the next election. We may then get something really radical on constitutional reform. And maybe, many other things too. Another Tory Government just offers a terrible dead end on all these things, I fear. Fair enough. Will leave you climaxing with your copy of today's Telegraph I think AW is cautioning about too much excitement re. that poll-but I don't suppose you will be listening to him. ! Anyway -try & pace yourself and leave some energy for all those Portillo moments later in the year Have I struck a nerve here, as Lulu the lemon may say?? 🤣 You've gone unusually carnal on me!!
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 15, 2024 13:13:00 GMT
There really is a lot of gibberish in the detailed projections for specific seats. Labour is predicted to gain Ribble Valley - unlikely in the extreme ! - whilst the party's vote in Preston falls to 52% from 61% in 2019 and 68% in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 15, 2024 13:16:07 GMT
Should be noted that both RefUK and Greens are claiming they will be aiming for a full set of candidates at the next election so minimum choice of 5 parties. Most of these candidates will be paper candidates, who do no campaigning and won't even produce a leaflet. These allow the committed supporter of the national party to show their support, but have no real influence on the ordinary voter, who will have heard nothing from or about the local "candidate". It only costs £500 to put up a paper candidate, and much more importantly it affects the right to make party political broadcasts (though I guess these are much less important than they used to be). True- but in the Telegraph megapoll they flag up that with Reform standing Con get 96 seats less and Lab get 74 seats more (and a minority government), although it would be fair to argue that this discounts any squeeze factors in the two horse races.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jan 15, 2024 13:16:45 GMT
Which all leaves me in a bit of a quandary. Come the general election my vote will be for Labour, but it's certainly not going to be for Sadiq Khan at the Mayoral election. Arent you missing that ULEZ was a conservative plan, and also pushed upon Khan by the conservative central government? Theres not much point voting conservative to stop ULEZ. Ironically too, while con have ended subsidies for green improvements to homes, failed to invest in electric charging infrastructure and made it much harder for generators to switch to onshore wind power, one of the few things they have pushed is ULEZ. No @dannyin exile. Just no. The original ULEZ in central London was a Conservative idea when Boris was mayor, and that's generally accepted as being worthwhile across the political divide. A high "benefit to pain" ratio. And there's a good argument to be made for strengthening it - make it such that only ZEVs don't have to pay in the centre. The controversy now is over the **EXPANSION** of ULEZ to cover a vastly wider area, which the Conservatives most certainly do not favour! An area where air pollution is far less of a problem than was the case in the central zone in the first place, where local transport within the area is nowhere near as comprehensive as in the centre, and where the imposition has caused a lot of pain for some. It's questionable even whether Labour support the idea in principle, recognising that whilst it may bring a slight air quality benefit, it's (overall) bad from a climate change/carbon point of view. It's wrong to equate "Labour" unequivocally with "Sadiq Khan". A question that Sadiq Khan is very keen to dodge regarding air quality (not surprisingly) is regarding the particulate figures on London Underground, and especially on the deeper lines. If anyone living in outer London is worried about the air they breathe and health, then they shouldn't even contemplate taking the tube in to the centre...... I'll let you do your own research on figures about just how bad they are.......!
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 15, 2024 13:22:39 GMT
Arent you missing that ULEZ was a conservative plan, and also pushed upon Khan by the conservative central government? Theres not much point voting conservative to stop ULEZ. Ironically too, while con have ended subsidies for green improvements to homes, failed to invest in electric charging infrastructure and made it much harder for generators to switch to onshore wind power, one of the few things they have pushed is ULEZ. No @dannyin exile. Just no. The original ULEZ in central London was a Conservative idea when Boris was mayor, and that's generally accepted as being worthwhile across the political divide. A high "benefit to pain" ratio. And there's a good argument to be made for strengthening it - make it such that only ZEVs don't have to pay in the centre. The controversy now is over the **EXPANSION** of ULEZ to cover a vastly wider area, which the Conservatives most certainly do not favour! An area where air pollution is far less of a problem than was the case in the central zone in the first place, where local transport within the area is nowhere near as comprehensive as in the centre, and where the imposition has caused a lot of pain for some. It's questionable even whether Labour support the idea in principle, recognising that whilst it may bring a slight air quality benefit, it's (overall) bad from a climate change/carbon point of view. It's wrong to equate "Labour" unequivocally with "Sadiq Khan". A question that Sadiq Khan is very keen to dodge regarding air quality (not surprisingly) is regarding the particulate figures on London Underground, and especially on the deeper lines. If anyone living in outer London is worried about the air they breathe and health, then they shouldn't even contemplate taking the tube in to the centre...... I'll let you do your own research on figures about just how bad they are.......! You are making the assumption that all particulate matter is equally harmful. The high level of particulates on the Tube is mainly iron oxides, unlike the combustion products above ground.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 15, 2024 13:23:32 GMT
The Yougov MRP Vote and explanation why it's closer than their other polls. It's basically because most don't knows are shown as reverting back to tory, so similar methodology to Delta and a similar result Been through this before but we are not in 2019 and the assumption that don't knows will revert to their 2019 vote enmass seems flawed to me
'Implied national level shares from this MRP model are as follows:
Labour 39.5% Conservatives 26% Lib Dems 12.5% Reform 9% Greens 7.5% SNP 3% Plaid 0.5% Others 2%
That’s about a 13pt swing to Labour from 2019'
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 15, 2024 13:24:33 GMT
Committee Stage and Third Reading of the Rwanda Bill is really going to expose divisions in the Tory Party and give an insight into whether it is capable of acting as a cohesive group in election year.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 15, 2024 13:26:01 GMT
You are assuming that people support PR for party political advantage. Several posters, me included, have said we support PR as a matter of principle, so that votes are correctly reflected. My personal view is that under PR the Conservatives would be in government most of the time, either as part of "grand coalitions" with Labour and perhaps the Lib Dems (so excluding the extremes of left and right) or as part of centre-right/right coalitions with Reform (or equivalent). The chance of the fractious, divided and mutually hostile LoC parties getting their act together to form a stable coalition seems the least likely option. Hmmmm. Broadly agree, but aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? In terms of how a representative voting system will likely change both voting and political party behaviour. It may transform turnouts and also break the demographic straitjacket that paralyses so much of our current politics. Gerontocracy banished. One of the traps we all fall into on this debate, especially gnarled and wizened old political fossils like most of us are on this site, is transfering trusty and comfortable political (alleged) verities on to a transformed electoral and constitutional world. I agree, I suspect a change from FPTP would likely result in a range of 'disrupter' parties, to use a market parlance, which would change the result from what we expect based on the current line up.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 15, 2024 13:32:40 GMT
Arent you missing that ULEZ was a conservative plan, and also pushed upon Khan by the conservative central government? Theres not much point voting conservative to stop ULEZ. Ironically too, while con have ended subsidies for green improvements to homes, failed to invest in electric charging infrastructure and made it much harder for generators to switch to onshore wind power, one of the few things they have pushed is ULEZ. No @dannyin exile. Just no. The original ULEZ in central London was a Conservative idea when Boris was mayor, and that's generally accepted as being worthwhile across the political divide. A high "benefit to pain" ratio. And there's a good argument to be made for strengthening it - make it such that only ZEVs don't have to pay in the centre. The controversy now is over the **EXPANSION** of ULEZ to cover a vastly wider area, which the Conservatives most certainly do not favour! An area where air pollution is far less of a problem than was the case in the central zone in the first place, where local transport within the area is nowhere near as comprehensive as in the centre, and where the imposition has caused a lot of pain for some. It's questionable even whether Labour support the idea in principle, recognising that whilst it may bring a slight air quality benefit, it's (overall) bad from a climate change/carbon point of view. It's wrong to equate "Labour" unequivocally with "Sadiq Khan". A question that Sadiq Khan is very keen to dodge regarding air quality (not surprisingly) is regarding the particulate figures on London Underground, and especially on the deeper lines. If anyone living in outer London is worried about the air they breathe and health, then they shouldn't even contemplate taking the tube in to the centre...... I'll let you do your own research on figures about just how bad they are.......! And wasn't some substantial funding for London only going to be made available to Khan by the Tory government if he extended ULEZ. So he was to some extent bullied or coerced into introducing it. Pure politicking by the Tories.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,279
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2024 13:42:15 GMT
"Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, said that while the YouGov polling appeared solid, “the spin put on it by [Lord] Frost and friends is something else altogether”.
He said: “Exhibit A would be their central claim that if Reform weren’t in the picture, the Tories could prevent Labour from winning an overall majority – a claim that depends entirely on the batty assumption that every single voter who would otherwise vote for Reform would vote Tory instead.
“Essentially, this is a laughably transparent attempt to scare Tory MPs into allowing the party, on the equally batty basis that immigration and woke are more important to voters than the economy and the NHS, to be pushed and pulled even further to the right – and the tragedy is that it might just work.”
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Jan 15, 2024 13:44:46 GMT
With regard the Lib Dems entering Coalition with the Conservatives in 2010, the antipathy many LoC voters still feel for the Lib Dems is that a sizeable number voted for them as they represented themselves as genuinely Progressive and in some ways to the left of Labour. I voted for them in 2010, I was disillusioned with Labour over Iraq and the Illiberal policies followed by various Labour Home Secretaries
I recall a long conversation with an LD canvasser who sympathised with my point of view and not surprisingly encouraged my defection! Well vote in haste and repent at leisure, I watched them jump in bed gleefully with the Tories and were happy to assist in imposing savage cuts in Public Services, supported by the rank and file membership. I can't think of any Success they could properly lay claim to in ameliorating the damage done. I waited 5 years for that Canvasser to come round again! (He didn't!)
They Committed the Cardinal Political Sin of betrayal which is why many people like me would not countenance voting for them again.
|
|
guymonde
Member
Posts: 621
Member is Online
|
Post by guymonde on Jan 15, 2024 13:46:07 GMT
Having canvassed in Uxbridge (for Labour) I didn't hear a single voter mentioning ULEZ, so I thought the spineless Lab candidate coming out against ULEZ expansion being responsible for his own failure (also by spineless Lab senior people saying the same). The biggest grumble on the doorstep was too much canvassing. I was around for the original expansion of ULEZ to the N/S Circular when the story was that shopping areas within the ULEZ zone being destroyed and the communities outside also being destroyed - one because nobody would come and the other because tradesmen living outside would not go in and become redundant. These arguments survived until about a day after the expansion was implemented and have never been heard of since. Of course, the expansion is significant for some people but actually for a small minority and one which is decaying very rapidly www.london.gov.uk/new-report-shows-ulez-expansion-working-95-cent-vehicles-across-inner-and-outer-london-now-compliant#:~:text=96.4%20per%20cent%20of%20cars,44%20per%20cent%20in%202017. As someone who is in the extended zone and has a non-compliant car (bought when the Blair Government was encouraging people to buy diesels), the 95 percent figure is a bit meaningless as anyone who drives in London knows that the cameras are on major roads and there is even a web site that shows you where they are: ulez.co.uk/ulez-camera-locations/ . Saving £12.50 per day, rat-running becomes financially attractive. The real disaster of ULEZ has been the scrappage scheme, because Mayor Khan brought the extension in with only 9 months' notice instead of the two-and-a-half years for Inner London and the scrappage scheme was inadequate in capacity to deal with the demand. It is quite plain that it is no more than a money-raising scheme for this spendthrift mayor. I'm not sure what you mean by spendthrift but I agree trying to generate some income was an important motivation. The DfT was determined to give him a funding cul de sac because the fall in income in the lockdown had driven a coach and horses into his previously notably successful financial management of TfL. It was an option to screw Khan (and London) that the government relished. His only other option was cutting bus services and that would have been a very bad idea and resisted by any Labour person. I suppose he could have flogged off the artist previously known as the Emirates Air Line and now apparently as the IFS Cloud Cable Car to Rwanda
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,031
|
Post by neilj on Jan 15, 2024 13:53:09 GMT
The effects of tactical voting
|
|
|
Post by lens on Jan 15, 2024 13:57:00 GMT
Also its part of facilitating a change in culture and shift to hybrid/electric cars. The longer we delay this, the harder it gets to avoid ecological disaster. Thats not exactly right. I just looked for some numbers, and found the CO2 cost of manufacturing a fossil powered vehicle as about 5 tonnes of CO2, compared to an electric vehicle at 9 tonnes of CO2. The crossover point at which the electric vehicle uses the same lifetime quantity is about 20,000 miles. So any petrol car which never managed more than 20,000 miles in its lifetime, was no worse than an electric vehicle. While a hybrid vehicle only saves about 5% CO2 emissions ......... So first off, while using electric vehicles within a city might be improving air quality in that city, its likely doing very little as a planetary average. And hybrid vehicles as distinct from fully electric vehicles are not making any useful difference. But Danny , how many cars - petrol, diesel, whatever - only do 20,000 miles over their lifetime! Come on! Your basic point about a lot of CO2 being "embedded" in a cars manufacture is sound, and ties in with it not necessarily being "green" to scrap cars early, but the idea that a move to EVs is "likely doing very little as a planetary average" is a myth. The Guardian has run a series of myth busting articles on this very theme, eg: www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/23/do-electric-cars-really-produce-fewer-carbon-emissions-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles . It's not possible to give any single figure as so much depends on factors such as how green the grid is, but even with the *dirtiest* grid (lot's of coal generation) EVs still show a significant lifetime benefit. I do agree with what you say about hybrid cars. Some manufacturers are marketing them as "green", whereas they really are not, and the danger is they may make people feel they are "doing the green thing" whereas the reality is they are just helping to delay the transition to pure electric. Regarding lululemon's point about accelerating a culture shift, then I fear ULEZ expansion may have achieved exactly the opposite - it's certainly seen as emboldening Sunak to delay the EV only sale date from 2030 to 2035, as well as other measures. (eg Abandoning ULEZ type measures in the centre of other cities.) But next, I do a very low mileage in my petrol car. If it was scrapped and replaced by an electric vehicle now, then I am confident the net result would be more not less CO2 emissions compared to my continuing to use the vehicle until it is commercially unrepairable. And that will apply to very many low use vehicles. Changing over fast makes total pollution worse in these cases. Yes, exactly. Certainly if you define "pollution" regarding CO2 as opposed to air quality. And in the main it's exactly why i would prefer to keep my current (old) car for another couple of years before getting an electric car. Firstly because there will be more of such around cheaper on the second hand market, and secondly because it's predicted they will have started to penetrate the lower cost end of the market. (Tesla's success may be largely put down to starting with a very expensive, no-holds barred sports car, and then moving down the market. It's expected they will launch a model below the model 3 in the next year or so, and similar goes for other manufacturers, especially BYD.) And your paragraph above is exactly why such as the ULEZ expansion is very *bad* from a climate change point of view, even if bringing some air quality benefit. The Guardian article spells it out very well: ".........replacing an old, little-used car with a brand new electric car may not make sense because of the “carbon debt”.
“If the vehicle is not being regularly used there is certainly a case to wait until the point you’re going to replace it anyway,” said the CCC’s Devane. However, he and others cautioned that any calculation of relative carbon savings for individuals would be complicated.
But none of that is true for many high mileage motorists who may do 20,000 miles in a single year. They are the ones who likely buy new every couple of years, and which cars may then end up with the likes of yourself on the secondhand market. There is a decent case to argue what we should have been doing is concentrating on changing our electricty and home heating all over to renewables and forget about vehicles until we had strong non fossil generation in place first. Having constructed a fleet of electric vehicles which just get powered by fossil electricity is quite insane and to date must have made Co2 emissions worse not better. No Danny . It's a chicken and egg issue, and both need to happen at the same time, therwise you start getting into generation and usage just waiting for each other. And as said before, even on the dirtiest grid a EV will still show a considerable benefit over petrol over the full lifetime. It's not just renewable electricity versus from coal/gas etc - using the fossil fuel in a power station is much more efficient in energy terms than many small engines, and gives the opportunity to do more in the way of reducing emissions at source.
|
|