|
|
Post by leftieliberal on May 10, 2024 11:05:16 GMT
"That's getting on for a brand new Birmingham in just over a decade, or a brand new Coventry every single year." Or around 500 less of the U.K.'s 2500 golf courses over a decade! Totally sustainable Very often, golf courses are in the Green Belt or are classified as Metropolitan Open Land so aren't available for building on. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 10, 2024 11:06:17 GMT
On the more general point about Labour's ability to win under Corbyn - this poll from August 2023 seems to me the best relevant evidence.. "Westminster Voting Intention (Corbyn as Labour Leader): LAB: 36% (-10) CON: 35% (+7) LDM: 15% (+4) RFM: 6% (=) GRN: 5% (=) SNP: 3% (=) Via @moreincommon_ Aug 2023." Changes w/ Regular VI.
12:42 pm · 18 Aug 2023This is to some extent true but comparing apples and oranges. It's certainly why I would caveat "anyone" could win for Labour in 2024 and accept that would possibly not include Corbyn. But Corbyn was a well known busted flush after the relentless campaign against him, including from his own party and the withdrawal of the whip. Even then those figures still represent some sort of Labour government and the Tory vote when this poll was taken is even lower now. I think Tories might not be happy but would take 28% at the General Election given the chance (35 less 7). That's not really the comparison to make though. The comparison would be with a fresh face who ditched the confusing stuff in the 2019 manifesto, broadly returned to the 2017 manifesto and made a few necessary tweaks for current economic conditions. That would still be a winning "left wing" agenda and I think most people saw Starmer's pledges in the leadership contest as roughly in that vein rather than current policy which is the money's run out and we're not prepared to raise taxes but will try and run things more competently. It's one of the things that I hated most about the Lib Dems in coalition was not so much that they supported a Tory government (given the maths) or even that they didn't do enough to soften the austerity policies, but that they wholeheartedly endorsed those policies with there is no alternative messages, and I feel the same is true of the current Labour offering of fiscal conservatism and austerity lite with little in the way of nuance. Would be interesting if they had (I assume they didn't) run those figures with a few other former leaders, Blair for example who is another one with dreadful ratings after the event- liked by 18%, disliked by 48%. Not so different from Corbyn's 20/57. Corbyn is the gift that keeps giving for centrists to make their exaggerated point about the failure of left wing policy and how only centrists can win and those sorts of unfair polling comparisons only help with that narrative. RLB seems quite presentable but maybe she'd have gone the same way as Corbyn after a relentless campaign against her (Ed Balls suffered much the same in 2015 and he's pretty centrist). I guess we'll never know... |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on May 10, 2024 11:18:47 GMT
Survation, again no sign of polls tightening NEW: Westminster Voting Intention. LAB 44 (-) CON 24 (-2) LD 10 (+1) GRN 7 (+4) RFM 8 (-2) SNP 2 (-1) OTH 5 (-)F/w 9th - 10th May. Changes vs. 29th April 2024. Also worth noting that Starmer leads Sunak on "who do you trust more on the economy" by 38% to 31% and Reeves leads Hunt by 42% to 28% on this question. |
|
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: 6,762
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 10, 2024 11:27:59 GMT
On the more general point about Labour's ability to win under Corbyn - this poll from August 2023 seems to me the best relevant evidence.. "Westminster Voting Intention (Corbyn as Labour Leader): LAB: 36% (-10) CON: 35% (+7) LDM: 15% (+4) RFM: 6% (=) GRN: 5% (=) SNP: 3% (=) Via @moreincommon_ Aug 2023." Changes w/ Regular VI.
12:42 pm · 18 Aug 2023This is to some extent true but comparing apples and oranges. It's certainly why I would caveat "anyone" could win for Labour in 2024 and accept that would possibly not include Corbyn. But Corbyn was a well known busted flush after the relentless campaign against him, including from his own party and the withdrawal of the whip. Even then those figures still represent some sort of Labour government and the Tory vote when this poll was taken is even lower now. I think Tories might not be happy but would take 28% at the General Election given the chance (35 less 7). That's not really the comparison to make though. The comparison would be with a fresh face who ditched the confusing stuff in the 2019 manifesto, broadly returned to the 2017 manifesto and made a few necessary tweaks for current economic conditions. That would still be a winning "left wing" agenda and I think most people saw Starmer's pledges in the leadership contest as roughly in that vein rather than current policy which is the money's run out and we're not prepared to raise taxes but will try and run things more competently. It's one of the things that I hated most about the Lib Dems in coalition was not so much that they supported a Tory government (given the maths) or even that they didn't do enough to soften the austerity policies, but that they wholeheartedly endorsed those policies with there is no alternative messages, and I feel the same is true of the current Labour offering of fiscal conservatism and austerity lite with little in the way of nuance. Would be interesting if they had (I assume they didn't) run those figures with a few other former leaders, Blair for example who is another one with dreadful ratings after the event- liked by 18%, disliked by 48%. Not so different from Corbyn's 20/57. Corbyn is the gift that keeps giving for centrists to make their exaggerated point about the failure of left wing policy and how only centrists can win and those sorts of unfair polling comparisons only help with that narrative. RLB seems quite presentable but maybe she'd have gone the same way as Corbyn after a relentless campaign against her (Ed Balls suffered much the same in 2015 and he's pretty centrist). I guess we'll never know... Indeed Shev. Comparing how Corbyn is perceived now, after the extra years of media vilification, with how he might’ve performed if the polling was conducted in 2017, might give a rather different picture too. 2017 Corbyn might do a lot better vs Sunak than 2019 or 2024 Corbyn. I mean have posted polling before showing Blair below Corbyn, but that’s after Iraq and all that, and is not the same as comparing with Blair in 1997!! I have suggested before that if Corbyn could have given way to another Leftie after 2017 - as he was getting more and more trashed by the media - it might have been better, but nonetheless he was still ahead of May when the Tories were forced to switch to Johnson. (An effective but higher-risk manoeuvre in the longer term) |
|
|
|
Post by moosepoll on May 10, 2024 11:56:37 GMT
Corbyn had a brilliant manifesto in 2017 and was seeking closer alignment with the EU not to remain. His 2019 manifesto was bonkers leftie fantasy maths. I quite like him until I saw him at Glastonbury and it was clear he was not up to the job from his speech. My word can you imagine if Labour had a competent leader during this period, unlikely 2019 election would have happened I think an emergency national government could have been formed to put Brexit to a second referendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on May 10, 2024 11:57:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 10, 2024 12:06:18 GMT
Starmer was not really vulnerable after Hartlepool as people in the party knew that holding the seat in 2019 was a fluke due to BXP standing.
The real risk was if Batley&Spen had been lost, so perhaps Matt and Gina will be acknowledged by future historians as the great Starmer saviours?
|
|
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: 6,762
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 10, 2024 12:14:53 GMT
It’s ok James, gives me a chance to post the actual polling. Here are the 15 polls leading up to May’s announcement of the intention to resign on the 24th of May, showing how well Labour were doing up till that point. (Of course once she announced the intention then it changed the polling as people knew she was going). Most are Labour leads, including a 10%, two 9% and a 7%, except for two that are tied: Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on May 10, 2024 12:58:46 GMT
LeftieLiberal: "I don't trust anything I read in The Guardian any more than I trust anything I read in the Daily Mail.... Sadly, that newspaper was declining under Rusbridger's editorship and has fallen off a cliff since Viner (a.k.a. Mrs Chiles) took over."You're absolutely right. I particularly dislike the encroachment of unacknowledged US and Australian articles with limited relevance to a UK audience. Often, it's only spelling and eventual local references that give the game away. And yet... there are occasional instances that remind one of the glory days. Today, for example, there's an article by American-turned-Frenchman Alexander Hurst on the rise of a new leftwing party and candidate in France ( In France, we’ve been desperate for a real alternative to Macron and Le Pen. Finally, he’s here.)I'd never heard of Raphaël Glucksmann until today, but what a wondrous contrast to the insipid, uninspiring fare on offer here. Of course, we only have Hurst's word for it that Glucksmann is not just another Macron who briefly shines only to disappoint. But at least thanks to the Guardian I now know he's one to watch. And maybe Hurst is evidence of an upside to the Atlanticist drift of the Guardian. Only an outsider could show up our parochial brexiteer insularity so tellingly: "Maybe it’s the result of having moved to Europe with a North American point of view, but it has always stunned me that Europe’s nations – crammed together into an elbow of a landmass – could ever think of their sort as anything but inextricably linked. Regardless of what river, mountain range or narrow channel of water their borders run along, anything but a united Europe will be a plaything in a world split between the unchallenged economic power of the US and China."
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,668
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on May 10, 2024 13:01:55 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-wIndeed for areas in the middle of no where I can understand it but Runcorn has a population of around 70,000 is less than 15 minutes on the train to Liverpool and Manchester and is on the M56 close to the M6 /M1 It strikes me as an odd place to be cheap
|
|
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: 6,762
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 10, 2024 13:10:35 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w Indeed for areas in the middle of no where I can understand it but Runcorn has a population of around 70,000 is less than 15 minutes on the train to Liverpool and Manchester and is on the M56 close to the M6 /M1 It strikes me as an odd place to be cheap Yeah, can’t say I know much about the place, and there may be stuff I don’t know about, maybe it had Covid in 2019, but I think things have changed now, for example in that it might be harder for people to move to somewhere away from their parents, since it’s more common for both partners to work, and so therefore they will need more childcare. But of course childcare is now very expensive, in significant part because property prices are so high, so carers have to charge more etc. (And of course high property prices inflates the price of many other things sold in shops and so on. Such is the high cost of rent, utilities, food, childcare, and so on, it’s hard for people to afford deposits, or even afford the mortgage of a cheaper place, so instead, they might have to stay in a house share for many years. This in turn is affecting fertility rates as we know as people have to delay having offspring. So now, of course, we have more immigration partly to compensate for the reduced birth rate, but that leads to still more increasing house prices etc., leading to further falling birth rate, rinse lather, repeat…) |
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,768
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on May 10, 2024 13:11:50 GMT
Starmer was not really vulnerable after Hartlepool as people in the party knew that holding the seat in 2019 was a fluke due to BXP standing. The real risk was if Batley&Spen had been lost, so perhaps Matt and Gina will be acknowledged by future historians as the great Starmer saviours? Hartlepool was a serious political error and exposed Starmer's lack of political antennae.He effectively gifted the seat to the Tories when there was no need to hold the by election at all that time - which coincided with Johnson's 'vaccine bounce' and Ben Houchen winning over 70% in the Teeside mayoral election. Withdrawing the Whip from the disgraced MP whould have sufficed - and any by election could have been delayed to the Autumn. The impact of the big Brexit Party vote there in 2019 is difficult to judge in that many who supported Tice had little inclination to vote Tory - and a good number would have voted Labour with others staying at home had he not stood. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 10, 2024 13:17:07 GMT
“Soaring immigration is fuelling Britain’s housing crisis, says Bank of England’s chief economist” anyways, a few things of some note to wake up to. Night all… Didn’t know mercian actually got the job. Congratulations Pete. 🎈 Thank you. My first objective will be to raise interest rates so that I get a better return on my savings, and to encourage hoi polloi to save. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,416
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 10, 2024 13:29:10 GMT
Starmer was not really vulnerable after Hartlepool as people in the party knew that holding the seat in 2019 was a fluke due to BXP standing. The real risk was if Batley&Spen had been lost, so perhaps Matt and Gina will be acknowledged by future historians as the great Starmer saviours? Hartlepool was a serious political error and exposed Starmer's lack of political antennae.He effectively gifted the seat to the Tories when there was no need to hold the by election at all that time - which coincided with Johnson's 'vaccine bounce' and Ben Houchen winning over 70% in the Teeside mayoral election. Withdrawing the Whip from the disgraced MP whould have sufficed - and any by election could have been delayed to the Autumn. The impact of the big Brexit Party vote there in 2019 is difficult to judge in that many who supported Tice had little inclination to vote Tory - and a good number would have voted Labour with others staying at home had he not stood. You do realise that the by-election happened because the incumbent resigned following sexual harassment allegations The timing was out of Starmer’s hands As to Starmer’s 'lack of political antennae' I'm sure the leader who's 20 points in the lead has a lot to learn... |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 10, 2024 13:29:16 GMT
Hello everyone, happy Friday. So the polls seem to be resuming their normal service, with lovely Labour leads. Perhaps one lesson we should take from the London Mayoral election, is that its unlikely the Tory vote will actually fall below 30%. Hall, who I feel was a pretty poor candidate still managed 32.7%, in a supposedly Labour city. Probably not looking like a Tory wipe-out.
With a 10% lead in a GE, I would be very surprised if Labour did not get an OM.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 10, 2024 13:38:47 GMT
This comes back to my point about nuance and bunkers. Corbyn's arch critics attribute his relative success in the 2017 election campaign primarily to May's hopelessness and the witless Tory campaign. Ma mother int law could have got a 40% vote share in that..... Although Corbyn increased the Labour vote by about 3.5 million, people seem to forget that May increased the Con vote by nearly 2.5 million. This was probably fear of Corbyn as much as anything else. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,416
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 10, 2024 13:39:28 GMT
This is one of the main takeaways other local election results the effectiveness of the ABT vote. Also highlights why using universal national swing is not a good method to forecast the result
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 10, 2024 13:49:54 GMT
The earliest election date would now be June 20th. If no announcement happens over the next two weeks, no election will be likely before October. I understand that elections are not usually held in July and August because a lot of people will be on holiday. I would like to bet that the Conservatives have already commissioned a private poll on whether more Labour or Conservative supporters are likely to be away. So I wouldn't rule out a summer election. Now that postal voting is so widespread they'd probably use the excuse that it wouldn't make much difference (while hoping that it did of course). |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 10, 2024 13:53:22 GMT
Oh, and happy Eurovision weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 10, 2024 13:56:17 GMT
Lulu,
I tend to agree with you that the Tories will still achieve 30% and a little more.
However, we know that Labour underperform in local elections with fewer of their GE supporters voting than those of other parties.
Does this also apply to Mayoral Elections, evidence in Tees Valley is yes but I wouldn't know for London?
Similar differential turnout to locals would put the Tories below 30% in London at a GE based on Halls 32.7%.
|
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,768
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on May 10, 2024 13:56:37 GMT
Hartlepool was a serious political error and exposed Starmer's lack of political antennae.He effectively gifted the seat to the Tories when there was no need to hold the by election at all that time - which coincided with Johnson's 'vaccine bounce' and Ben Houchen winning over 70% in the Teeside mayoral election. Withdrawing the Whip from the disgraced MP whould have sufficed - and any by election could have been delayed to the Autumn. The impact of the big Brexit Party vote there in 2019 is difficult to judge in that many who supported Tice had little inclination to vote Tory - and a good number would have voted Labour with others staying at home had he not stood. You do realise that the by-election happened because the incumbent resigned following sexual harassment allegations The timing was out of Starmer’s hands As to Starmer’s 'lack of political antennae' I'm sure the leader who's 20 points in the lead has a lot to learn... The timing was not out of Starmer's hands! He persuaded the MP to step down - there had been no vote in Parliament requiring a recall etc. When the MP resigned Labour decided when to move the writ. That could have been delayed until the early Autumn. Had Starmer waited for full details of the MPs conduct to emerge via the Tribunal involved, no by election need have arisen until 2022 by which time Labour's prospects of holding the seat would have been much better. It is a shame the MP did not simply ignore Starmer and just carried on as an Independent until forced out in disgrace as happened to several Tory MPs in due course. Today's polling background is irrelevant to this .
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on May 10, 2024 14:06:03 GMT
The timing was not out of Starmer's hands! He persuaded the MP to step down I was wondering how you knew this to be true, I haven't been able to find any reference to that. I know that Mike Hill was facing legal action related to the claims of sexual harassment against him. |
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,768
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on May 10, 2024 14:11:40 GMT
The timing was not out of Starmer's hands! He persuaded the MP to step down I was wondering how you knew this to be true, I haven't been able to find any reference to that. I know that Mike Hill was facing legal action related to the claims of sexual harassment against him. There was no legal requirement for the MP to resign - though it was entirely appropriate to remove the Labour Whip from him. I believe that the MP was denying the allegations against him - though they were subsequently upheld.
From Wilkipedia 'The sexual misconduct claims were considered by the Central London Employment Tribunal in May 2021. The claimant alleged that Hill used a staffing review as a pretext for making her redundant after she had rejected his sexual advances.[10] In July 2021, the tribunal in delivering its decision held that Hill had assaulted, harassed, and victimised a parliamentary worker and it upheld claims of "detrimental treatment".[11] In May 2022, an employment tribunal ordered Hill to pay £434,435 in compensation to the woman concerned.[12][13]
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,416
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 10, 2024 14:12:40 GMT
You do realise that the by-election happened because the incumbent resigned following sexual harassment allegations The timing was out of Starmer’s hands As to Starmer’s 'lack of political antennae' I'm sure the leader who's 20 points in the lead has a lot to learn... The timing was not out of Starmer's hands! He persuaded the MP to step down - there had been no vote in Parliament requiring a recall etc. When the MP resigned Labour decided when to move the writ. That could have been delayed until the early Autumn. Had Starmer waited for full details of the MPs conduct to emerge via the Tribunal involved, no by election need have arisen until 2022 by which time Labour's prospects of holding the seat would have been much better. It is a shame the MP did not simply ignore Starmer and just carried on as an Independent until forced out in disgrace as happened to several Tory MPs in due course. Today's polling background is irrelevant to this .
Of course it was out of his hands, he may have wanted him to go, but the decision was entirely in Hill"s hands As it was in July 2021, an employment tribunal in delivering its decision held that Hill had assaulted, harassed, and victimised a parliamentary worker and it upheld claims of "detrimental treatment".In May 2022, an employment tribunal ordered Hill to pay £434,435 in compensation to the woman concerned Hill sounds a despicable person and if he had stayed would of done even more damage to the Labour brand As I said it wasn't in Starmer’s hands, but if it had of been it would of been right to get rid of this man. Sometimes it's better to take a short term hit for long term gain. If this had dragged on it would of caused a lot more damage Far from showing a lack of political antennae, it would of showed the opposite |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on May 10, 2024 14:22:38 GMT
I was wondering how you knew this to be true, I haven't been able to find any reference to that. I know that Mike Hill was facing legal action related to the claims of sexual harassment against him. There was no legal requirement for the MP to resign - though it was entirely appropriate to remove the Labour Whip from him.
That doesn't indicate that it was Keir Starmer that " persuaded" Mike Hill to stand down. Once he had stood down moving the writ would have to take place within a very short time. I haven't raised this to defend the Labour Leader's political nous, simply that you made a statement which appeared to indicate that Keir Starmer actively encouraged the resignation, I can't find reference to that anywhere, I wondered if you had a source for it. |
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,768
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on May 10, 2024 14:26:03 GMT
The timing was not out of Starmer's hands! He persuaded the MP to step down - there had been no vote in Parliament requiring a recall etc. When the MP resigned Labour decided when to move the writ. That could have been delayed until the early Autumn. Had Starmer waited for full details of the MPs conduct to emerge via the Tribunal involved, no by election need have arisen until 2022 by which time Labour's prospects of holding the seat would have been much better. It is a shame the MP did not simply ignore Starmer and just carried on as an Independent until forced out in disgrace as happened to several Tory MPs in due course. Today's polling background is irrelevant to this .
Of course it was out of his hands, he may have wanted him to go, but the decision was entirely in Hill"s hands As it was in July 2021, an employment tribunal in delivering its decision held that Hill had assaulted, harassed, and victimised a parliamentary worker and it upheld claims of "detrimental treatment".In May 2022, an employment tribunal ordered Hill to pay £434,435 in compensation to the woman concerned Hill sounds a despicable person and if he had stayed would of done even more damage to the Labour brand As I said it wasn't in Starmer’s hands, but if it had of been it would of been right to get rid of this man. Sometimes it's better to take a short term hit for long term gain. If this had dragged on it would of caused a lot more damage Far from showing a lack of political antennae, it would of showed the opposite The moment Hill lost the Whip he ceased to be Labour's responsibility in that the party would have washed its hands of him . It was Hill's decision to resign but apparently Starmer advised himto do so. He should have said nothing on the matter which at the end of the day was not his business. As it was , Hill resigned in mid- March 2021 which implied no by election was needed until mid- June. That would have been far better than combining it with Ben Hiuchen's re-election as Teeside mayor. The 'vaccine bounce' had also abated by that time. Had Starmer said nothing, it appears likely that Hill would have clung on as an Independent for several months longer than he did.
|
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,768
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on May 10, 2024 14:27:46 GMT
There was no legal requirement for the MP to resign - though it was entirely appropriate to remove the Labour Whip from him.
That doesn't indicate that it was Keir Starmer that " persuaded" Mike Hill to stand down. Once he had stood down moving the writ would have to take place within a very short time. I haven't raised this to defend the Labour Leader's political nous, simply that you made a statement which appeared to indicate that Keir Starmer actively encouraged the resignation, I can't find reference to that anywhere, I wondered if you had a source for it. The convention is that writs be moved wihin three months of a vacancy arising - so the by election could still have been effectively delayed until mid-July. |
|
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: 6,762
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 10, 2024 14:37:31 GMT
"That's getting on for a brand new Birmingham in just over a decade, or a brand new Coventry every single year." Or around 500 less of the U.K.'s 2500 golf courses over a decade! Totally sustainable I dunno about the viability, leftieliberal seems to know more about that, but this seems as good a time as any to post George Carlin on the matter: m.youtube.com/watch?v=GchEbLSY9FY |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,416
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on May 10, 2024 14:45:25 GMT
graham Pincher lost the Government whip, but carries on for another year before the Parliamentary standards committee recommended Pincher be suspended from Parliament for eight weeks, only then resigning. Do you really think that was good for the Tories As far as the public were concerned Pincher was a tory, regardless of whether he lost the whip Hill would of similarly been considered as Labour and it being dragged out for another year would of caused Labour more damage Mist people now can't even remember Hil
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on May 10, 2024 14:58:49 GMT
|
|
