Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

Its worth noting that only people who were turned away inside the actual polling station for not having ID are counted, not the people who were turned away by greeters outside, so we'll never really know the true numbers.

How stupid though are people to turn up without ID after it's been in news, media etc for ages.
Then they moan about it.

No ID. No idea more like.

To be honest as someone who doesn't watch a great deal of TV, I can't really recall many times I've been informed it's a new requirement. This site would probably be where I've heard about it most

Serious Question:  Should the Party Political System be Abolished?

Local Elections
a) Everyone runs as independent with their own policies relevant to their local wards.
b) Separate elections (conducted at the same time) for Council Leaders.
c) Alliances of Councillors with similar policies but with no party apparatus forcing members into line.
d) The person who is voted in as Council Leader has to give up their local ward - and another councillor elected for this ward.
e) Some sort of independent investigative body examining each councillor for corruption, hidden conflicts of interest.

Same Model to be used for Members of Parliament.
a) Everyone runs as independent with their own policies relevant to their local constituency.
b) Separate elections (conducted at the same time) for Prime Minister with relevant policies for the country.
c) Alliances of MPs with similar policies but with no party apparatus forcing members into line.
d) The person who is voted in as Prime Minister has to give up their constituency - and another person elected MP for this constituency.
e) Some sort of independent investigative body examining each MP for corruption, hidden conflicts of interest etc.

GSC wrote:To be honest as someone who doesn't watch a great deal of TV, I can't really recall many times I've been informed it's a new requirement. This site would probably be where I've heard about it most

So you don't go on BBC website for news and sport or other internet news outlets?

It's been on buses, advertising hoardings etc.

Anyway, I'm very suprised if anyone didn't realise. Fair enough maybe if elderly/without smartphone or internet but several interviewed on news and they were complaining yet were what I'd call young:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65492275

No name Bertie wrote:Serious Question:  Should the Party Political System be Abolished?

Local Elections
a) Everyone runs as independent with their own policies relevant to their local wards.
b) Separate elections (conducted at the same time) for Council Leaders.
c) Alliances of Councillors with similar policies but with no party apparatus forcing members into line.
d) The person who is voted in as Council Leader has to give up their local ward - and another councillor elected for this ward.
e) Some sort of independent investigative body examining each councillor for corruption, hidden conflicts of interest.

Same Model to be used for Members of Parliament.
a) Everyone runs as independent with their own policies relevant to their local constituency.
b) Separate elections (conducted at the same time) for Prime Minister with relevant policies for the country.
c) Alliances of MPs with similar policies but with no party apparatus forcing members into line.
d) The person who is voted in as Prime Minister has to give up their constituency - and another person elected MP for this constituency.
e) Some sort of independent investigative body examining each MP for corruption, hidden conflicts of interest etc.

An emphatic yes, mainly for point C. We'd have actual thinkers in Parliament with this system, rather than identikit MPs who have to toe the party line or get deselected. Would also mean MPs actually get scrutinised at election time, rather than people voting Lab/Tory with no real care who the MP is because they want Starmer/Sunak to be PM, and would put an end to 'safe seats'. Would also be in favour of a directly elected PM.

mountain man wrote:

GSC wrote:To be honest as someone who doesn't watch a great deal of TV, I can't really recall many times I've been informed it's a new requirement. This site would probably be where I've heard about it most

So you don't go on BBC website for news and sport or other internet news outlets?

It's been on buses, advertising hoardings etc.

Anyway, I'm very suprised if anyone didn't realise. Fair enough maybe if elderly/without smartphone or internet but several interviewed on news and they were complaining yet were what I'd call young:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65492275

Sometimes but can't say it's jumped out at me honestly. my anecdotal evidence granted but I think it would be fairly easy for someone to have missed if they're not specifically looking for a new requirement for something that happens every few years

Takes...

Low Turnout....

The Greens and Lib Dems doing so well looks like the public are starting to understand Tactical voting.....Scary for the Tories..

Labour not enough swing to win a GE.....

Red wall seats crumbling for the Blues.......

Money on Lab/Lib coalition in 2024..

Lab 35%
Con 26%
Lib 20%

Disappointing for Labour with an average 15-20 point poll lead..

I think it's good from Labour, just not great, so far. Wouldn't be concerned about the vote share as smaller parties + independents do much better at locals...very little chance of the Lib Dems scoring 20% in a GE. Greens having another strong local cycle. Survation's local election polling indicated Labour would get 34%.

A coalition might be coming into view, but Labour will profit from the SNP's likely collapse in Scotland, so that has to be considered.

Duty281 wrote:I think it's good from Labour, just not great, so far. Wouldn't be concerned about the vote share as smaller parties + independents do much better at locals...very little chance of the Lib Dems scoring 20% in a GE. Greens having another strong local cycle.

A coalition might be coming into view, but Labour will profit from the SNP's likely collapse in Scotland, so that has to be considered.

How can it be good to get 35%......When Corbyn got 40 and 32 which averages 36%.........While he had the whole of the media and most of his own party against him.....and against a Tory party that hadn't yet produced the worst standard of living crisis in modern history...

Starmer is garbage.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think it's good from Labour, just not great, so far. Wouldn't be concerned about the vote share as smaller parties + independents do much better at locals...very little chance of the Lib Dems scoring 20% in a GE. Greens having another strong local cycle.

A coalition might be coming into view, but Labour will profit from the SNP's likely collapse in Scotland, so that has to be considered.

How can it be good to get 35%......When Corbyn got 40 and 32 which averages 36%.........While he had the whole of the media and most of his own party against him.....and against a Tory party that hadn't yet produced the worst standard of living crisis in modern history...

Starmer is garbage.

Corbyn got 31%, 27%, 35% and 28% in local elections. He was garbage.

Starmer is just ordinary, like Miliband. And ordinary might just be enough.

GSC wrote:To be honest as someone who doesn't watch a great deal of TV, I can't really recall many times I've been informed it's a new requirement. This site would probably be where I've heard about it most

The info is on your poll card, isn't it?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:...Starmer is garbage.

Starmer is...not eccentric, ridiculous, a pathological liar etc etc. Accept this sort of thing is very personal, but I'd rather a 'grey', but competent politician. That said, he's lost me recently over the backtrack on promises made (i.e. abolishing student fees etc; I get that circumstances change, but stop ****ing promising s**t and then backtracking - enough!) and the recent attack ads. TBH, couldn't really give a 4X who forms the next Government from the current shower. Could probably do worse than returning to an absolute monarchy...

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think it's good from Labour, just not great, so far. Wouldn't be concerned about the vote share as smaller parties + independents do much better at locals...very little chance of the Lib Dems scoring 20% in a GE. Greens having another strong local cycle.

A coalition might be coming into view, but Labour will profit from the SNP's likely collapse in Scotland, so that has to be considered.

How can it be good to get 35%......When Corbyn got 40 and 32 which averages 36%.........While he had the whole of the media and most of his own party against him.....and against a Tory party that hadn't yet produced the worst standard of living crisis in modern history...

Starmer is garbage.

Corbyn got 31%, 27%, 35% and 28% in local elections. He was garbage.

Starmer is just ordinary, like Miliband. And ordinary might just be enough.

Corbyn like I said didn't have a party against him with a record standard of living crisis.....Did he ??.....

Also got 40% in 2017........No leader since Blair in 1997 got that much......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think it's good from Labour, just not great, so far. Wouldn't be concerned about the vote share as smaller parties + independents do much better at locals...very little chance of the Lib Dems scoring 20% in a GE. Greens having another strong local cycle.

A coalition might be coming into view, but Labour will profit from the SNP's likely collapse in Scotland, so that has to be considered.

How can it be good to get 35%......When Corbyn got 40 and 32 which averages 36%.........While he had the whole of the media and most of his own party against him.....and against a Tory party that hadn't yet produced the worst standard of living crisis in modern history...

Starmer is garbage.

Corbyn got 31%, 27%, 35% and 28% in local elections. He was garbage.

Starmer is just ordinary, like Miliband. And ordinary might just be enough.

Corbyn like I said didn't have a party against him with a record standard of living crisis.....Did he ??.....

Also got 40% in 2017........No leader since Blair in 1997 got that much......

Oh in a general election, yes, but Labour poll better in general elections than they do in locals, so there's no valid comparison from a local to a general. But Starmer has delivered 35% today...bit better than Corbyn's 28% in 2019.

As has been explained, Truss, the 40% that Corbyn got in his defeat to May was due to other factors, namely the collapse of the third/fourth party vote. He still lost.

Corbyn, in 2017, was up against a dismal Tory party. Let's not pretend May's Tories were an unbeatable juggernaut. Corbyn was a woeful leader.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think it's good from Labour, just not great, so far. Wouldn't be concerned about the vote share as smaller parties + independents do much better at locals...very little chance of the Lib Dems scoring 20% in a GE. Greens having another strong local cycle.

A coalition might be coming into view, but Labour will profit from the SNP's likely collapse in Scotland, so that has to be considered.

How can it be good to get 35%......When Corbyn got 40 and 32 which averages 36%.........While he had the whole of the media and most of his own party against him.....and against a Tory party that hadn't yet produced the worst standard of living crisis in modern history...

Starmer is garbage.

Corbyn got 31%, 27%, 35% and 28% in local elections. He was garbage.

Starmer is just ordinary, like Miliband. And ordinary might just be enough.

Corbyn like I said didn't have a party against him with a record standard of living crisis.....Did he ??.....

Also got 40% in 2017........No leader since Blair in 1997 got that much......

Oh in a general election, yes, but Labour poll better in general elections than they do in locals

Is that why Miliband won the 2014 Local elections and got hammered in 2015 ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think it's good from Labour, just not great, so far. Wouldn't be concerned about the vote share as smaller parties + independents do much better at locals...very little chance of the Lib Dems scoring 20% in a GE. Greens having another strong local cycle.

A coalition might be coming into view, but Labour will profit from the SNP's likely collapse in Scotland, so that has to be considered.

How can it be good to get 35%......When Corbyn got 40 and 32 which averages 36%.........While he had the whole of the media and most of his own party against him.....and against a Tory party that hadn't yet produced the worst standard of living crisis in modern history...

Starmer is garbage.

Corbyn got 31%, 27%, 35% and 28% in local elections. He was garbage.

Starmer is just ordinary, like Miliband. And ordinary might just be enough.

Corbyn like I said didn't have a party against him with a record standard of living crisis.....Did he ??.....

Also got 40% in 2017........No leader since Blair in 1997 got that much......

Oh in a general election, yes, but Labour poll better in general elections than they do in locals

Is that why Miliband won the 2014 Local elections and got hammered in 2015 ??

I'm referring to the here and now. Labour polling at 34% for the local elections, but 45% for the general election.

10 councils left and the Tories have just passed the -1000 mark.

Turns out people care more about rising inflation, bills and the cost of their weekly shop more than drag queens and unisex toilets.

Tory losses going over 1,000 meaning this is the worst case scenario for the Tories. And Labour gains going over 500 indicates a decent enthusiasm for Starmer's Labour. It's perhaps the best local election performance, overall, for Labour since 2012, and they look just about on track to win the next GE (from these results, anyway; we all know a lot can change in a year!).

Very good councils won by Labour, including Plymouth, Stoke and Swindon. Curtice describes Labour's performance as 'hopeful', but I'd categorise it as better than that, especially with the door opening in Scotland for the next GE. Labour's biggest millstone is still Starmer. A skilful political operator - e.g. Blair - would be turning the next GE into a cakewalk. Starmer makes the path awkward. At least he's not Corbyn, though.

Pressure on Sunak now. It's been a mostly quiet job since he became PM, which was sorely needed after the great turbulence of 2022 for his party, and Sunak was rewarded for this in the polling with Labour's lead contracting over the past few months. But these local election results have been terrible and indicate enormous fatigue with the Tory government. The results also could push the public into believing Labour can win the next GE, which is a crucial step for any party which has been in the wilderness for so long.

Sunak has a year to do something about it and he is, oddly enough, still the Tory party's best asset and can outshine Starmer in a GE campaign. Sunak is in a very similar position to Brown in 2009 - at the helm of a party that's been in office too long, is around 11-20% down in the polling, dealing with a shattered economy, coming off of a smashing in the local elections (Labour actually placed 3rd in the local elections in 2009), with the Lib Dems building momentum on the outside. Brown narrowly lost out in the 2010 GE, but denied the opposition a majority - can Sunak do the same, or even better? Sunak, of course, has an option not available to Brown in that he doesn't have to hold a GE until Jan 2025, so that extra time could be an asset or a curse.

Lib Dems, another strong night for them, although they'll be obstructed by FPTP and people wanting to vote for the PM when it's a GE. If they cut a deal with Labour for the next GE - mutually standing aside in certain seats - the Tories would be toast, but it's highly unlikely to happen as the Lib Dems don't want a Labour majority anymore than the Tories do. Labour propped up by the Lib Dems would be the best outcome for them, although what policy measures they can push for is anyone's guess. I doubt Starmer would countenance PR.

The Greens continue to grow in strength with another couple hundred gains and they've built some real momentum this decade, but FPTP will sabotage them at the GE. However, without following it too closely, I note the Greens took a battering in Brighton today, which has previously been a Green stronghold and the location of their sole MP - although I doubt Caroline Lucas is in much danger of losing her seat.

It was also the end of UKIP today, as they lost their last remaining councillors (I'm surprised they still had any to begin with) and so have no elected representation anywhere in the country, roughly ten years on from their breakthrough into becoming the third largest party in Britain. Their impact on British politics in the late 2000s and 2010s will not be forgotten. They were victorious, and then they departed.

Samo wrote:10 councils left and the Tories have just passed the -1000 mark.

Turns out people care more about rising inflation, bills and the cost of their weekly shop more than drag queens and unisex toilets.

I thought the people accepted that inflation was caused by Putin. I recall BoJo saying that while the Ukrainians were paying with their lives the British just needed to tighten their belts and lower their thermostats because the free world was at stake and this argument was used to justify the economic sanctioning of Russia and anyone that allied itself with Russia - depriving British companies access to cheap Russian fossil fuels and cheap grain that Britain and Europe had previously depended upon. All this got cross party support. With regard drag queens and unisex toilets this was also something that labor and the greens considered priority issues.

Well as someone once said, it doesn't matter who you vote for the government always gets in.

Tories been a s"£$ show last few years but if anyone thinks Labour will suddenly turn around everything then you are deluded.
There is so much infighting and turmoil there that once they get to power - and it looks likely they will - the very militant left will want a big say and that would be a disaster.

As for a LIB/LAB coalition, can't see it happening and I believe both parties have ruled it out so far.

I don't see Starmer's Labour as much different from the Tories, so I'm certainly not enthused about any prospective change of government. I'm hoping Starmer comes out with a brilliant manifesto, but I doubt it, and even if he did he has a habit of changing his mind. Certainly not going to see much inspiration from Sunak. Two dead, useless parties, propped up by FPTP, millionaires and media. PR would see their stranglehold vanish overnight.

If Labour end up just short of a majority, and the Lib Dems have the numbers to help them over the line, then I'd expect an agreement of sorts, even if it's just confidence-and-supply (as 2017) rather than an outright coalition (as 2010).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK6aK94ydyM

Here's Ed Davey talking about potential coalitions.

Will he go into one with the Tories? No, because he's fought the Tories all his life. When pointed out that he was actually in cabinet with the Tories between 2010-2015, apparently brave Ed was fighting them every day. But he doesn't want to fight them again in the same capacity, it seems.

How about a coalition with Labour? Ah, brave Ed doesn't wish to answer this one because it's a hypothetical question and we don't know what will happen after the next GE. As long as we know.

If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

All Labour needs to do is find the next super charismatic leader with progressive and radical policies that doesn’t alienate 75% of the electorate immediately amongst their current MPs then. Simple. Don’t know why they haven’t tried that before.

Duty281 wrote:Tory losses going over 1,000 meaning this is the worst case scenario for the Tories. And Labour gains going over 500 indicates a decent enthusiasm for Starmer's Labour. It's perhaps the best local election performance, overall, for Labour since 2012, and they look just about on track to win the next GE (from these results, anyway; we all know a lot can change in a year!).

Very good councils won by Labour, including Plymouth, Stoke and Swindon. Curtice describes Labour's performance as 'hopeful', but I'd categorise it as better than that, especially with the door opening in Scotland for the next GE. Labour's biggest millstone is still Starmer. A skilful political operator - e.g. Blair - would be turning the next GE into a cakewalk. Starmer makes the path awkward. At least he's not Corbyn, though.

Pressure on Sunak now. It's been a mostly quiet job since he became PM, which was sorely needed after the great turbulence of 2022 for his party, and Sunak was rewarded for this in the polling with Labour's lead contracting over the past few months. But these local election results have been terrible and indicate enormous fatigue with the Tory government. The results also could push the public into believing Labour can win the next GE, which is a crucial step for any party which has been in the wilderness for so long.

Sunak has a year to do something about it and he is, oddly enough, still the Tory party's best asset and can outshine Starmer in a GE campaign. Sunak is in a very similar position to Brown in 2009 - at the helm of a party that's been in office too long, is around 11-20% down in the polling, dealing with a shattered economy, coming off of a smashing in the local elections (Labour actually placed 3rd in the local elections in 2009), with the Lib Dems building momentum on the outside. Brown narrowly lost out in the 2010 GE, but denied the opposition a majority - can Sunak do the same, or even better? Sunak, of course, has an option not available to Brown in that he doesn't have to hold a GE until Jan 2025, so that extra time could be an asset or a curse.

Lib Dems, another strong night for them, although they'll be obstructed by FPTP and people wanting to vote for the PM when it's a GE. If they cut a deal with Labour for the next GE - mutually standing aside in certain seats - the Tories would be toast, but it's highly unlikely to happen as the Lib Dems don't want a Labour majority anymore than the Tories do. Labour propped up by the Lib Dems would be the best outcome for them, although what policy measures they can push for is anyone's guess. I doubt Starmer would countenance PR.

The Greens continue to grow in strength with another couple hundred gains and they've built some real momentum this decade, but FPTP will sabotage them at the GE. However, without following it too closely, I note the Greens took a battering in Brighton today, which has previously been a Green stronghold and the location of their sole MP - although I doubt Caroline Lucas is in much danger of losing her seat.

It was also the end of UKIP today, as they lost their last remaining councillors (I'm surprised they still had any to begin with) and so have no elected representation anywhere in the country, roughly ten years on from their breakthrough into becoming the third largest party in Britain. Their impact on British politics in the late 2000s and 2010s will not be forgotten. They were victorious, and then they departed.

Yes, congratulations to UKIP for thinking that sh*tting the bed is a good idea and managing to convince enough [brainless / self interested (delete as applicable)] Tory MP's that sh*tting the bed is a good idea, so that an idiot Prime Minister decides to hold a referendum on whether or not sh*tting the bed is a good idea and to run a campaign which did not attempt to explain the benefits of a clean bed in the face of a series of a lies about the health benefits of lying in one's own sh*t.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

Part of me agrees w/ you on much of this. However, remind me whom the incumbent Government had been for 11-12 years in 2008/9 when everything went belly up, printing money became the vogue and interest rates flatlined for ~15 years? It's not all down to the Tories, much as you'd like to believe that.

When Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential Election he campaigned on a ticket of "I am not Trump".    Starmer could do something similar for the next general election: "We are not the Tories".   That message should work for a sizeable proportion of the electorate.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

Part of me agrees w/ you on much of this. However, remind me whom the incumbent Government had been for 11-12 years in 2008/9 when everything went belly up, printing money became the vogue and interest rates flatlined for ~15 years? It's not all down to the Tories, much as you'd like to believe that.

I've never voted Conservative...Never will.......I just want a Labour Govt with ideas not a careerist plank.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

Part of me agrees w/ you on much of this. However, remind me whom the incumbent Government had been for 11-12 years in 2008/9 when everything went belly up, printing money became the vogue and interest rates flatlined for ~15 years? It's not all down to the Tories, much as you'd like to believe that.

I've never voted Conservative...Never will.......I just want a Labour Govt with ideas not a careerist plank.

Many things you can call Starmer but I dont think careerist sticks.

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

Part of me agrees w/ you on much of this. However, remind me whom the incumbent Government had been for 11-12 years in 2008/9 when everything went belly up, printing money became the vogue and interest rates flatlined for ~15 years? It's not all down to the Tories, much as you'd like to believe that.

I've never voted Conservative...Never will.......I just want a Labour Govt with ideas not a careerist plank.

Many things you can call Starmer but I dont think careerist sticks.

Really ???...

U turned on.......Tuition fees.....Taxing Corporations.....Giving Constituencies a say in their own MPs....Corbyn was a friend when he needed his supporters vote not now.....Wanted PR now he doesn't......Was going to raise the level of income tax on the rich not now...

I can go on.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

It doesn't show this, because we know the Lib Dems/Greens/independents will get a much smaller vote share at a GE, which will inflate Labour's vote tally. Further, it was Labour's best local result in over a decade, and it returned Labour to being the largest party in local government for the first time since 2002.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

Part of me agrees w/ you on much of this. However, remind me whom the incumbent Government had been for 11-12 years in 2008/9 when everything went belly up, printing money became the vogue and interest rates flatlined for ~15 years? It's not all down to the Tories, much as you'd like to believe that.

I've never voted Conservative...Never will.......I just want a Labour Govt with ideas not a careerist plank.

Many things you can call Starmer but I dont think careerist sticks.

Really ???...

U turned on.......Tuition fees.....Taxing Corporations.....Giving Constituencies a say in their own MPs....Corbyn was a friend when he needed his supporters vote not now.....Wanted PR now he doesn't......Was going to raise the level of income tax on the rich not now...

I can go on.....

U-turns don't make someone a careerist. He's only been in frontline politics for 8 years.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

It doesn't show this, because we know the Lib Dems/Greens/independents will get a much smaller vote share at a GE, which will inflate Labour's vote tally. Further, it was Labour's best local result in over a decade, and it returned Labour to being the largest party in local government for the first time since 2002.

It does show it......Curtice and Thrasher polls show it......Vagaries are irrelevant..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

It doesn't show this, because we know the Lib Dems/Greens/independents will get a much smaller vote share at a GE, which will inflate Labour's vote tally. Further, it was Labour's best local result in over a decade, and it returned Labour to being the largest party in local government for the first time since 2002.

It does show it......Curtice and Thrasher polls show it......Vagaries are irrelevant..

Only if you believe that local election and general election voting behaviours are the same, and they're clearly not.

Not that you need polls to show it, but Survation had Labour polling at 33% for local elections and 45% for a general election.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

It doesn't show this, because we know the Lib Dems/Greens/independents will get a much smaller vote share at a GE, which will inflate Labour's vote tally. Further, it was Labour's best local result in over a decade, and it returned Labour to being the largest party in local government for the first time since 2002.

It does show it......Curtice and Thrasher polls show it......Vagaries are irrelevant..

Only if you believe that local election and general election voting behaviours are the same, and they're clearly not.

Well you seem to know what percentage the Lib dems are going to get.....They got over 20% !!!! in 2010 and politics is volatile.

However I do know the polls on Thursday allocated seats and the result was a hung parliament.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If Blair with his Charisma...Policies like Minimum wage.....Lowering class sizes.....Surestart etc had been up against a total mess of a Tory party that had wiped out the Economy and were responsible for the lowest standard of living in modern history..........He wipes them out.....

Not ends up with a local Election result that shows a hung parliament....

Time for this Principle-less....Idea-less...Disingenuous....Boring...Charisma-voided Numpty to find some radical policies instead of trying to sneak in through the back door..

So there !!!

It doesn't show this, because we know the Lib Dems/Greens/independents will get a much smaller vote share at a GE, which will inflate Labour's vote tally. Further, it was Labour's best local result in over a decade, and it returned Labour to being the largest party in local government for the first time since 2002.

It does show it......Curtice and Thrasher polls show it......Vagaries are irrelevant..

Only if you believe that local election and general election voting behaviours are the same, and they're clearly not.

Well you seem to know what percentage the Lib dems are going to get.....They got over 20% !!!! in 2010 and politics is volatile.

However I do know the polls on Thursday allocated seats and the result was a hung parliament.

Yep, the Lib Dems got 22% in the 2010 General Election. And they got 28% in the 2009 local election. Why the drop? Because voting behaviour is different between the two. It's quite obvious to most people that the smaller parties do better at local elections.

In any case, even if the results did magically stay the same from the locals to the general election, Starmer would still deliver Labour's best result since 2005.

Duty281 wrote:It's quite obvious to most people that the smaller parties do better at local elections.

I think I've spotted the problem.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It's quite obvious to most people that the smaller parties do better at local elections.

I think I've spotted the problem.

This country desperately needs Proportional representation.......Why a hung parliament is a good thing.......Lib Dems should make it their price !!!

Knowing them they will sell out for another tax on plastic bags.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It's quite obvious to most people that the smaller parties do better at local elections.

I think I've spotted the problem.

This country desperately needs Proportional representation.......Why a hung parliament is a good thing.......Lib Dems should make it their price !!!

Knowing them they will sell out for another tax on plastic bags.

Completely agree on this, but I won't hold my breath.

We already had a referendum on it about 10 years ago.

We had a referendum on AV, not PR. PR would win a referendum against FPTP - the most recent poll showing a 45-28 lead for PR.

But the only ones who can give us a referendum on PR are the Tories or Labour. And the Tories and Labour would lose their stranglehold on politics if PR came in. So it's a forlorn hope. Getting PR would make getting out of the European Union look like a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park.

Duty281 wrote:We had a referendum on AV, not PR.

Ah yes, now I remember. Norton beat McAfee by 57% to 43%.

JuliusHMarx wrote:We already had a referendum on it about 10 years ago.

Yes, we did, and which was deliberately torpedoed by the Tory part of that coalition at the same time they were meant to be promoting it as part of the agreement w/ the LibDems. The naivety of the LibDems then was unbelievable.

FPTP is a childish system that's not fit for purpose. Even the Tories don't use it to elect their own leader (see Liz 'Moron' Truss). The idea that 'nothing gets decided' in a PR system is demonstrable nonsense, but that doesn't stop the main parties spouting the same old nonsense in defence of the status quo.

I'm all for PR.

A shift to PR would require a radical overhaul of our parliamentary system though, wouldnt it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:We already had a referendum on it about 10 years ago.

If I recall only one Man and his dog voted....Which is the problem with referenda...People either don't give a c**p or they don't know what they are voting for...

Hence Turkeys voting Leave because they were going to keep Johnny Foreigner out and see a fully funded NHS.....

Pipe dreams..

Another garbage decision to raise interest rates to the highest level for 15 years...It will do diddly for inflation which is being pushed by food prices etc.....Risks outright recession and will chuck pain on to borrowers...

The system is broken.....

Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...