fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.
Perzackly.
I really wish there was a good party, with good leaders to vote for.
Zhivago wrote:
I disagree. Let's take an example of Wandsworth, Labour got more votes than the tories, but Tories won the council. That indicates that Tories held on with thin majorities to those seats in many cases. This dynamic is repeated across the country. Tories are weak all over the country now, very few safe seats. That is a strong position for Labour to be in, but Rome wasn't built in a day. It's taking time to rebuild trust in the face of strong media propaganda.
Who has control of Wandsworth council, who has the most Wandsworth coucilors? Think you will find it is the Tories, therfore the
Tories 'won' Wandsworth. So following your line of reasoning even though the Tories are weak all over the country & have few safe seats
& Labour are in a strong position they STILL can't win a council the specifically targeted to win. Does not bode well for them in a GE
On the contrary, the BBC analysis showed that the projected vote shares point to a hung parliament with a Labour and SNP coalition ruling, if a GE took place. That's only from the current situation and not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.
fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.
The analysis by experts showed that they suffered in leave areas. Which means that the current Labour strategy of being ambiguous about Brexit is the safest option for them. If they came out stronger for remain, they'd suffer more from this effect.
ends justifying means misses the point of Corbyn surely, but you are dead right on ostensibly backing Leave (which Corbyn does in real life); though, actually, they didn't suffer much in Leave areas which were also previous (to 2015) Labour strongholds- in Plymouth, they took the UKIP voters 'back', for example. tories suffered to Libdem remainers much more than Labour,
fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.
The analysis by experts showed that they suffered in leave areas. Which means that the current Labour strategy of being ambiguous about Brexit is the safest option for them. If they came out stronger for remain, they'd suffer more from this effect.
Being "ambiguous" - i'd call it unprincipled and cowardly - has its advantages but it cannot be sustained indefinitely. Before too long the party will have to decide whether it supports a Tory Brexit, or whether it will challenge it as most of its members and supporters want.
Either way it will likely lose support but fence sitting isnt going to be option for too much longer.
fivepointer wrote:TBF Labour did very well in Wandsworth, upping its vote and increasing its councillors. In fact, generally they performed extremely well in London.
Problem for them is that this was not matched elsewhere. In some places, labour did reasonably well, in others it lost seats and went backwards.
The Tory vote held up remarkably well for a Government of 8 years and in obvious difficulty across a range of issues. The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.
The analysis by experts showed that they suffered in leave areas. Which means that the current Labour strategy of being ambiguous about Brexit is the safest option for them. If they came out stronger for remain, they'd suffer more from this effect.
Being "ambiguous" - i'd call it unprincipled and cowardly - has its advantages but it cannot be sustained indefinitely. Before too long the party will have to decide whether it supports a Tory Brexit, or whether it will challenge it as most of its members and supporters want.
Either way it will likely lose support but fence sitting isnt going to be option for too much longer.
Its an option til the Tories inevitably screw it up; by then we are all likely screwed for a while. But it is the obvious route to power; the problem is what is the left over, and what you are in charge of.
Anyone know how much the parties spent on these elections? Also have we ever had a set of local elections less about local politics? At least I realised as I stood in the booth I knew nothing about any of the candidates
Digby wrote:Anyone know how much the parties spent on these elections? Also have we ever had a set of local elections less about local politics? At least I realised as I stood in the booth I knew nothing about any of the candidates
Not sure that was the same for everyone tbh. It was very local issue based here.
Digby wrote:Anyone know how much the parties spent on these elections? Also have we ever had a set of local elections less about local politics? At least I realised as I stood in the booth I knew nothing about any of the candidates
Not sure that was the same for everyone tbh. It was very local issue based here.
So much of the coverage too has been Brexit, May and Corbyn, which is more than a little removed from actual local issues. I felt a bit bad actually as I stood there not only not knowing what the respective issues were for the candidates but not even knowing their names.
Zhivago wrote: not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.
You’ll to explain this to me, I obviously haven’t read enough.
I think he means that during a GE, the BBC is required to give equal airtime to major parties and Corbyn can speak directly to people. The rest of the media can ridicule him to their hearts content. It probably did help,him last time as Corbyn does like to debate.
Personally I think Labour was helped more by the ineptitude of May and her team
fivepointer wrote:The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.
They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.
I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.
It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.
fivepointer wrote:The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.
They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.
I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.
It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.
Now??
There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.
Zhivago wrote: not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.
You’ll to explain this to me, I obviously haven’t read enough.
I think he means that during a GE, the BBC is required to give equal airtime to major parties and Corbyn can speak directly to people. The rest of the media can ridicule him to their hearts content. It probably did help,him last time as Corbyn does like to debate.
Personally I think Labour was helped more by the ineptitude of May and her team
Ah, ok. So not really media but the BBC. No wonder I (though, I think it is he) was confused.
Mellsblue wrote:
They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.
I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.
It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.
Now??
There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.
Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.
Stom wrote:
I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.
It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.
Now??
There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.
Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.
Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!
There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.
Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.
Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!
I suggest here is plenty of evidence to support the view that extremist politics isn’t about compromise. The centre ground changes over time, that’s pretty normal. The point is that between the lunacy of Corbyn and Momentum vs Brexiteers, there is a centre ground which is somewhat subdued (unfortunately).
There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.
Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.
Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!
That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.
Sandydragon wrote:
Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.
Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!
That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.
No, no, no. The U.K. has become more right wing. It’s a narrative.
There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.
Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.
Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!
there is not one iota of compromise on left or right here.
Stom wrote:
Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!
That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.
No, no, no. The U.K. has become more right wing. It’s a narrative.
The comparison with Gladstone's era was poor... society is becoming increasingly unequal, such that it's more reasonable to claim we are becoming more like a Victorian society. The fascist stuff from Stom is a bit exaggerated.
Surely you don't seriously deny that the UK has become more right wing since the post-war settlement. right?
Which Tyler wrote:I' m just surprised "Don't Know" is so low down; deserves a good 10 point lead over the opposition
Don’t Know was leading this time last year. Psephologists believe May’s lead is based on her stealing Don’t Know’s policies. For example, in answer to the question ‘after your first speech as PM about wanting to right injustices in society why have you done nothing about it?’, No 10 replied ‘Don’t Know’. When asked the question ‘why the **** are we in May 2018 and you still haven’t finalised your plan for Brexit despite setting out your red lines ages ago?’ No10 replied ‘Don’t know’. Rumours are emerging that Lansman is demanding that Corbyn moves from answering every question with ‘We’ll give you free stuff that someone else is going to pay for’, to simply shrugging his shoulders and saying ‘Don’t know’.
Stones of granite wrote:
That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.
No, no, no. The U.K. has become more right wing. It’s a narrative.
The comparison with Gladstone's era was poor... society is becoming increasingly unequal, such that it's more reasonable to claim we are becoming more like a Victorian society. The fascist stuff from Stom is a bit exaggerated.
Surely you don't seriously deny that the UK has become more right wing since the post-war settlement. right?
Or returning to a historical norm following a commuist inspired scare post 1918? That said, we still are far more socially minded that we were in the 19th century. I don’t see children working down mines anymore ( not that we have any mines left but you get the point).
Which Tyler wrote:I' m just surprised "Don't Know" is so low down; deserves a good 10 point lead over the opposition
Don’t Know was leading this time last year. Psephologists believe May’s lead is based on her stealing Don’t Know’s policies. For example, in answer to the question ‘after your first speech as PM about wanting to right injustices in society why have you done nothing about it?’, No 10 replied ‘Don’t Know’. When asked the question ‘why the **** are we in May 2018 and you still haven’t finalised your plan for Brexit despite setting out your red lines ages ago?’ No10 replied ‘Don’t know’. Rumours are emerging that Lansman is demanding that Corbyn moves from answering every question with ‘We’ll give you free stuff that someone else is going to pay for’, to simply shrugging his shoulders and saying ‘Don’t know’.
Either way, Corbyn has a hell of a lot to do, by historical norms, to get this back on track. The Tories are a laughing stock, but labour still can’t get a lead.
