Snap General Election called

[Banquo]

211-148 is a good result from my perspective. Johnson is is deep trouble, very little chance of bouncing back from this. And yet the Tories have voted to keep this despicable, unfit person as PM, so tarnishing their image further. IMO although there are more respectable alternative Tory leaders (almost anyone really, barring the likes of Patel and Dorries) the most likely to succeed Johnson are probably even more right wing, so watching a lame duck Johnson staggering on, dragging down his party, is the best thing for the opposition.

shyte for the country tho, which is probably more important short term tbh.

Not convinced the likely alternatives are any better for the country. And I'd sacrifice the short term for a better long term.

Big of you

[Son of Mathonwy]

shyte for the country tho, which is probably more important short term tbh.

Not convinced the likely alternatives are any better for the country. And I'd sacrifice the short term for a better long term.

Big of you

Someone's gotta make these hypothetical sacrifices

[Banquo]

Not convinced the likely alternatives are any better for the country. And I'd sacrifice the short term for a better long term.

Big of you

Someone's gotta make these hypothetical sacrifices

[Sandydragon]

211-148 is a good result from my perspective. Johnson is is deep trouble, very little chance of bouncing back from this. And yet the Tories have voted to keep this despicable, unfit person as PM, so tarnishing their image further. IMO although there are more respectable alternative Tory leaders (almost anyone really, barring the likes of Patel and Dorries) the most likely to succeed Johnson are probably even more right wing, so watching a lame duck Johnson staggering on, dragging down his party, is the best thing for the opposition.

shyte for the country tho, which is probably more important short term tbh.

Not convinced the likely alternatives are any better for the country. And I'd sacrifice the short term for a better long term.

Sounds like a Brexit election slogan

[Son of Mathonwy]

shyte for the country tho, which is probably more important short term tbh.

Not convinced the likely alternatives are any better for the country. And I'd sacrifice the short term for a better long term.

Sounds like a Brexit election slogan

Not sure they said anything about sacrifices.

(Let alone it being a fuckup on all possible timescales.)

[cashead]

I mean, this kind of public airing of grievances and dirty laundry is usually a sign of a party in a crisis.

Pretty much shouting about how unprepared the government was for COVID probably isn't a winning strategy, but stranger things have happened, I guess.

[Sandydragon]

I mean, this kind of public airing of grievances and dirty laundry is usually a sign of a party in a crisis.

Pretty much shouting about how unprepared the government was for COVID probably isn't a winning strategy, but stranger things have happened, I guess.

Its desperation by the ultras who would probably feel quite at home in UKIP/ Brexit Party/ whatever. They know that if Johnson goes they are toast (unless Truss or Mordant can win the leadership - not impossible knowing the Tory party membership). But even if another right wing leader were appointed, he or she would be unlikely to keep such a bunch of non-entities and half-wits in their front bench, so for the likes of JRM and Dorries, Johnson's survival is intrinsically linked to their own so there is no depth they will not plummet in his (and their) defence.

[morepork]

S'alright. Boris is proposing a wage freeze for workers, tax cuts, deregulation, and cuts to public services. Genius. No one has ever tried that before. With budget whiz Rishi "Computer Says No" Sunak in his corner it's certain to be a great success.

Is there a breeding ground that produces these out of touch morons specifically to use in government?

[Mikey Brown]

You mean Eton? Or some sort of lab to physically grow them this way?

[morepork]

You mean Eton? Or some sort of lab to physically grow them this way?

Either or. There is no way these creatures could survive on their own in the wild.

[cashead]

The privileged who live in a bubble that can't fathom that they were born advantaged and that there are those out there who didn't win the birth lottery, and FYGM scum, who pull the ladder up so fast behind them, it breaks the sound barrier.

Basically, the same production line of cunts that you get with the Republicans and the Gnats in NZ - the latest bullshit personal myths around Chris Luxon are unbelievable. "Oh, he was a public school boy." Bitch, you went to St Kents, and then Christchurch Boys High. Fuck off.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I know it was a few days ago but I'm still puzzling over Starmer's failure to go for the jugular (and that's putting it mildly) in PM's questions this week despite Johnson's unimpressive confidence vote. He essentially ignored Johnson's tenuous position and asked all 6 questions about health. I still can't work out whether:
a) Starmer was going easy on Johnson because he wants him to survive, to make it easier to win the general election, or
b) Starmer is simply crap at this politics thing.

[Puja]

For a long while, I thought Starmer was just keeping his powder dry and playing it cagey for the long game, but I'm coming to the conclusion that he is just as mundane and hollow as he appears. Absolutely nothing to him whatsoever. He's like if a focus group wished real hard and became a real boy.

I'd still take him in a hot minute over Johnson, but it is bizarre to see a Labour leader attacking a Conservative government for them having raised taxes and spending and how, if they were in government, he'd be cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and promote business.

Puja

[Stom]

For a long while, I thought Starmer was just keeping his powder dry and playing it cagey for the long game, but I'm coming to the conclusion that he is just as mundane and hollow as he appears. Absolutely nothing to him whatsoever. He's like if a focus group wished real hard and became a real boy.

I'd still take him in a hot minute over Johnson, but it is bizarre to see a Labour leader attacking a Conservative government for them having raised taxes and spending and how, if they were in government, he'd be cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and promote business.

Puja

Labour appear to be playing a very long game of 'if you can steal our voters, we'll steal yours'.

Unfortunately, Tory voters aren't based upon thoughts anymore, but :Corbyn, Socialism, Communists, scum, they want to burn the British flag, they should be rounded up and sent to Rwanda.

[Sandydragon]

For a long while, I thought Starmer was just keeping his powder dry and playing it cagey for the long game, but I'm coming to the conclusion that he is just as mundane and hollow as he appears. Absolutely nothing to him whatsoever. He's like if a focus group wished real hard and became a real boy.

I'd still take him in a hot minute over Johnson, but it is bizarre to see a Labour leader attacking a Conservative government for them having raised taxes and spending and how, if they were in government, he'd be cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and promote business.

Puja

They seem to have adopted Biden’s strategy, just stay in the cellar and let your opponent blow themselves up. It might still work but since there are other options in the UK it’s not a given that frustrates Tory voters from last time out will vote Labour.

How many points would Tony Blair be ahead by at this point? Love him or hate him he could connect.

[Stom]

For a long while, I thought Starmer was just keeping his powder dry and playing it cagey for the long game, but I'm coming to the conclusion that he is just as mundane and hollow as he appears. Absolutely nothing to him whatsoever. He's like if a focus group wished real hard and became a real boy.

I'd still take him in a hot minute over Johnson, but it is bizarre to see a Labour leader attacking a Conservative government for them having raised taxes and spending and how, if they were in government, he'd be cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and promote business.

Puja

They seem to have adopted Biden’s strategy, just stay in the cellar and let your opponent blow themselves up. It might still work but since there are other options in the UK it’s not a given that frustrates Tory voters from last time out will vote Labour.

How many points would Tony Blair be ahead by at this point? Love him or hate him he could connect.

Blair would not be doing well now. The world is a very different place to what it was, and politics is very, very different.

For me, if I were Labour, I'd be so doing the socialist thing. Look how close Labour got to an election win with Corbyn in charge, and whatever you think about him, he was toxic and his policies were a mess - good things, bad things, and crazy things that were just sticks to beat him with.

[Sandydragon]

Is this the same Corbyn agenda that got slaughtered at the last election? Even with one of the worst campaigning PMs in history, Corbyn still lost in 2016.

Labour will not win with that agenda.

And politics is still about having a vision and communicating it to people.Blair was an expert at doing that so I don’t think he would be doing so badly; I’d expect him to be doing far better than Starmer.

[Puja]

Is this the same Corbyn agenda that got slaughtered at the last election? Even with one of the worst campaigning PMs in history, Corbyn still lost in 2016.

Labour will not win with that agenda.

And politics is still about having a vision and communicating it to people.Blair was an expert at doing that so I don’t think he would be doing so badly; I’d expect him to be doing far better than Starmer.

It's the same Corbyn agenda where surveys showed people liked the policies when shown them without party headings, but had visceral feelings about the man himself. The 2019 election was weird and anomalous because half of it was about Brexit and the other half was a referendum on the personalities of the leaders.

I agree with Stom that "socialism" could be a vote winner. For one thing, it would be a positive vision of the future rather than a continuation of the same austerity "sorry, the money's all gone so no local services" politics that have dominated the discourse since 2010. It wasn't the case that near 13 million people voted for Corbyn because they disliked May - that was the people who stayed at home. The people who went out to vote for Corbyn went because he told them the future could be better, that it wasn't inherent destiny that the rich would get richer, the poor would get poorer and they would lead more miserable lives than previous generations. Starmer might tap into some disaffected Conservative voters, but I don't know whether it's more than the people he's losing on the left. He might still get their votes because they'll take anything but a Tory victory, but he's pushing them pretty hard right now.

For another thing, the Overton window has shifted so significantly that some of the "CoMmuNiSm!" screams from the Mail are for ideas that 1990s Tories would've taken as normal policy. We could do with that being shifted a bit further across - the idea that some public services might be better off in public hands is surely a vote winner when seeing how "the open and free market in utilities" is doing on energy price rises and dumping sewage into rivers.


Agreed that Blair would be doing better though. Not that it's a particularly high bar to trip over, but he was a consummate salesman and would be wiping the floor with Johnson by now. Mind, his policies were more radical than would be commonly acceptable nowadays - people deride him for being a centrist, but his centre was a hell of a lot further left than the current one.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Support for re-nationalisation was just over 50% for the key industries. By itself I wouldn't call that conclusive (as an aside anyone who remembers British Rail or the bad old days of BT will remember thats not a guaranteed success). True, the association with Corbyn was poisonous and (putting aside the Brexit issue which was a huge impact), was probably the chief reason Labour lost. Maybe the idea of some socialism was popular but not the out and out socialist selling the policies?

The most popular manifesto commitments were free right to care for elderly and climate pledges. Both hot topics but only the former I would call socialist. But independent polling also showed that there were concerns over Corbyn's approach to security and also to taxation. Which is where we hit a problem - people want socialist outcomes but don't want to pay for it.

In 2017, May actually increased the conservative share of the vote.Yes Labour's share increased more as she managed to alienate so many traditional supports some of whom stayed at home but the spectre of socialism and a harder left Labour front bench than has been seen since the early 80s was enough to scare plenty into not voting Labour, even if magic grandpa did excite a lot of younger voters.

SO if I were picking labour policies then I would be focusing on some aspects that would be considered socialist - public services, but also highlighting the importance of a market economy and being a trusted friend to business people in the UK who generate many of our taxes. I wouldn't re-nationalise utility companies as that would discourage investment. But I would look at how we could support people with a subsidy on how much could be charged each yet for those utilities. Transport clearly needs a big investment but Id apply the same principle. Let the private sector run the trains and buses, the public sector is awful at that by and large. But use subsidies to keep the prices down.

Some small edit, anything that Labour proposes will be nicked by Johnson almost immediately if vaguely popular. The windfall tax was Labours idea yet they don't seem to have received much public credit for suggesting it. I do have some sympathy for Starmer in that any good ideas his team have will be shamelessly stolen by a crew who just want to hang onto power.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Blair (despicable human being though he is) would be doing better than Starmer because he's a decent speaker, can think on his feet and has the killer instinct. Although if he couldn't get Murdoch and the BBC on his side it wouldn't be so dramatically different.

Blair's strategy wouldn't be much different from Starmer's though. New Labour basically continued with Tory policy, as they promised in their 1997 manifesto. Blair's advantage over Starmer is in presentation, not substance. Unfortunately, presentation is vital.

Starmer may still win. He may well be keeping his best policies back till 2024. He may just get lucky. But he'll be destroyed if the Tories find some reasonably charismatic (and apparently clean) replacement for Johnson. (If there is such a creature in their parliamentary party.)

[Puja]

Support for re-nationalisation was just over 50% for the key industries. By itself I wouldn't call that conclusive (as an aside anyone who remembers British Rail or the bad old days of BT will remember thats not a guaranteed success). True, the association with Corbyn was poisonous and (putting aside the Brexit issue which was a huge impact), was probably the chief reason Labour lost. Maybe the idea of some socialism was popular but not the out and out socialist selling the policies?

Just wanted to pick out that statistic - I wonder what the percentage of support would be for those who might consider voting Labour (so ruling out everyone who would never switch from Conservative for any reason and especially not to those damned commies). You'd imagine that a chunk of the 49ish% who didn't support would be dyed in the wool, vote for anything with a blue rosette Tories, so the percentage is likely to be much higher amongst the available to Starmer voters.

The most popular manifesto commitments were free right to care for elderly and climate pledges. Both hot topics but only the former I would call socialist. But independent polling also showed that there were concerns over Corbyn's approach to security and also to taxation. Which is where we hit a problem - people want socialist outcomes but don't want to pay for it.

In 2017, May actually increased the conservative share of the vote.Yes Labour's share increased more as she managed to alienate so many traditional supports some of whom stayed at home but the spectre of socialism and a harder left Labour front bench than has been seen since the early 80s was enough to scare plenty into not voting Labour, even if magic grandpa did excite a lot of younger voters.

SO if I were picking labour policies then I would be focusing on some aspects that would be considered socialist - public services, but also highlighting the importance of a market economy and being a trusted friend to business people in the UK who generate many of our taxes. I wouldn't re-nationalise utility companies as that would discourage investment. But I would look at how we could support people with a subsidy on how much could be charged each yet for those utilities. Transport clearly needs a big investment but Id apply the same principle. Let the private sector run the trains and buses, the public sector is awful at that by and large. But use subsidies to keep the prices down.

Some small edit, anything that Labour proposes will be nicked by Johnson almost immediately if vaguely popular. The windfall tax was Labours idea yet they don't seem to have received much public credit for suggesting it. I do have some sympathy for Starmer in that any good ideas his team have will be shamelessly stolen by a crew who just want to hang onto power.

Has the private sector shown it's anything but awful at running trains and buses either? I do remember the "good old days" of British Rail, so I'm not suggesting it as a universal panacea, but it's always struck me as a weird sector to have privatised. It's an unprofitable business that would be shut down/massive downscaled if it wasn't needed for the public good, and there is no opportunity for competition or consumer choice whatsoever.

I am dubious about energy companies too, seeing how much of a cock-up they've made of recent events (not to mention that every other country that has nationalised energy has not experienced the same price rises as us, although France's isn't hurt by the fact that their state provider makes money from having a subsidiary gouging English consumers, just as their state transport provider runs some English franchises and turns a profit through subsidies), but at least in that industry, there is an actual market and consumer choice to make the capitalism magic work.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Blair (despicable human being though he is) would be doing better than Starmer because he's a decent speaker, can think on his feet and has the killer instinct. Although if he couldn't get Murdoch and the BBC on his side it wouldn't be so dramatically different.

Blair's strategy wouldn't be much different from Starmer's though. New Labour basically continued with Tory policy, as they promised in their 1997 manifesto. Blair's advantage over Starmer is in presentation, not substance. Unfortunately, presentation is vital.

Starmer may still win. He may well be keeping his best policies back till 2024. He may just get lucky. But he'll be destroyed if the Tories find some reasonably charismatic (and apparently clean) replacement for Johnson. (If there is such a creature in their parliamentary party.)

I think that Labour will win back a number of seats regardless of who is the Tory leader. Brexit was such an unbalancing force (together with Corbyn distrust) and many of the northern seats will probably go back to being red. Possibly not enough of the south will follow to provide a majority but I can't see Johnson keeping such a huge majority even if the next 2 ish years are relatively controversy free and vaguely competent. Big IF.

The same is probably true if Johnson goes and someone like Zahawi took over (not suggesting he is the best candidate but he had a good pandemic and seems to be on the rails). I can't see any of them keeping the north intact, but they would probably shore up enough support in the south to keep a slim majority, akin to David Camerons win in 2015.

[Sandydragon]

Support for re-nationalisation was just over 50% for the key industries. By itself I wouldn't call that conclusive (as an aside anyone who remembers British Rail or the bad old days of BT will remember thats not a guaranteed success). True, the association with Corbyn was poisonous and (putting aside the Brexit issue which was a huge impact), was probably the chief reason Labour lost. Maybe the idea of some socialism was popular but not the out and out socialist selling the policies?

Just wanted to pick out that statistic - I wonder what the percentage of support would be for those who might consider voting Labour (so ruling out everyone who would never switch from Conservative for any reason and especially not to those damned commies). You'd imagine that a chunk of the 49ish% who didn't support would be dyed in the wool, vote for anything with a blue rosette Tories, so the percentage is likely to be much higher amongst the available to Starmer voters.

The most popular manifesto commitments were free right to care for elderly and climate pledges. Both hot topics but only the former I would call socialist. But independent polling also showed that there were concerns over Corbyn's approach to security and also to taxation. Which is where we hit a problem - people want socialist outcomes but don't want to pay for it.

In 2017, May actually increased the conservative share of the vote.Yes Labour's share increased more as she managed to alienate so many traditional supports some of whom stayed at home but the spectre of socialism and a harder left Labour front bench than has been seen since the early 80s was enough to scare plenty into not voting Labour, even if magic grandpa did excite a lot of younger voters.

SO if I were picking labour policies then I would be focusing on some aspects that would be considered socialist - public services, but also highlighting the importance of a market economy and being a trusted friend to business people in the UK who generate many of our taxes. I wouldn't re-nationalise utility companies as that would discourage investment. But I would look at how we could support people with a subsidy on how much could be charged each yet for those utilities. Transport clearly needs a big investment but Id apply the same principle. Let the private sector run the trains and buses, the public sector is awful at that by and large. But use subsidies to keep the prices down.

Some small edit, anything that Labour proposes will be nicked by Johnson almost immediately if vaguely popular. The windfall tax was Labours idea yet they don't seem to have received much public credit for suggesting it. I do have some sympathy for Starmer in that any good ideas his team have will be shamelessly stolen by a crew who just want to hang onto power.

Has the private sector shown it's anything but awful at running trains and buses either? I do remember the "good old days" of British Rail, so I'm not suggesting it as a universal panacea, but it's always struck me as a weird sector to have privatised. It's an unprofitable business that would be shut down/massive downscaled if it wasn't needed for the public good, and there is no opportunity for competition or consumer choice whatsoever.

I am dubious about energy companies too, seeing how much of a cock-up they've made of recent events (not to mention that every other country that has nationalised energy has not experienced the same price rises as us, although France's isn't hurt by the fact that their state provider makes money from having a subsidiary gouging English consumers, just as their state transport provider runs some English franchises and turns a profit through subsidies), but at least in that industry, there is an actual market and consumer choice to make the capitalism magic work.

Puja

The problem with energy companies has been regulation and the ability to set something up without sufficient reserves. I'm with one of the companies set up after privatisation (Octopus) and they are very good, far better than any service I got from British Gas and I do have the option to switch supplier.

Rail is a bit different as if I want to travel from Manchester to London then there is only one train company thats realistic. Virgin used to be very good, the current mob are less so on that line.

Regarding your stats question - agree its a good one and can't find anything that really nails it, although there is evidence from polling that the policies fared better when Corbyn wasn't mentioned, although the best level was the one I quoted. So it would seem that 50ish % is about where the public stands on nationalisation, and Id assume that most who are anti are Conservative voters but not necessarily all.

[Puja]

Starmer is somehow missing another open goal by sitting on the fence over the Rwanda policy for fear of being seen to be "not tough on immigration":



Let's ignore the fact that this policy is Evil with a capital E and that anyone with a functioning soul can see that it is wicked to pander to anti-immigration nuts by outsourcing our obligations to refugees fleeing oppression by deporting them to a repressive psuedo-dictatorship (and, really, what even do you want to become Prime Minister for if not to stand against wilful acts of evil such as this?), let's ignore the fact that it is solely red meat for a small group of Tory faithful as it achieves absolutely none of the stated objectives and is just about making a statement, let's even ignore the fact that it's woefully inefficient in terms of value for money. Let's leap straight to the fact that, rather than taking a moral stance that people can respect, proposing alternatives that might show he's got ideas of his own and is a man worth voting for, or even agreeing with the policy that would at least get him the respect of the anti-immigation nutjobs, Keir Starmer is once again offering... nothing. Just an absolute dead bat. Not a reason to vote for, just making sure not to provide a reason to vote against.

What an utter mendacious tosser.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Starmer is somehow missing another open goal by sitting on the fence over the Rwanda policy for fear of being seen to be "not tough on immigration":



Let's ignore the fact that this policy is Evil with a capital E and that anyone with a functioning soul can see that it is wicked to pander to anti-immigration nuts by outsourcing our obligations to refugees fleeing oppression by deporting them to a repressive psuedo-dictatorship (and, really, what even do you want to become Prime Minister for if not to stand against wilful acts of evil such as this?), let's ignore the fact that it is solely red meat for a small group of Tory faithful as it achieves absolutely none of the stated objectives and is just about making a statement, let's even ignore the fact that it's woefully inefficient in terms of value for money. Let's leap straight to the fact that, rather than taking a moral stance that people can respect, proposing alternatives that might show he's got ideas of his own and is a man worth voting for, or even agreeing with the policy that would at least get him the respect of the anti-immigation nutjobs, Keir Starmer is once again offering... nothing. Just an absolute dead bat. Not a reason to vote for, just making sure not to provide a reason to vote against.

What an utter mendacious tosser.

Puja

Hard to argue with that.Maybe he is worried about traditional Labour voters who aren't that keen on immigration themselves. Maybe he doesn't want to suggest something for fear of it getting nicked, but I agree that he should be making a comment on this as its utterly ludicrous.

Would it be that hard to suggest that he would scrap this and instead open immigration application centres in UK embassies overseas (and probably at various locations in Northern France) where claims could be assessed? Most who apply are let in so arguably they could then just travel legitimately which would destroy the smugglers (who are utterly evil bastards themselves) business model and reduce the potential unlawful immigration to a trickle, which could be managed.