want to know what your solution to the issue is. If Labour stand with a left wing leader the same deal with the press will happen again. Meaning we will get the tories again, and there are further to the right than Starmer.
The solution is for the majority of voters in each constituency to change their views and see that voting Tory all that time was wrong.
The UK is a Tory country and has been for the last 40+ years. The only Labour party to get into power was one that a lot of Labour supporters (on this thread) just call another version of Tory. They don't realise that is the best we will get in this country.
I would rather have a Starmer Labour party over any of the Tory parties in those last 40+ years because I realise that is the best you will get in a country full of Tories.
Yes, I should be dreaming of a true Labour party coming to power and sometimes do but then I come back down to reality.
but Christ I wanted him to win a general election
I voted happily for Corbyn the first time around, less fully the second. The one event (if there ever can be such a thing) for me was the Skripal Poisoning affair which was handled by Labour so incoherently. I get that he was trying to be cautious, but there were reports circulating at the time about his press team rewriting statements to make them less supportive of NATO, and less Imperialistic in tone. I think polling at the time showed that May (of all people!!) had over 50% positive rating for her handling of the incident, and Corbyn was at 18%. Up to that point Corbyn had been doing really well in polling (over 40%), after it, support just melted away, it was a real turning point for many people. I think lots of people just concluded that he looked foolish
Can everyone be made to do cognitive bias and critical thinking training before they are allowed to vote?
I know, right, it was super depressing thing to read.
I can only assume that some people believe that aping the Tories is the best way for Labour to win power because it sounds so logical.
Presumably the same logic says that more to the right the greater the increased support.
And yet we have seen that when so-called "centre-left" parties swing dramatically to the right what actually happens is the complete opposite, their support base collapses. Massively.
It is indeed such an accepted fact now that there is even a term to specifically describe this phenomenon, ie, Pasokification.
It can be seen particularly in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and of course Greece.
To me it looks like the country will not vote in a left wing government and if labour were to stand again with a lefty leader they will lose.
With the right wing of the labour party actively conspiring and working against their own party you're absolutely right, a left wing government will never happen. There's a simple solution to that problem, but unfortunately it's not the rightwingers who are being purged.
The UK is a Tory country and has been for the last 40+ years.
FFS will you stop regurgitating this as if it were a fact. As I've pointed out many times, in 2019 28% of the electorate voted tory. By any crazy bending of the facts, that in no way suggests we live in a 'tory country'.
And yet we have seen that when so-called “centre-left” parties swing dramatically to the right what actually happens is the complete opposite, their support base collapses. Massively.
I think it's the other way around. Trad support for centre left is collapsing . Unions aren't as strong, trad Labour voters are eroding away , and as the UK population gets older, they become more socially conservative...In order to retain support; centre left parties move right. But end result is the same regardless.
Any news about SKS?
FFS will you stop regurgitating this as if it were a fact. As I’ve pointed out many times, in 2019 28% of the electorate voted tory. By any crazy bending of the facts, that in no way suggests we live in a ‘tory country’.
It is a fact. Given how the voting works, more people voted for a Tory MP in their constituency than for any other party. Looking at the overall % is meaningless as that is not how voting works, constituency by constituency it is a Tory country and has been for 40+ years with the (as you no doubt would call it) Tory Lite blip with Blair.
Try to view the country based on what the people in the country want and not what you want them to have and discounting what they want as wrong.
population gets older, they become more socially conservative
You think Pasokification has occurred across Europe because the population is getting older?
It's not a theory I've heard before. What the "centre-left" European parties that have been severely affected by Pasokification all have in common is that they have significantly swung to the right, often implementing austerity policies whilst in government.
Do you think that the Liberal Democrat swing to the right in the last 10 years has helped them in their electoral fortunes Nick?
Has it made them more appealing to an aging population?
kerley
Free MemberThe UK is a Tory country and has been for the last 40+ years
kerley
Free Member<Posts picture that proves it isn't>
47 years with the Blair 'blip'. Point still stands.
And if this doesn't look like a Tory country not sure what does. (The blue bits are Tory by the way)
Kerley all you're doing is illustrating how we live in a country where the voting system has been rigged to deliver tory governments. We do not live in a 'tory country' as evidently the vast majority do not support them. We do however live in a country with an electoral system which has been designed to amplify their minority support so that they can 'win' elections.
Is Afghanistan a 'Taliban country'??
The blue bits are in the last 2 years not the last 40 years.
Kerley all you’re doing is illustrating how we live in a country where the voting system has been rigged to deliver tory governments.
I'm not sure how true that is but what it does illustrate is that cities are geographically smaller than rural areas.
Pasofikation is a thing but so is the decline of the traditional right. In France LR has lost some of its voters to the RN and in Germany the CDU/CSU is not the solid block it was.
However in France at least it wasn't the socialist party's swing to the right that lost them votes, quite the opposite. The successful Mitterrand years were very much a left-wing party taking right-wing measures. As the party was steered to the left by Martine Aubree with the 35 hour week and properly to the left by Benoît Hamon it was dserted by some of its members and many of its voters not for the extremes but EM the new center-right party not so far from the Mitterrand era socialists.
You think Pasokification has occurred across Europe because the population is getting older?
No, I think it's partly the reason its occurred in the UK. There are many reasons though, all the things I've mentioned, immigration, the response to the banking collapse in '08 and the rise of austerity policies to name but a few. Social democratic parties can be attacked from both sides, that's why they've seen more of a decline than right wing parties.
Do you think that the Liberal Democrat swing to the right in the last 10 years has helped them in their electoral fortunes Nick?
I think traditional Liberal collapse has it's roots elsewhere. Growth of Labour and so on. I think parties swing in response to decline, not the other way around.
I’m not sure how true that is but what it does illustrate is that cities are geographically smaller than rural areas.
I think it's an established fact that the tories need far fewer votes than labour or other parties per MP. (about 12000 less according to figures below)
Mitterrand was French President in the last century, Pasofikation is generally regarded to be a phenomenon of the last 10 years, post global financial crisis.
The LibDems are actually a very good UK example of Pasofikation. They offered themselves as a "centre-left" party but once in government enthusiastically supported right-wing austerity policies, the electoral consequences for them was devastating.
Pasofikation doesn't simply represent a decline in support but a catastrophic collapse.
kerley
Free Member47 years with the Blair ‘blip’. Point still stands.
It absolutely doesn't. The reality is, your chosen graphic proves that we have a 2-party system where sometimes one wins, sometimes the other, and they swing back and forwards inside an actually pretty astonishingly consistent window. Even if every single election had been a win for one party or the other in that time, it still wouldn't point to a "tory britain" as long as it's in contest, which it certainly has been for most of that time.
This is just the exact same nonsense that led to people talking about "the strange death of tory britain"
I think traditional Liberal collapse has it’s roots elsewhere. Growth of Labour and so on.
I was so shocked by that comment that I had to check the 2019 general election result!
After the 2019 general election the LibDems were one seat down, and their Leader lost her seat. How well did Labour do, how much did their support "grow"?
According to the Labour right-wing narrative the LibDems should have been raking in the votes in 2019. Instead they won just 11 seats.
After the 2019 general election the LibDems were one seat down
After reading that I got a nice warm glow from the memory of Jo Swinson losing her seat and for a fleeting moment everything about politics felt ok again. 🙂
Geramny was third in your list. I wouldn't call it a catasrophical collapse.
As for France, EM regroups socialists, UDF and moderates from the tradiditional right. You don't get more centrist and there's hardly a collapse:
The center-left voters are still voting for their idea of center left which isn't necessarily the "socialist" party which is seen as a step too far for many social democrats. I voted EM Macron in the national assembly and presidential elections, green in the region (a socialist won) and socialist locally (the center right won).
Edit: I also voted Hamon in the presidential elections as I had junior's procuration and was happy to vote Hamon for him.
Are you actually serious?
Totally. Right wingers like Starmer, Hodge, Streeting, Mandelson, Blair etc have no place in the Labour Party; they have only ever used it to further their own ends. They have no belief whatsoever in the founding principles and true ethos of the party, and nothing in common with many of the people who founded the Labour movement. This much is blindingly obvious. And they are the ones that have caused so much damage, by dragging Labour ever rightwards. The Labour Party was founded as a party of the Left, and that is where it must remain, if it is to ever offer any viable opposition to right wing and fascist ideologies.
Trad support for centre left is collapsing . Unions aren’t as strong, trad Labour voters are eroding away , and as the UK population gets older, they become more socially conservative
Ruling elites have sought to undermine the Left, Socialism and democracy itself, for many decades. Let's not forget; those same tory ****s hypocritically wearing 'NHS' badges, are in the same party that voted against one of the greatest ever political achievements, anywhere. With PFI and Academy schools Blair showed just how willing he was to sell off such vital public assets, to ensure only those with wealth have access to decent education and healthcare. Continuing to make the same mistake of believing that neoliberalism can work, is to ignore what's actually ****ing happening in our society, globally, and to the planet. The unfolding crisis in Afghanistan is just one example of why such scum must be ejected, if Labour is to survive as a viable party in a functioning democracy.
Geramny was third in your list. I wouldn’t call it a catasrophical collapse.
In the 2009 election the SDP lost 76 seats, it was their worst result since before WW2. It's a fair example of Pasofikation imo.
Edit : Getting back to my original point, what the Labour Party has experienced in the last decade is very similar to what other social democratic parties across Europe have also experienced.
Right-wing parties have benefited from this collapse although in some cases also left-wing parties, when they have offered a radical alternative.
The increase by a third for Labour support in 2017 provides a clue as to how to avoid Pasokification.
It was apparent how much Cherie Blair influenced Blair and not in a good way as Blair went crusading. I'm uneasy with Starmer having an equally religious bed mate. Bush implored chirac to join him in fulfilling Biblical prophesies. I'm uneasy with religious fervour in any leader's family, whatever the religion.
we live in a country where the voting system has been rigged to deliver tory governments
Yes, that's where we live and that's the problem. Solutions start with voting in a govt to do something about this.
The CDU/CSU lost nearly the same number in 2017 Ernie, but that would be cherry picking too. Other parties have come along and taken votes from both. The voters are still there but as with the rise of EM in france, have deserted parties they previously felt represented their views for the new kid(s) on the block.
Well it won't be the first time you and me don't agree Ed. It's never easy but I'll try to deal with it 🙂
I was so shocked by that comment that I had to check the 2019 general election result!
Oh sorry, I was referring to the collapse of 20th Liberalism (the actual Liberal Party), not the current Libdems.
Oh sorry, I was referring to the collapse of 20th Liberalism (the actual Liberal Party), not the current Libdems.
Ah, I see, well it's always interesting to know what happened a 100 years ago, or what worked for Mitterrand 40 years ago and Blair 25 years ago, but let's look at the current situation. It is after all a thread about Keir Starmer.
In the immortal words of that great thinker and strategist Peter Mandelson we need to "modernise".
There's also a lot we agree on, Ernie, the devil is in the detail.
Labour has some skeletons in the cupboard that put off the very people who'd vote socialist.
Socialist, enlightened, humanist, domocratic; they are easy bed fellows, but it's easy to lose voters if you don't repsect them all. It's a lack of turnout that Labour suffers from as much as anything. People who would logically vote for them stay at home. There's no way I'd vote Tory, but could I vote labour with its recent history? Only against my better judgement because I don't trust them. Blair invaded Iraq and that's put off a whole generation of enlightened, humanist, democratic socialists. Corbyn with his dialogue from a 1974 miners' rally. And Starmer, a wolf dressed up as, err well, a wolf.
Unite's election results are in. Sharon Graham replaces Len McClusky as GS of the largest union...And says she's going to "keep out of Labour internal politics and concentrate on the workplace" She got 47,000 votes out of eligible electorate of over million. about 5% of the vote. Shockingly low. Makes the case for on-line voting all the stronger.
The reality is, your chosen graphic proves that we have a 2-party system where sometimes one wins, sometimes the other,
Sure, if you count sometimes as every time in the last 47 years apart from when a Toryish Labour party won.
We do not live in a ‘tory country’ as evidently the vast majority do not support them.
I have lived here for 53 years and to me it is very much a Tory country. In the last election the Tories had 44% vote share, meaning all other parties had 56%. 56% is not a "vast majority" who do not support them is it.
By Tory country I mean that it has a Tory feel to it (Business biased, no empathy, selfishness etc,.) and that people are happy to either elect a tory party or stand by while a tory party is elected. I do not mean that 80% of people are tory voters.
In the last election the Tories had 44% vote share, meaning all other parties had 56%. 56% is not a “vast majority” who do not support them is it.
Why are you ignoring the 37% of the electorate who didn't vote? Do their views not count? Even if we ignore them (which is stupid), 12% is a pretty big margin. But once you factor in that 37% the difference is a massive 44%, so yes I think I'm prretty safe in my position that the vast majority of people in the UK do not support the tories.
Blair was an 💩 but Cameron and Johnson are exponentially bigger 💩 (steaming piles of turd).
Bottom line is fptp isn't fit for servicing a democracy.
Whether Corbyn is a worthy leader is neither here nor there when the political system is rigged in favour of steaming lumps of reeking dog eggs.
Why are you ignoring the 37% of the electorate who didn’t vote? Do their views not count?
Given that their choice at the last election was between Joris Bohnson and Citizen Corbyn, you can understand the lack of enthusiasm
Would sir like his huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread?
Why are you ignoring the 37% of the electorate who didn’t vote? Do their views not count?
Er, if they wanted their views to be known they would have voted. You can't say for any certainty why people didn't vote. That's why they are discounted in this case. What's more important is addressing why they didn't vote, something I don't think any UK party is capable of doing right now.
Would sir like his huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread?
That's your view is it binners? And you claim to be in the Labour Party?
No wonder the party is in crisis.
Actually the lowest general election turnout since 1918 was in 2001 when Tony Blair was party leader. Presumably in 1918 WW1 got in way of voter registration.
So you think in 2001 the shit choice between Tony Blair and William Hague was the reason for the extraordinarily low turnout binners?
Blair v Hague looks like a clash of heavyweight intellectual political titans compared to those last pair of numpties
I voted for the useless, beardy allotment dweller twice, but even as a Labour Party member I knew I was simply opting for the least worst option* as the alternative was as horrific as it’s turned out to be
If that’s the best options our political system can deliver then it’s hardly surprising loads of people ticked the box marked ‘none of the above’
Doesn’t look like it’s going to get any better any time soon, does it?
* Not strictly true, as I voted for my brilliant Labour MP James Frith who lost his seat to a useless Borisite, Brexiteer Tory by 100 votes. Something I hold Comrade Corbyn entirely responsible for
Blair v Hague looks like a clash of heavyweight intellectual political titans compared to those last pair of numpties
And yet when Corbyn was party leader the turnout was very significantly higher.
Are you suggesting that the electorate were unimpressed with the "heavyweight intellectual political titans" Blair and Hague?
How does that fit in with your shit sandwich comment?
I voted for my brilliant Labour MP James Frith who lost his seat to a useless Borisite, Brexiteer Tory by 100 votes. Something I hold Comrade Corbyn entirely responsible for
LOL! I've just checked and the only reason James Firth was ever an MP was because of Jeremy Corbyn! At least the huge support that Labour enjoyed in 2017 due to Corbyn's election manifesto.
James Firth tried and failed to win your constituency seat when Ed Miliband was leader.
Are you suggesting that the electorate were unimpressed with the “heavyweight intellectual political titans” Blair and Hague?
Back then the result was such a foregone conclusion that everyone took it as read.
The election was just confirming the inevitable. Hardly going to deliver a massive turnout, is it?
Though it did deliver a whopping great majority. A bit like the one grandad just gift-wrapped for Boris with a big red bow and a nice little tag saying ‘lots of love from Jeremy, Len, Seamas and all in the bunker’
LOL! I’ve just checked and the only reason James Firth was ever an MP was because of Jeremy Corbyn!
I don’t know about that. Credit where it’s due…
Back then the result was such a foregone conclusion that everyone took it as read.
The election was just confirming the inevitable. Hardly going to deliver a massive turnout, is it?
So you obviously think that the 1997 general election was touch and go (it was the highest turnout of the last 25 year)
How do you come to such a strange conclusion binners, when the result was a Labour landslide and a foregone conclusion long before election day?
I don’t know about that. Credit where it’s due…
So your MP won his seat in 2017 because Theresa May was such a bad Tory leader, and then lost it in 2019 presumably because Boris Johnson was such a great Tory leader?
But somehow it was all the fault of Jeremy Corbyn?
What happened in 2015 before Corbyn was even leader, did your man lose the election because David Cameron was a brilliant Tory PM?
You aren't really interested in the truth/ facts binners, you just want to sling mud at anyone whose politics you disagree with.
It's a fairly widespread attitude in British politics and it is designed to win arguments rather than solve problems.
Why are you ignoring the 37% of the electorate who didn’t vote? Do their views not count?
Of course they do. They have a chance every now and then to vote for an alternative to Tory rule. When they don’t they aren’t expressing a view. That’s on them. Part of that is the voting system making them see their vote as irrelevant, part of it is opposition parties not interesting them… but it all comes down to the same thing, quietly nodding through the Tories, again. We probably have this for the rest of our lives now. There is no swinging of power between Tories and Labour in modern day England. Not any more.
