Forum menu
I’ve told you my answer already. Labour could have lost their deposit in this seat, and if the result is one fewer Conservative MP, I am absolutely fine with that.
Fair enough: you're absolutely fine with Labour losing 10,000 votes.
I don’t think single by-elections are ever a good indicator of anything are they? I mean, look at Hartlepool a couple of weeks ago. Labour candidate was a doctor who voted to close the local hospital; local issues are always a “thing”. This isn’t a sign that Tory vote is collapsing or that Lib Dems re on the rise anymore that is shows Labour have got a strategy to win over folks that are either farmers or rich Lawyers/fat business cows
In and of itself, I agree that a single data point isn't a strong indicator. But as we move through the cycle, and see more by-elections, we will start to build a picture. The next one is going to be very interesting...
you’re absolutely fine with Labour losing 10,000 votes
If the result is that the Conservatives lose a seat, absolutely. Just as I would implore LibDem and Green supporters to vote Labour if there were to be by-election in this seat here.
The next one is going to be very interesting…
Oh absolutely, I I'm not going to wriggle hard to get Labour off the hook here, To mangle Oscar Wilde, To lose a by-election is unfortunate to loose another looks like carelessness...If we give Labour a pass in a seat like this where to be frank, if it was the only candidate they still would lose their deposit, for all the talk of the Tories losing the "blue wall" it's not going to happen overnight. Where ever the next one is though I expect Labour to be taking the fight to whoever held the seat.
If the result is that the Conservatives lose a seat, absolutely. Just as I would implore LibDem and Green supporters to vote Labour if there were to be by-election in this seat here.
I know, you've already said. I can only marvel at why someone would not be even remotely curious as to why all those people don't want to vote Labour any more, but there we go.
As far as Starmer is concerned, I still see him as just keeping the seat warm, and want someone else in there as leader a year out from a general election. I think Labour will stick with him ’till he loses a general election though, as they just don’t have the system in place to move leaders on when they need to be.
They also don't have a queue of talented front benchers (or any MP's) who are dominating the airways with their ability to cut through to the core of issues and give hope of a decent alternative who inspire confidence
I think Starmer's problem is that he is a good team leader of talented people which is why he rose to the top at the CPS. He is however leading a Labour party at war with itself with a motley collection of MPs and a dearth of talent. If you can't put your front bench on the airwaves every day to batter the government on this that or the other and get cut through then you have a problem which is greater than one single person
I can only marvel at why someone would not be even remotely curious as to why all those people don’t want to vote Labour any more, but there we go.
You misunderstand, I don't want them to vote Labour in a FPTP election for an MP in this seat. I'm not "uncurious", I am very pleased that the Labour vote collapsed here.
Hard agree big_n_daft.
More of this please. I really don’t want to wait ‘till I’m 90 for an elusive Labour majority government
What on earth makes you think the lib dems would support a labour minority govt or join a coalition? Recent history shows that given a choice they will side with the tories.
We’re often told that Labour can only regain power by moving to the centre – that seems to have failed spectacularly here,
Failed in the way that an actual centre party (Lib Dem) won by a large margin?
It works pretty much the way it does now. Just less of it with a universal basic income to provide the basics for everyone. You really are the life and soul of the party aren’t you?
And where does the UBI money come from if everybody is working less (you still haven't said how much less) and the output of the country is lower.
And no I have never been the life and should of any party (I have aspergers) but not sure what that has got to do with me questioning your unfounded dreams.
And where does the UBI money come from
The same place it does now. What the government spends is not dependent on production.
but not sure what that has got to do with me questioning your unfounded dreams.
It was a joke. I'll add a smiley next time to avoid confusion 😊
Recent history shows that given a choice they will side with the tories.
That was what? Over 10 years ago, they had a different leader, and 57 seats, and knew (pretty much) they were going to be powerbrokers in the elections...It's such a vastly different scenario that it probably has no bearing at all on what may occur in the future.
I don't think there is any appetite for another coalition with the Tories in LD HQ or membership.
LDs were until recently in coalition with Lab in Wales, and there's been some bizarre backroom stitch up in Stockport Council with Lab staying in power only because of Tory support.
It’s such a vastly different scenario that it probably has no bearing at all on what may occur in the future.
Mabye with Boris in place, but with Sunak or Gove I suspect Davey would be less hostile towards the tories. I'd have more faith if Moran was leader, but she's not, and the lib dems are still further to the right than they were under Kennedy.
The next one is going to be very interesting…
Definitely - if Labour manage to lose that one, I'd say KS is a gonner. Even if they hold it with a reduced majority, he's still in big trouble.
The problem for Labour is the big indy candidate who came third and got 6,000 votes last time out with a 'local Brexit' flavour:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000548
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Woollen_District_Independents
Don't appear to be standing this time around, but you've got Galloway chipping in with some made-up Workers' Party plus some type of Yorkshire Party candidate. Could get messy.
The LibDems didn’t fully exploit* that opportunity when they had the chance, and got rolled over by the Tories with a few token ministerial posts.
I don't think it helps to downplay the role of the LibDems in the Coalition Government, although I can see the obvious appeal for some people to do so.
A quarter of the Coalition Cabinet was LibDem. The Deputy Prime Minister was the LibDem Party Leader.
As a consequence of recent history I can see the logical appeal of voting LibDem for many people who would under normal circumstances vote Conservative.
However for people who would traditionally vote Labour the situation seems different. As far as I am aware the LibDem vote in former Labour Northern strongholds has completely collapsed.
I don't know where the Labour vote went yesterday in the by-election
Perhaps some went to the LibDems and perhaps a large part of it stayed at home, there was after all 18k fewer people who voted yesterday than had in the 2019 election.
As far as I am aware the LibDem vote in former Labour Northern strongholds has completely collapsed.
Yes, and that gives Labour an opportunity. Personally, I welcome the LibDems ousting Conservatives from seats they consider safe, and hope Labour can mop up potential LibDem voters in "former Labour Northern strongholds" to start bringing them back into contention in seats they have recently lost, or currently look like losing at the next General Election. I want to see many parties doing well, but with voting support spread in a way that results in more actual seats in parliament, not just national vote share.
Failed in the way that an actual centre party (Lib Dem) won by a large margin?
Precisely. Centrists are well catered for. Labour, who were more on the left in 2017, had 10,000 more votes than they managed yesterday.
The same place it does now. What the government spends is not dependent on production.
Ultimately it is. If nobody worked (their choice remember), everybody was on just UBI and nothing was produced (no food, no post, no banks, nothing) the country function would it.
You will need to show your workings on this if you want to convince me (a supporter of the basic premise) never mind convincing the majority who would be against it (brainwashed into current system or not)
i.e, working less means what, is there a max hours per week that any employer can request
If you can’t put your front bench on the airwaves every day to batter the government on this that or the other and get cut through then you have a problem which is greater than one single person
Perhaps its access to the airwaves that is the problem? As an example, I don't see many journalists making a beeline to the new LD constituency and reporting on the matter. I shouldn't have to say this really, its obvious where the media's political allegiances lie.
Or perhaps they view as a protest vote over HS2, and it will turn blue again at the next election.
Precisely. Centrists are well catered for. Labour, who were more on the left in 2017, had 10,000 more votes than they managed yesterday.
10,000 more votes, and still lost. Centrists will be well catered for when the biggest opposition party is aligned to the centre.
Centrists are well catered for. Labour, who were more on the left in 2017, had 10,000 more votes than they managed yesterday.
That is not my interpretation of why it happened. You seriously think that if Corbyn was still the leader they would have got 10,000 seat again?
Guessing you didn't mention the lower 7,500 votes in 2019 because it doesn't look as good...
And where does the UBI money come from if everybody is working less (you still haven’t said how much less) and the output of the country is lower.
Oh jeez. Despite all the noise Dezh and I have made you still don't realise how the government pays for things?
The UK Government's finances are not limited by £££ - they are limited by real resources and slack in the economy.
You realise the GDP went down massively in the Pandemic and they still found 450 Billion?
Failed in the way that an actual centre party (Lib Dem) won by a large margin?
A pointless band aid in a general election scenario. Lib-dems are on a overall downward spiral.
That was what? Over 10 years ago, they had a different leader, and 57 seats, and knew (pretty much) they were going to be powerbrokers in the elections…It’s such a vastly different scenario that it probably has no bearing at all on what may occur in the future.
Because they are known for their left of centre ideals.
Jo Swansong and co didn't want anything to do with Labour at the recent G.E
Libs are neoliberal through and through. Besotted by market economics, and faux environmental credentials. Doomed to centrist failure. Unless there's some change I haven't spotted.
Ultimately it is. If nobody worked (their choice remember), everybody was on just UBI and nothing was produced (no food, no post, no banks, nothing) the country function would it.
That's not the same thing as the government can't afford it.
Of course peope have to produce things.
I'm not an advocate of UBI irrespective. Job Guarantee is where it's at.
Precisely. Centrists are well catered for. Labour, who were more on the left in 2017, had 10,000 more votes than they managed yesterday.
Honestly - it's so taking a lot of getting through to defenders of the middle ground that the current Government didn't win by appealing to the nebulous middle ground.
The appalling result from Jo Swinson's lot despite the pro EU swell didn't even make a mark in a GE.
https://twitter.com/natasapantelic5/status/1398342049368268805?s=19
Blair endorsing Natasa Pantelic.
Is this part of the tactical voting ploy or what?
Lmfao.
Dear god! Like having your GP endorsed by Harold Shipman
I'd like to think this win is a good thing but they're spinning it as "if we can win here we can win everywhere" and that's just not the takeaway from this election, nor is it the right approach for the 4th party... they seem intent on making the Swinson mistakes again.
Let's be honest, they won because of a combination of tactical voting, and because a long serving and immensely popular MP died and the tory turnout collapsed. There's little evidence of them winning significant tory votes. But they're not acting like they know either of those things. It's possible it's all just front and they know what's really happening, but in the light of the last election I don't think that can be assumed. And tbf after Swinson they should be working hard to show that they're not still living in a fantasy world.
Lmfao.
Ha! I didn't know Blair was on Cameo!
the current Government didn’t win by appealing to the nebulous middle ground.
If you're suggesting that Labour need to move to the right as far as the Conservatives in order to beat them... I really hope you're wrong.
I also hope that the by-election result is a sign that the Government may start losing as many seats as they gain from their nationalism at all costs approach. It's a very weak hope though... I think they'll get away with it for decades. Not least because all their opponents will be too busy fighting among themselves to mount a decent challenge.
Of course people have to produce things.
I’m not an advocate of UBI irrespective. Job Guarantee is where it’s at.
So we shouldn't all be working to pay for holiday and general consumerism but actually we should be working because things have to be produced.
We should work less (but not clear how much less and where the line is that tips over into good) and be propped up by UBI provided by a country that is not producing much and everyone is working 3 hours a week but has endless amount of money for UBI even with very low production and next to no economy
And that is the sort of thing Starmer should be pushing, yeah right.
I'd rather we did this in another thread but... "endless amounts of money" is assuming what? That we wouldn't limit the amount people got paid in UBI? That income related tax would stop coming in, because everyone would choose to live off the UBI amount, rather than work to earn more income?
I agree Starmer shouldn't be pushing it, the voters aren't ready for it. But Labour should be looking into it. As others should be as well.
When desperately trying to stay on the fence goes wrong:
https://twitter.com/alexnunns/status/1405901911476387842
Managed to piss off the Corbyn supporters by trying to deny she'd agreed to have her picture taken with him, while simultaneously drawing attention to the fact she's quite happy to be associated with him.
We should work less (but not clear how much less and where the line is that tips over into good)
I don't know what the optimum amount is, but I know 2 days out of 7 seems like a bad deal. 50-50 would seem about right as a complete guess.
everyone is working 3 hours a week
Stop being silly. 3.5 days out of 7 as I suggest above is 26.25 hours. that should be plenty to produce things, especially with a UBI job guarantee ensuring we have full employment for those who can and want to work.
but has endless amount of money for UBI
We do have endless amounts of money. We literally create it electronically out of nothing. As rone says the only limitation is the productive capacity of the economy (at whatever level we deem 'full time') and natural resources.
very low production and next to no economy
See above. No one is talking about no production and no economy. What I'm talking about is a sustainable, balanced economy which provides for the needs of everyone, without coercing them into work they don't want to do with all the massively damaging mental and physical health impacts that entails and all the other adverse outcomes from unemployment and poverty. That should be something the labour party is entirely comfortable with.
Kerley I've no problem with questions, but yours just seem very negative and reactionary, and based on illogical asuumptions that nothing can change. Things can change, they have done in the past, and they will in the future. In fact they have to change, it's inevitable, because the world is changing very fast, and not for the better. We can either do something about it, or watch as everything collapses. I know what I would prefer.
Starmer's Comms director Ben Nunn has quit. Also Paul Ovenden.
No idea whether this is something or nothing.
Remember vaccine bounce excuse with Labour losses earlier in the year?
Lid Dems over Tory then?
After Batley & Spen Starmer's position will be untenable, if defeated.
If he’s to be replaced so soon, who with? I know I keep asking the same question, but I genuinely would love an interesting answer.
I know I keep asking the same question
You certainly do dontcha.
And it does indeed speak volumes that in a party of almost 200 MPs and half a million members there are no obvious inspirational candidates that stand out.
That imo is at least in part due to the legacy of New Labour when to be successful within the Labour Party you had to be an on-message clone who relied on phone text messages to know what to say and how to think.
That sort of climate doesn't create the conditions for great visionaries to step forward.
Debate was stifled and surppressed, uninspiring mediocre was the result.
I like Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, but she's not had a senior role yet. David Lammy talks a lot of sense.
But tbh I think the leadership would be a hospital pass at the moment so I'm not sure Starmer is going
Personally I have nothing against him other than the fact he is not an inspiring leader - he will be a fantastic Secretary of State in a big Department if Labour get elected but he isn't going to do it. I think he appealed to the radio 4/broadsheet types as he wasn't Boris or Corbyn. But I think to most of the electorate he's just another haircut and suit and no amount of surgical dissection of Boris is going to help unfortunately.
If he’s to be replaced so soon, who with? I know I keep asking the same question, but I genuinely would love an interesting answer.
Dominic Cummings? 😉
Don't know. Let's just see what happens.
Kerley I’ve no problem with questions, but yours just seem very negative and reactionary, and based on illogical asuumptions that nothing can change. Things can change, they have done in the past, and they will in the future. In fact they have to change, it’s inevitable, because the world is changing very fast, and not for the better. We can either do something about it, or watch as everything collapses. I know what I would prefer.
I am just questioning it, that is all. I actually support the idea and always have thought along the same lines but good to question it a bit isn't it?
Your view of change is overly positive (a good thing) but not based on reality, it is very slow and people generally don't like change. Go and talk to some people about UBI (I have) and see their reaction.
Also not sure that majority working 26 hours a week instead of 37 will make that much difference to peoples lives and reduce any lust for holidays and consumerism. It may actually increase as people have more free time.
Worth noting the Green party (who I vote for) are pushing UBI and doesn't seem to be much of a vote winner. Yes FPTP, unfair voting system blah, blah but if if was a major priority for people they would get more votes.
Who I'd like but don't think would happen: Clive Lewis / Zahara Sultana (young!)
Who I I think it may be: Rayner. Which would be a real shame.
I would back Lewis, I wouldn't back Rayner.
Well, the Batley and Spen by-election is coming up in a couple of weeks. If Labour don't hold it, I think Starmer will have to consider resigning. So labour better have some candidates ready.
I think Andy Burnham is the only person who'd have a remote chance of winning an election. Still not sure the Labour Party has any idea what it wants to be though.
Rayner comes across as fickle and dishonest, frankly.
Apologies for the link to a s*n hack but it would appear Starmer's leadership is collapsing. Advisors jumping ship and potential successors on manoevres. He's finished, and I'm pretty confident he'll be gone if/when Batley and Spen is lost.
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1405864465975988227?s=20
And then there's this. I don't think anyone could survive a comparison to Ian Beale 😂
https://twitter.com/shirleymush/status/1405813732807172096?s=20
Rayner comes across as fickle and dishonest, frankly.
I'm less favourable of Rayner than I was 18 months ago as a result of her shameless denial of her support for Corbyn, but sans Burnham she's the only one who can jolt labour out of this rut. She's got the only traits needed right now, which are passion, energy and aggression. There won't be any meek apologist feeling sorry for themselves nonsense, she tell them to get out there and fight, and I think the voters will respond to that.
She’d work for 12 months, and then those very traits would be turned against her effectively by the Conservatives… it would be far too easy. Once she’s no longer the exciting new thing for the media, she’d be painted as angry, emotional, moaning, powerless and of talking down Britain. She has played it perfectly though (in terms of avoiding the last leadership battle and focusing on getting the deputy role) and I can’t see it being anyone else if a change of leadership does happen this year. Labour will be sunk at the next general election if they take that path though.
Agree that Burnham is their best hope and I don't even like him.
Agree that Burnham is their best hope and I don’t even like him.
Sort of agree.
Didn't he do badly at the last leadership challenge though?
(He came in with 19% , miles behind Corbyn, but second.)
Assume he would have to give up the Mayorship?
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1406004486313844745?s=19
It can’t be Burnham (if Starmer is to go this year). Labour’s rules for replacing a leader a very inflexible.
Didn’t he do badly at the last leadership challenge though?
He did but since then he has really been very successful/popular as Manchester mayor and comes across really well in person IMO. TJ will say he's a racist but that might go down well in some places 😛
The final confirmation of his total lack of authority. Just get it over with and go FFS.
Do you think that's it wrong to move her? I don't quite get your point. Should MPs not be listened to? Is everything going so well that there is no need to change anything?
I would back Lewis, I wouldn’t back Rayner.
Not sure I would either, but she did Starmer up like a kipper when he tried to sack her, so she seems to have the political nous he lacks.
As for Burnham, he was quite staggeringly useless when he stood for leader. Maybe he's matured since he's become mayor.
Do you think that’s it wrong to move her?
No, but he should've sacked her after the local elections and reshuffle fiasco. He did everything he could to hang on to her, and then ends up getting rid of her anyway under pressure from MPs. It's yet more evidence of his incompetence and political naivety. He has no authority in the PLP, is despised by the membership, and an object of ridicule in the eyes of the voters. What is he waiting for?
I don’t trust Burnham one bit. He can’t become leader this year anyway. Lewis would be my choice if we already had PR, he’d lead the kind of Labour Party that would best represent me… but would never get enough seats to form a majority government. Rayner is an absolutely shoe in, but I suspect she’s hoping not to have to step forward yet. A new leader put in position this year will not get to be PM. Zero chance.
No, but he should’ve sacked her after the local elections and reshuffle fiasco.
I agree with that. In addition, I also think she shouldn’t be getting her new role.
Oh, my favoured candidate is still Lammy. But, like many other candidates that can show genuine passion in debate, he'd get at best a year as opposition leader before being dismissed as "angry and powerless" and then ending up leading Labour into a massive general election loss, if in the post for too long. Fresh energy and passion a year at most out from an election... please. I don't think Labour are in a position, or have the flexibility when it comes to leadership contests, to make that happen though. I have no real answers. Sorry. I don't think any of you do either though.
my favoured candidate is still Lammy
Agree.
I have no real answers.
Me neither, unfortunately. I'm finding it increasingly depressing.
Has Dan Jarvis disappeared completely into regional politics now?
Obviously, wider electoral appeal is inversely proportional to Labour membership appeal, and I'm sure there's something terribly wrong with him that I'm not aware of.
I think Burnham might be a good leader once he's been in the oven a bit longer- being mayor's definitely helped turn him from the useless windsock he was before, undone some of that Blair years invisibility and given him that bit of anger and backbone. But I don't think he's there yet.
So basically the Keir Starmer thread is now no longer discussing Keir Starmer but is instead discussing all the people who could replace him?
Where is binners when you need him to use his famous enthusiasm and eloquence to shake up the gloomy naysayers?
Where is binners when you need him to use his famous enthusiasm and eloquence to shake up the gloomy naysayers?
Probably door knocking B&S with free club Starmer Ties and forensic cufflinks.
After Batley & Spen Starmer’s position will be untenable, if defeated.
Not really fair on Starmer, another disastrous candidate pushed in, locals clicking on to the pork barrel politics of the conservatives, "community factors" (Palestine and lesbian candidate) and the previous incumbent was not that popular with some
Has Dan Jarvis disappeared completely into regional politics now?
Obviously, wider electoral appeal is inversely proportional to Labour membership appeal, and I’m sure there’s something terribly wrong with him that I’m not aware of.
He may have prioritised his family, not sure if he has managed to have much of a local impact but has kept a low profile nationally as have much of the rest of the labour MPs
Burnham I think is happy where he is, he'll be cut to pieces as a flipflopper
Rayner, wants it but private life a bit complex at the moment
Lammy, could probably do it but too associated with single issue campaigning which he sometimes overreaches with
Nancy lacks presence but has emotional intelligence, so no for leader ATM
Lewis, outshone by Lammy, not that clever,
Sultana, LOL
Thornberry has the back story, but doesn't do the work on her portfolio and the other MPs don't like her, allegedly evicted a long-term tenant so as to up the rent
What I don't understand is the lack of front bench presence on the airwaves, they should be out there pulling apart the current farces but seem absent?
So basically the Keir Starmer thread is now no longer discussing Keir Starmer but is instead discussing all the people who could replace him?
We should start "Starmerwatch" and post every appearance on TV or radio....
Not really fair on Starmer, another disastrous candidate pushed in, locals clicking on to the pork barrel politics of the conservatives, “community factors” (Palestine and lesbian candidate) and the previous incumbent was not that popular with some
It's a string of failures and bad polling, lack of opposition etc etc which has led to this situation. It isn't just this.
Me saying it makes his position untenable doesn't make it so though. Labour leaders don't normally have a such short innings.
My personal hunch is he's not got his heart in it anyway. And that's being kind.
Lewis, outshone by Lammy, not that clever,
Lammy is a neolib through and through talks drivel about the economy.
Lewis is a decent talker and an ideas person. Has a interesting background, understands the economy, and people
He's a good setup.
Not saying others will think that.
It's a lack of policies/vision as much as personality. Starmer has come up with nought.
So basically the Keir Starmer thread is now no longer discussing Keir Starmer but is instead discussing all the people who could replace him?
Yep, Starmer needs to be discussing it too but of course he won't be. Most leaders don't realise that they are actually making the situation worse.
Be fair, he has made his policies clear on the nurses' pay claim, demonstrations, sackings and suspensions, the middle east, landlords and tenants, banks and mortgagees plus on top of all of this he has crystallized a vision of the future as being quite different from the past.
My personal hunch is he’s not got his heart in it anyway. And that’s being kind.
Been saying this for a while. I can't see any sign that he actually wants to be PM. Instead he looks content to be the leader who hands control of the party back to the coporate influences which controlled it pre-Corbyn. He'll probably get a few directorships out of it and make a mint just like Blair.
And if we needed any confirmation of the above…
https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1407783054115020805?s=21
Imagine that? Hiring someone to run your press operation with a proven track record of actually winning multiple elections?
Mental!
What the hell is he thinking?!
Good to see they have understood the politics of the present/future and aren't just seeking to fight the election of 25 years ago all over again.
Binners is back, and all it took was a bit of Blair 😂
You know he’s been employed as head of communications, right?
He’s not actually an MP. He’s not writing policy. He’s head of communications. You know... the actual practical stuff
If I was looking to get someone to fly a plane I’d look for a qualified, experienced pilot who was good at flying planes.
As opposed to someone who’d never actually flown a plane before, but happens to agree with me on everything and reckons he’ll probably be able to be ok at it.
Bloody lefties and your idealogical purity. You might be a useless ****-wit but you share my opinions on Palastine so the jobs yours. I’m sure it’ll all be fine
Yes it's been rare to see binners on this thread recently.
So now that you are here binners how's your man doing?
Is his plan of action now to fight the 1997 general election all over again?
What is your prediction for the Batley and Spen by-election?
And how about if Johnson calls a snap general election, confident that your man will be waving from the steps of Number 10?
I’m starting to hope there is a snap election. If there is, Labour have no chance of winning it. And the public know that. It could result in some interesting changes to voting patterns in a lot of constituencies, and Johnson’s majority being cut, and a wider range of seat distribution across the parties. It would be interesting to see if the Tories rally around a waning Johnson, or move on from him. The bonus would be that Labour could change leader soon after an election, rather than worry about the timing.